House of Commons
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 10 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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
1. What estimate he has made of the cost of implementing the section of the coalition agreement on the creation of new peers.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What his policy is on the creation of new peers.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As stated in the programme for government, appointments will be made to the House of Lords with the objective of creating a second Chamber that reflects the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the last general election. Any costs associated with appointing new Members will be in line with the current system. The responsibility for increasing the size of the House of Lords must, of course, lie with those who rejected the opportunity to move to a smaller, more legitimate House.
Mr Hanson
In May 2010, there were 735 peers, whereas as of yesterday there were 810. The Deputy Prime Minister has just indicated that he still wishes to maintain the coalition agreement proposal to increase the number of peers to reflect the votes at the previous general election. How many more peers does he intend to appoint? Will that include United Kingdom Independence party peers and, potentially, even British National party peers, which I would certainly oppose?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I have said before, we intend to do what the programme for government sets out; we will be making appointments with the objective of creating a second Chamber that reflects the share of the vote of the political parties represented in this House. But we had a proposal before us—we all know what happened—to make the House of Lords both smaller and more legitimate, and it did not make progress.
Tom Greatrex
The previous Government were in a minority in the other place, whereas this Government have a de facto majority of 68 there. Given that they have suffered 64 defeats and counting in the other place, would the Deputy Prime Minister not be better served by trying to improve the quality of the legislation that he proposes, rather than packing the other place with more and more client peers? We would get better laws as a result.
The Deputy Prime Minister
As a matter of fact, there are more Labour peers than peers of any other party in the House of Lords. Under the last Labour Government, 173 Labour peers were created—that was just under half the total. That is not a record of which the Labour party should be proud.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
With all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, he is talking absolute tosh. The vote on the Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill got the biggest parliamentary majority of this Parliament. It was because he did not want to give the Bill full scrutiny in this House that he did not proceed; it was his decision, was it not, to abandon the Bill?
The Deputy Prime Minister
No, I think the hon. Gentleman is reinventing history. The decision was taken not to proceed with the timetable motion and that was why the Bill did not proceed. He knows the precise reasons why that decision was taken.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Given that under the Labour Government 391 peers were created—and selected, in many cases—by the then Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), can my right hon. Friend think of any reasons why the Opposition want to keep the House of Lords frozen the way they left it, rather than allowing it to reflect how the country voted?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend asks a good question. Given Labour’s record in packing the House of Lords for political advantage, it is extraordinary that Labour Members should now seek to lecture others about the reform of the other place, which they baulked at delivering when they had the opportunity to do so.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
If a party currently in government were to get annihilated at a general election, should it then keep its peers in the House of Lords, as the numbers would not then be reflective of the position in the House of Commons?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The only thing that is going to be annihilated is the argument for independence for Scotland, which is gaining no currency among the people of Scotland, because the vast majority of people in Scotland and elsewhere want to keep the United Kingdom together.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
2. What recent steps he has taken to devolve power away from Westminster and Whitehall.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
We are devolving power to the most appropriate level through local enterprise partnerships, local government finance reforms, giving local authorities a general power of competence, and city deals. We delivered a referendum in Wales, which resulted in the Assembly assuming primary law-making powers in all 20 devolved policy areas, and we established the Silk commission, which continues its work to review the present financial and constitutional arrangements in Wales. In addition, the UK and Scottish Governments are working together to ensure the smooth implementation of the Scotland Act 2012, which represents the greatest devolution of fiscal powers from London in 300 years.
Roger Williams
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In its recently published and much-applauded report, the Silk commission made several recommendations, including giving the Welsh Assembly Government powers to raise taxation and so making it more accountable to the people of Wales. When will the Government introduce legislation to enable those aspirations to be achieved?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend may know, we are carefully studying the recommendations in the part I report from the Silk commission. We hope to provide our considered response in spring this year, and only at that point will we be able to set out what legislative plans might flow from it. Personally, I strongly support the principle of further fiscal devolution, as reflected in the Silk commission report.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Assuming that the Deputy Prime Minister does not support the creation of an English parliament or elected regional assemblies, does he accept that if devolution in England is to work, local authorities have to be at the heart of the process and not bypassed as the Secretary of State for Education wants? Will he therefore look closely at the proposals from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to put the relationships between central and local government on a proper constitutional footing?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have a lot of sympathy with some of the assertions made in that excellent report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—namely, that at a time when the “Whitehall state” will be cash-strapped for a prolonged period, it is essential that we give local communities and local authorities greater freedom, including the financial freedom to decide how money is raised and spent. That seems to me the best way to square the circle and to ensure that local growth and local economic innovation continue.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
4. What recent progress he has made on a policy on recall of hon. Members.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
The Government have confirmed that we remain committed to establishing a recall mechanism. We are now taking proper time to consider the relevant Select Committee’s recommendations.
Steve McCabe
I was rather thrown by that reply. What I want to know is whether recall will commence after allegations are well established and the scandal is public, or at the point when there is an admission or finding of guilt. If the latter, how does that differ substantially from what already happens?
Miss Smith
As I think the hon. Gentleman knows—if not and if confusion persists, I am happy to take it up with him outside the Chamber—the coalition put forward a set of proposals that included a double set of conditions: first, that the Member should have been found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing; and secondly, that at least 10% of constituents should have signed a petition calling for the recall. In our proposals, the first of those conditions contained two triggers. It is now for the House and the Government to work together to make sure that that works. We must be sure not to trespass on the House’s exclusive cognisance—I think the hon. Gentleman knows that and of course you do, Mr Speaker —and I look forward to ensuring that the process is transparent, robust and fair.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Given that this is the one meaningful political reform the coalition is likely to be able to deliver, please will the Minister explain the delay? It is a simple matter and I have done the work for her by producing a Bill, which is sitting there in the books. Can she guarantee that the reform will go through before the next election?
Miss Smith
Like you, Mr Speaker, I am a great respecter of Parliament, so I suspect that I should not guarantee anything, but my intention is to bring forward proposals on which I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and all others who take an interest. As I said, the process ought to be transparent, robust and fair, and I look forward to making sure that it meets that quality mark.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
5. What assessment he has made of the most effective ways of ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
The Government are committed to doing all they can to maximise registration. We have published detailed research, which has informed our plans to use data-matching, targeted engagement with under-registered groups, and new technology to modernise the system as we go into individual electoral registration, to make it as convenient as possible for people to register to vote.
Yvonne Fovargue
Wigan has had great success in increasing the number of people registered to vote. However, there are still many more people recorded in the census than in the comparable electoral register. Does the Minister therefore agree that drawing the parliamentary boundaries on the basis of census data is a much fairer way of achieving equal constituencies?
Miss Smith
In short, the census data come out only once every 10 years, which is rather a drawback. There are a number of other differences as well, which suggests that the electoral register is a better source to use.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that only 23,000 out of 4.4 million British citizens living abroad are registered to vote. This is a huge disfranchisement of British citizens. Can my hon. Friend say any more about the committee that may be set up as a result of discussions in the other place on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a great mismatch between the number eligible to vote and the number who are registered to vote. We all have a duty to seek to get those numbers up, as we do in the context of any category of voter. I look to all the organisations involved in that effort, including the Electoral Commission, political parties and many more, to seek to encourage registration to vote both here and overseas. My hon. Friend will know well that noble Lords in the other place are taking a great interest in this, and I wish a cross-party inquiry all positive results.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Recently an independent watchdog body expressed concern about the accuracy and completeness of the register in Northern Ireland, 20% of which could be inaccurate. As this has serious implications for our democracy, has the Minister been in contact with the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland to find out how that happened and what lessons can therefore be learned concerning the register here?
Miss Smith
There are indeed many helpful lessons to be learned from the experience in Northern Ireland. The Electoral Commission notes that many of the key lessons from the experience of Northern Ireland have already been addressed by the principles included in what is now the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Government have said that the official date for the implementation of individual electoral registration is to be December 2016, yet they have also said that they want to bring forward IER by one year. Why are the Government facing both ways on the issue?
Miss Smith
It is clear from comments that I have made at the Dispatch Box and that our noble Friends have made in another place that the Government’s implementation plan remains firmly committed to 2015 as the date for transition to an IER-only register. Amendments made during the Bill’s passage through Parliament provide a safeguard that extends the final point for transition to an IER-only register to December 2016. Those amendments, however, do not alter our aim to deliver that register in December 2015. They simply add a safeguard so that Parliament has a say, but I do not expect Parliament to have to make that call because I expect our transition plan to be robust.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
6. What the Government’s political and constitutional reform priorities are up to 2015.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Government continue to work on political and constitutional reform, particularly in support of the wider priority of rescuing, repairing and reforming the British economy. The process of devolution and decentralisation, including the second wave of city deals, is central to this. Work also continues on individual registration, party funding, recall and lobbying reform.
Toby Perkins
That sounded okay, but we all know that all the big reforms that the Deputy Prime Minister had planned have broadly failed. Across our country numerous public servants with far busier in-trays than the Deputy Prime Minister have been laid off. In the interests of savings to the economy, is it not about time to mothball his Department until it has something significant to bring to us in terms of constitutional reform and that has some prospect of being delivered before 2015?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not accept that there is no link between constitutional reform and rebuilding the shattered British economy left in such a parlous state by the hon. Gentleman’s party. The key to that is in the answers to some of the earlier questions. If we are to rejuvenate the British economy, we must breathe life back into our local communities by letting go some of the powers in Whitehall and embarking on an ambitious programme of economic and political decentralisation, the likes of which the Labour party never did in 13 years of government.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On the subject of constitutional reform, the Deputy Prime Minister appears to be breaching the Government’s own recruitment freeze, with 19 new policy advisers and 30 support staff recently advertised at a cost of more than £1 million, for roles including constitutional reform. Can he confirm that constitutional reform is an urgent front-line need, as defined by the Cabinet Office, or is he simply in urgent need of new ideas?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said earlier, we will continue to deliver the commitments that we made in the coalition agreement. My hon. Friend should not lightly turn his nose up at the idea of city deals that are giving unprecedented new economic and political powers to create jobs and economic opportunities across the country. Those are a good thing and we are dedicated to delivering them.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Labour Members are extremely proud of the Human Rights Act, which has been used to protect the rights of the vulnerable in residential care homes and those of an Asperger’s sufferer who was to have been extradited to America, and it has given rights to victims of crime and much more.
To be fair to the Deputy Prime Minister and his party, they have been consistent in their support for the Human Rights Act. Now that the work of the Bill of Rights commission has come to an end, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that no work will be done by his Department, or any other Government Department, towards amending or repealing the Human Rights Act during this term of Parliament?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Commission on a Bill of Rights reported to me and the Secretary of State for Justice. Actually, quite a lot of good work was done on the reform of the European Court of Human rights—the so-called Brighton agenda, which we are pursuing across the coalition.
However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion between those of us who believe that the basic rights and responsibilities offered to every British citizen in the European convention, as reflected in British law in the Human Rights Act, should be a baseline of protection for everybody, and others who wish to see that changed. That disagreement was openly, and in a perfectly grown-up way, reflected in the conclusions of the commission.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend make it a priority to introduce transparency into collective ministerial responsibility, which seems to be being set aside without any proper accountability to the public or the House?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed before, collective responsibility prevails where there is a collective agreement and a collective decision on which collective responsibility is based. It is not easy, and certainly not possible to enforce collective responsibility in the absence of a collective decision taken first.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government, I take special responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.
Hugh Bayley
I am obliged to the Deputy Prime Minister. I read his speech last week about rewarding work. Three days before he made it, The Independent reported that
“the Government’s figures revealed that child poverty would increase by 200,000 as a result of the”
1% cap on benefit rises. The Liberal Democrat Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), confirmed in a parliamentary answer that “around 50%” of those 200,000
“will be in families with at least one person in employment.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 858W.]
What are the Government going to do to make sure that work is a pathway out of poverty?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The main thing is to make sure that work always pays. That is why we are introducing much-needed reforms, which were ducked by the previous Administration, to the benefits system. We have introduced universal credit, which means that even if someone works for only a few hours a week, it always pays to do so. In that way, we get rid of some of the disincentives to work, such as the 16-hour rule in the benefits system, at the same time making sure that when someone works, even on low pay, they keep more of their money. On this side of the House, we are immensely proud that, as of April, because of the lifting of the point at which income tax is paid, we will be taking 2 million people on low pay out of paying any income tax at all.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
T2. We heard earlier that the Deputy Prime Minister is a passionate supporter of devolution and localism. If the West Lothian commission, which reports in the near future, recommends that the House should consider English-only legislation with English-only votes, will he back it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am not going to start declaring how we will respond to a report that has not yet concluded, but of course we will look at the recommendations of the McKay commission with an open mind. As my hon. Friend will know, the essay question, as it were, that has been set for the McKay commission is how to reflect the long-standing, perennial problem of the West Lothian question here in the workings of the House. We look forward to seeing what recommendations the commission delivers.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
The bedroom tax is going to hit people all around the country. It is bad enough in my borough of Southwark, but even worse in the Deputy Prime Minister’s city of Sheffield, where 5,027 people will be hit. This is not a policy to tackle under-occupation because these people cannot move, and they have no choice but to pay. That is why it is called the bedroom tax. People only get housing benefit if they are on a low income. Will he admit to the House that this is deeply unfair and will make people on low incomes worse off?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The problem that the right hon. and learned Lady cannot duck is that 1.8 million households are waiting to get on to social housing provision and 1 million bedrooms are standing empty. It does not make sense to have a benefits system that continues to support this mismatch between people needing places to live and empty bedrooms, and that is what we are trying to address. As with so many things in the reform of welfare, why were there no reforms of any meaningful description under Labour yet now Labour Members baulk at every single tough decision that we must take?
Ms Harman
This policy will not address the problem of under-occupation unless there are places for people to move to. It is the saving of public money by making people on low incomes worse off. Is not what the Deputy Prime Minister just said exactly the same as what the Tory Prime Minister said from that Dispatch Box last week? They might be two separate parties, but for the families they are penalising with the bedroom tax, they are exactly the same.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Lady referred to what is going on in Sheffield. In Sheffield, a Labour council is shamefully cutting people’s libraries while paying half a million pounds to employ trade union officials in the town hall and £2 million to refurbish its meeting rooms. What does that tell us about Labour priorities?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
T4. The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent city deal is expected to create 31,000 jobs over 10 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring growth to my constituents and those across Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend will know, we are in the final stages of announcing the next wave of city deals. I very much agree with him. The city deals that we have already signed and launched are proving to be very valuable for the creation of jobs and prosperity in our local areas. In Sheffield alone, the scheme is worth about half a billion pounds to the people of the city. That represents a fantastic boost for job creation in communities up and down the country.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
T3. I have been interested to see local Liberal Democrats in Newcastle campaigning to save public services put at risk by the Government’s disproportionate and unfair funding settlement for Newcastle city council. Will the Deputy Prime Minister therefore confirm that his party will be voting against the local government settlement Bill tomorrow? Otherwise his party and councillors will end up looking extremely opportunistic.
The Deputy Prime Minister
They are Labour cuts in Newcastle, which if I read the newspapers this morning, I see that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is intervening to stop in a shameless act of political opportunism and cynicism. The Labour party in Newcastle is closing every single arts and cultural institution, which other non-Labour councils are not doing, and simply pointing the finger of blame at the coalition Government. When is the Labour party going to start taking responsibility for the mess that it created in the first place?
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T6. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me why he thinks that a vote in Wrexham is worth more than a vote in Redditch?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not. That is why we have not repealed the legislation on boundaries. For all the reasons that the hon. Lady is familiar with, we will not be proceeding with that change during the course of this Parliament.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T5. The last census confirmed that there is a serious shortfall between Nottingham’s adult population and the number of people on the electoral register. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister agrees that this is not only a democratic deficit but a serious threat to council finances on top of his Government’s disproportionate cuts. Will he take urgent steps to address the problem of under-registration?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes. I hope that the hon. Lady is aware of the number of initiatives we have undertaken to provide information and, obviously, to design the move towards individual voter registration in a way that we hope will sustain the electoral register to the highest extent possible. It is worth recalling that the reason why we are moving to individual voter registration is partly to make sure that the register is accurate and as complete as possible, but also to bear down on the unacceptable levels of fraud in the register in the past.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
T7. Medway council in my constituency has expressed an interest in the city deals initiative. Will the Deputy Prime Minister meet me and representatives from Medway and north Kent to discuss how the area could benefit from the city deals initiative?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I would certainly be more than happy to make sure that a meeting is arranged with the cities Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I am delighted that there is growing demand for the principal city deals to be spread across the country. I see the early city deals, which we have already entered into with the eight largest cities in the country outside the south-east, as trailblazers for a wider programme of decentralisation across the country.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T9. In the light of the current horsemeat scandal, what advice would the Deputy Prime Minister give to consumers and Liberal Democrat voters who think they are buying one thing but end up with something completely different?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Lady may ask that question, but millions of people in this country heard her party claim that they were going to end boom and bust and saw her shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), go on a prawn cocktail charm offensive to suck up to the banks which created the problem in the first place. Perhaps she should account for that.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
T8. May I encourage the Deputy Prime Minister to say more about the benefits of the Government’s new social care policy and its advantages for a constituency such as mine in Southport or, to use another random example, Eastleigh?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The benefits of the social care reforms that we announced yesterday are universal. They mean that, for the first time, everybody will have the peace of mind that they will not need to sell their property to deal with the catastrophic costs that can be faced when encountering very high social care costs. We are dramatically increasing, precisely in line with Andrew Dilnot’s recommendations, the means-test threshold so that many more people will be given assistance in the first place. Crucially, if the insurance industry now responds to the incentives built into our proposal to cap the number of costs that can be incurred, we hope that no one will have to make any payments for their social care, because their needs will be covered by insurance policies taken out in the future.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
On social mobility, which barrier does the Deputy Prime Minister believe to be the most difficult for my constituents to overcome? Is it kicking people out of their homes as a consequence of the bedroom tax? Is it axing Sure Start, scrapping the education maintenance allowance or trebling tuition fees? Or is it simply his party propping up a Tory Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman always reads out his questions beautifully; I am sure it took some time to get that one right. [Interruption.] A little spontaneity from the hon. Gentleman would not go amiss from time to time. It is the Government parties that are repairing the banks that went belly up because of the irresponsibility of his party; it is the Government parties that ended the disgrace of the tax system under Labour, which meant that a cleaner paid more on their wages than their hedge-fund-manager boss paid on their shares; and it is the Government parties that are ensuring that someone on the minimum wage in Liverpool and elsewhere will pay the half the income tax that they paid under Labour.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
T10. Does the Deputy Prime Minister regret telling Chatham House in November that there was “absolutely no prospect of securing a real-terms cut in the EU budget”?Does he now believe, in fact, that the Prime Minister is on a bit of a roll and may also be successful in achieving the real repatriation and renegotiation of powers from the European Union that will give Britain a better deal?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The lesson of the highly successful summit last week is that it is important to set out a tough but realisable negotiating position, as we did across the coalition—I spent months making the case for the tough approach that we took with politicians around the European Union—and then to reach out to create alliances with other countries, including the Dutch, the Swedes, the Danes and, crucially, the Germans, and then to win the argument. If we want to reform Europe, we have to get stuck in and win the argument, not simply withdraw to the margins and hope that it will be won by default.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that one of his ministerial colleagues in the House of Lords has told the other place that her Ministry is no longer collecting regional data and that that will be a pattern across the country? Is that not a terrible blow in terms of how we treat our regions? Is it not time for a rethink about the regions of our country, which are steadily losing their power and influence? When people come to London, they see that all the power and influence has shifted down here.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Bluntly, ever since the referendum in the north-east failed, the experiment of moving towards a new form of regional governance has been ill-fated. The concept of regional governance did not connect with people’s loyalties locally or at county level. Through the city deals process, we are trying to create economic units that mean something to people and make economic sense. In the wake of the move away from regional governance, I hope that a much more meaningful form of decentralisation will take root.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
T11. Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern, as vice-chair of the North Korea all-party parliamentary group, at today’s news of another nuclear test by that country? What steps will the Government take to condemn that test and to prevent further tests? Equally importantly, what will the Government do to make the Government of North Korea focus on addressing the appalling human rights abuses in that country and the suffering that has been endured by its people for far too long?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sure that everybody on both sides of the House would agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment. The Foreign Secretary has already spoken out in reaction to the tests that took place in North Korea. They not only threaten peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and internationally, but are in direct violation of three UN Security Council resolutions. In accordance with one of those resolutions, we are consulting urgently with other members of the Security Council to determine what robust action we will take in response.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
Since 2010, this Government have created 43 peers per year on average. That is more on average than under any of the last five Prime Ministers. Why?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I have said, if one looks across the years, under the last Labour Government more than 170 Labour peers were created, which is just under half of the total. We have been very clear that our preference is a smaller and more legitimate House of Lords. That has not come about, so we will make appointments to the House of Lords in line with the terms of the coalition agreement.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
T12. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend’s answer to the deputy leader of the Labour party. I wondered what he would say to my constituent, Glen, who is paraplegic and lives in a specially converted bungalow with two bedrooms, one of which is used by a carer whom he needs occasionally. He has received a letter from Swale borough council advising him that his rent is to rise by £14 a week because he has too many bedrooms.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course I accept, as does everyone, that there are cases that must be dealt with sensitively. That is why we have set aside £50 million of discretionary funding, which local authorities are entirely free to use as they see fit to deal with the difficult cases that may arise. I very much hope that action will be taken to address the anxieties of the constituent to whom my hon. Friend referred.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
There is a rumour that the Deputy Prime Minister let slip to the Liaison Committee last week his support for having a 2030 decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill. Will he therefore be so kind as to encourage his party to support the cross-party amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) and myself to ensure that precisely what he wants is put in place as quickly as possible?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have never made a secret of that being my first preference and neither has the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. However, others took the contrary view that there should be no decarbonisation target whatever. Very openly, we have compromised such that we will set the decarbonisation target in 2016—the first year of the fifth carbon budget. In the meantime, we will take powers in legislation to set that decarbonisation target. That is the agreement that we have reached in government, we have been open about how we arrived at that position, and that is the position that we will stick to.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
T14. If we are to see real decentralisation and power transferred to local government, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that structures need to change, and that part of the structural change should be fewer councillors and fewer councils?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The key thing is that councillors and all elected representatives should at all times seek to work hard for their constituents. I am not entirely persuaded that there is a magic number of councillors; it is essential that we provide more local accountability for more powers flowing down from Whitehall to our local authorities and communities.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Some 660,000 vulnerable people will be affected by the introduction of the bedroom tax. Two thirds of those people are disabled. A lot of them will be booted out of their homes as a result of the introduction of the tax. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm personally whether or not he supports this pernicious tax against those less well off in society?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is entirely legitimate to have disagreements on the measure, but to claim that 660,000 will be booted out of their homes—that is simply not true—is outrageous Labour scaremongering. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of ways in which to address the additional £14 for those who encounter it—a £50 million discretionary fund is being made available to local authorities. Why should his constituents who receive housing benefit for use in the private rented sector have to cut their cloth to suit their means according to the amount of space they have available in their homes while those same rules do not apply to those who receive housing benefit in social housing?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend take action against those MPs who use the conflict in Israel to make inflammatory statements about Jews, and does he not realise that his party is getting a reputation—sadly—among some of its senior members for being hostile to Jewish people?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am unambiguous in my condemnation of anyone, from whatever party, including my own, who uses insensitive, intemperate, provocative and offensive language to describe that long-running conflict. People have strong feelings on one side or the other, but everybody is duty bound to choose their words carefully and tread carefully when entering into that heated debate.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery)? Some 660,000 people will be affected financially by the changes, two thirds of whom are disabled. What does the Deputy Prime Minister think of that?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have sought to provide an answer—[Interruption.] No. I have sought to provide an answer first on how people respond. That will depend partly on their specific family circumstances; on their working circumstances and whether they can or cannot increase the amount of hours they work to make up the £14; on whether they have taken people in to live in the spare bedroom to make up the difference that way; and on the use by local authorities of the £50 million discretionary fund that we have made available. I am not at all seeking to pretend that there will not be difficult cases that everyone will struggle with, but there is an underlying problem and we must confront it. Lots of people are waiting to get into social housing, and yet 1 million empty bedrooms are subsidised by housing benefit. We have to deal with that mismatch one way or another.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues. I would like to continue but we must move on.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the establishment of the National Crime Agency.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
Although the Attorney-General and I have frequent discussions with the Home Secretary, there have been no recent discussions on the NCA, which is created by the Crime and Courts Bill. I am currently serving on the Bill Committee.
Anas Sarwar
Will the Solicitor-General join me in welcoming Gordon Meldrum, the former director-general of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, as the new director of the NCA? As the Solicitor-General will know, organised crime happens across the UK, irrespective of borders. Will he outline the scale of the NCA and its budget and give the House an example of why we truly are better off together as one United Kingdom?
The Solicitor-General
As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a large and important area of the UK economy that is threatened by serious and organised crime, estimated to be £20 billion a year. It is therefore right, as he says, to have a cross-United Kingdom response. Funding for the agency is a matter for the Home Secretary. The indicative budget for the first year is £407 million.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The second most profitable crime for organised criminal gangs is human trafficking. Does the Solicitor-General agree that the establishment of the National Crime Agency will help this country fight the evil of human trafficking?
The Solicitor-General
My hon. Friend has made a distinguished contribution to the all-party group that deals with this issue. He is absolutely right that we need to focus on this both at home and overseas, and that is what the National Crime Agency will be very well able to do.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
2. What estimate he has made of the likely saving the Crown Prosecution Service will make by introducing proportionality into the public interest test of the Crown prosecutors’ code.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The answer is none, as this is not about making savings from the Crown Prosecution Service budget.
Jack Dromey
If the Crown Prosecution Service is to make decisions not to proceed with a prosecution on the grounds of cost or because of concerns about the health of a victim, is it not then right that a proper record is kept of how many and why, so that victims, the public and Parliament can hold both the Crown Prosecution Service and Ministers properly to account?
The Solicitor-General
First, it is important that proportionality has been reintroduced to the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have all seen examples of the schoolyard scuffle or other matters that should not be prosecuted, and where it is important to achieve a balance. On recording, the CPS keeps a considerable amount of records. Of course, that costs money and so there is a balance to be struck, but I will certainly think over the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome the reintroduction of the proportionality test as part of the wider public interest test. Will my hon. Friend reassure the constituents I represent that the question of cost is but one of eight questions to be asked by Crown prosecutors when applying the public interest test, and that it will not be determined on the basis of cost alone?
The Solicitor-General
My hon. Friend makes the point better perhaps than even I could, but I will just make two short points. First, this is not just about cost, but about assessing cost, the likely sentence, the full circumstances of the case and the other points made by my hon. Friend. Secondly, with regard to effective case management, it is often important in a complex case to concentrate on the main and most serious suspects, and so this gives an opportunity for the prosecution to consider that.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on increasing the Crown Prosecution Service’s conviction rate for rape where the defendant contests the charge.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regularly and discuss this issue, most recently on 23 January 2013. The Crown Prosecution Service remains committed to robustly prosecuting perpetrators of rape and serious sexual assaults. Following an investigation of rape where the defendant contests the charge, the CPS will work closely with the police to build a strong prosecution case and review the matter in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
Seema Malhotra
Frances Andrade tragically took her own life during the course of the trial that she described as like being “raped all over again”. What steps will the Attorney-General take to ensure that CPS policy on vulnerable victims and witnesses seeking counselling is enforced, particularly given the worrying allegations that Mrs Andrade was discouraged by the police from seeking support?
The Attorney-General
There is no doubt that the story of Mrs Andrade is tragic, and I am sure the House will join me in expressing our sympathy to her relatives and family. I take very seriously any suggestion that she might not have received the support to which she was entitled. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Home Secretary announced yesterday that the police were carrying out a review of their role in this matter, and I have no doubt that the CPS will contribute to that process. I can say that on the information I have been given at present, it appears to me that the CPS took all steps that I would have expected to try to support her as a vulnerable victim and witness. However, I would like to emphasise that that is not to say that there may not be lessons that can be learned from this tragic case.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Does it not need to be made very clear that every possible assistance in the courtroom will be offered to witnesses in such a position and that therapy or treatment needed for the mental health of the witness will not be prevented?
The Attorney-General
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Taking the second matter first, let me say that the CPS’s guidelines are crystal clear that a victim or witness giving evidence should not be prevented from accessing the care or counselling they might require. Indeed, I believe that Mrs Andrade was specifically referred to the possibility of counselling when it was seen that she was distressed prior to the case taking place. On the issues in court, protocols are in place to try to familiarise people with the court process and to ensure that the trauma of giving evidence in court is lessened, including of course the possibility of special measures. In Mrs Andrade’s case, however, she made it clear that she did not wish special measures to be introduced.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I draw the Attorney-General’s attention to the comments made by the Surrey police and crime commissioner that seem to contradict what the Attorney-General has just said. Might it be appropriate to write to all PCCs to reiterate what he has just said to the House of Commons?
The Attorney-General
I am aware of the comment about what might have been said in Surrey, but I reiterate the position of both the CPS and the Greater Manchester police, who investigated this matter: there is no reason someone should not receive counselling and every reason they should, if they need it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of this issue being raised; I am obviously aware of it as well, and I can reassure the hon. Lady that we will investigate to ascertain whether there was a failure of communication on the part of anyone in respect of Mrs Andrade.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On the issue of sexual violence, the CPS website states that one in 10 women who experience sexual assault do not report it to the police. What is the Attorney-General’s Department doing, in line with other agencies, to tackle this?
The Attorney-General
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the CPS gets it references from the police, so unless a case is referred to it, it cannot carry out an investigation. It works closely with the police, however, both to improve the conviction rates for rape—it has been consistently successful in doing that for some years—and to encourage people to come forward by ensuring that the victim support process available provides reassurance that people will be helped.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Has the tragic suicide of Frances Andrade after giving evidence as a victim of rape not shown us that we have a system strewn with high-minded codes, pledges and guidance to victims that are brushed aside in practice? She was refused counselling and, as already stated, her PCC has said that victims will not and should not be referred for counselling until after they have given evidence. That is clearly in breach of the agreed code. Is the CPS in charge of these cases or not? It clearly did not know what was happening in the case of Mrs Andrade. In how many other cases has the victim not been properly supported and does the CPS simply not know what is going on? I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has stated that she will look into this and that the Attorney-General has stated today that he will too, but is it not time that we had a proper review that overarched all the agencies to ensure that we have a decent rape prosecution policy in this country, not one that just looks good on paper?
The Attorney-General
I share the hon. Lady’s concerns, although I am not sure I entirely share the sweeping generalisations that she derives from them. As I said earlier, the evidence is that, under the last Government and the present Government, through the work of the CPS, the conviction rate for rape has consistently been improving. The House will want to bear that in mind.
On the very serious suggestions that Mrs Andrade was somehow misled, yes that is a matter of concern to me. As I indicated in an earlier answer, the information I have been given supports my view that both the CPS and the Greater Manchester police correctly advised her and recommended routes by which she could obtain counselling. The suggestion that some other organisation or police force might have said something to the contrary is obviously of serious concern and will be looked into.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
4. Whether the Serious Fraud Office holds contracts with any companies which are subject to a criminal investigation by a prosecuting agency overseas.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Serious Fraud Office is not routinely informed about the work of overseas prosecuting agencies and where it is properly involved, it would not be appropriate to comment in relation to current investigations or prosecutions.
Shabana Mahmood
The Attorney-General knows that at least one contractor of the Serious Fraud Office is being investigated for fraud overseas. Apart from being embarrassing, does this not constitute a conflict of interest? Will he tell the House when he proposes to publish the findings of the Allan report, which was completed in 2011?
The Attorney-General
I shall start by dealing with the first part of the question and then deal briefly with Sir Alex Allan’s report. I am not in a position to comment on what is or is not being investigated. That is a private matter for the Serious Fraud Office. When it takes on an investigation, wherever it can, it publishes that on its website, but there are sometimes circumstances where it cannot do so without prejudice to the investigation. If I may say to the hon. Lady, such conflicts of interest can arise quite frequently, but there are a whole series of protocols in place in prosecutorial organisations to ensure that that does not impede their efficiency or ability to carry out such investigations.
As for Sir Alex Allan’s report, the hon. Lady knows from what I have said previously in the House that I would very much like to see as much of its contents as possible published, but there are issues in respect of data protection. When I have worked through those, I hope to be able to satisfy her wishes in that respect.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
5. How many successful prosecutions were carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service for burglary in Northamptonshire in the latest year for which figures are available where the defendant had (a) previously been convicted for at least one other criminal offence and (b) no previous convictions.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
Two-hundred and twenty-seven defendants were successfully prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service for burglary offences in Northamptonshire in 2011-12, at a conviction rate of 89%. No central records of a defendant’s previous convictions or non-convictions are maintained by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr Hollobone
I congratulate the Crown Prosecution Service in Northamptonshire on prosecuting 227 burglars. Burglary is an horrific crime, and I strongly suspect that most of those 227 had previous convictions of one sort of another. May I encourage the CPS to collect those data, so that we can head off more potential burglars in future?
The Solicitor-General
The Crown Prosecution Service is not the organisation that maintains the database of convictions, and that is unlikely to change. However, in the period 2009 to 2012, the number of defendants prosecuted for burglary offences increased by 6.4%, compared with the national fall in prosecutions of 8.9%, so he can be assured that burglary is being given proper attention.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
6. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on increasing the Crown Prosecution Service’s conviction rate for female genital mutilation.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The Director of Public Prosecutions regularly briefs the Attorney-General and me on the issue of prosecuting for female genital mutilation and on the action plan that was developed following the Crown Prosecution Service round table on 28 September 2012.
Kerry McCarthy
I very much welcome the DPP’s action plan, which is a positive step forward. May I urge the Solicitor-General to look at the work being done in Bristol with young women from affected communities? They have been really brave in speaking out—they have even developed a two-part storyline for “Casualty”, which will be shown later this year. Does he agree that ensuring that such work is community-led as well as Crown Prosecution Service-led is an important way of dealing with the problem?
The Solicitor-General
I certainly agree with that. The inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is chaired by the Home Secretary, is taking a particular interest in those sorts of approaches, so I commend the hon. Lady on mentioning it in the House, and she is absolutely right. Finding the right evidence and having the support of the community—and, therefore, support for the victim—is vital.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to that answer, has the Solicitor-General any measures in mind that would make it easier for people to report this dreadful crime? I am thinking in particular of the language barrier, which is often a factor in cases of this kind.
The Solicitor-General
The action plan that I have mentioned contains a number of proposals to improve the situation and to make it easier for people to come forward. The main obstacle is not so much the language barrier. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can imagine that many of these cases involve young girls from particular communities, and that there are cultural and other taboos that make this very difficult for them. The real point is the approach mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) involving getting community support. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
7. Whether he has had discussions with the European Commission on the legal status of Scotland’s membership of the EU in the event of a yes vote to independence.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have not discussed with the European Commission the legal status of Scotland’s membership of the EU. The United Kingdom Government’s position is that the most likely outcome is that Scotland would have to join the EU as a new member state. That position has been backed up by comments from the President of the European Commission and by the President of the European Council.
Michael Connarty
We have a phrase in the Scottish language, “Facts are chiels that winn’a ding”, which means “Facts are children who do not lie”. Despite the wonderful report by Professor James Crawford of Cambridge university and Professor Alan Boyle of Edinburgh university—which includes the quote on page 8 from the President of the Commission that has just been referred to—on which the Government have based their most recent document, may I plead with the Attorney-General to get engaged in this issue? We need to get to the point at which the legal officers in this Chamber and the majority of the people in my party, representing the people of Scotland, are dealing with facts, not with assertions. Will he please get involved with the interrogation of the Commission and set down the legal facts on what will happen? I think that that would support Barroso’s position.
The Attorney-General
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s message. The view that I express is the view of the United Kingdom Government, and it is backed up by the advice of Professor Crawford and Professor Boyle. The overwhelming weight of international precedent is that, in the event of independence, the remainder of the UK would continue to exercise its international rights and obligations, and that Scotland would form a new state. In those circumstances, Scotland would have to apply to join the European Union.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
But is there not an alternative legal viewpoint, which is that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom without Scotland would itself have to reapply for membership of the European Union?
The Attorney-General
No, I am afraid that my hon. Friend is entirely mistaken on that point.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Electoral Commission has specifically recommended that the UK Government and the Scottish Government should agree jointly the processes that should follow either outcome of the referendum. Will the UK Government accept the Deputy First Minister’s invitation to prepare a joint submission to the European Commission setting out a transition process in the event of a yes vote? If not, why not? What are they afraid of? Or do they prefer scare stories?
The Attorney-General
The United Kingdom Government are not in the business of prejudging the outcome of the referendum.
Main Road Recreation Ground (Kinnerton)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Over 400 residents of Kinnerton have signed this petition in favour of the non-development of a valuable green space. The campaign to protect the field has gone on for more than 20 years, and the issue needs to be resolved in the long term.
The Petitioners
believe that there is a real risk that unless the land is awarded Field in Trust status, designated as a village green or alternatively Flintshire County Council agree to a long-term lease of the land to the Community Council for recreational use beyond 2015, that the community will lose a valuable and much used recreational area in the heart of the village.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to secure protected status for Main Road Recreation Ground.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition.
[The Petition of residents of Higher Kinnerton, Flintshire,
Declares that earlier this year the Community Council nominated Main Road Recreation Ground to be protected under the Queen Elizabeth II Fields in Trust Challenge—a UK wide programme to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee and London Olympic Games by permanently protecting outdoor recreational spaces for future generations. However Flintshire County Council refused the nomination claiming the site has ‘long-term residential development potential’ which appears to contradict with Flintshire County Council’s own Unitary Development Plan which describes the field as ‘an important green space within the heart of Higher Kinnerton providing a green break within the built fabric of the village’.
Further that Flintshire County Council have now rejected an application to register Main Road Recreation Ground as a new village green—a move which had been supported by organisations including Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW) and national charity Play Wales; further that Alyn and Deeside MP Mark Tami and AM Carl Sargeant had also written to Flintshire County Council’s chief executive Colin Everett supporting the application for village green status and the move to retain this area of land for recreational use.
Further that the Petitioners believe that there is a real risk that unless the land is awarded Field in Trust status, designated as a village green or alternatively Flintshire County Council agree to a long-term lease of the land to the Community Council for recreational use beyond 2015, that the community will lose a valuable and much used recreational area in the heart of the village.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to secure protected status for Main Road Recreation Ground.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001154]
Police Integrity
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police.
We are fortunate in Britain to have the finest police officers in the world. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public, they are cutting crime even as we reduce police spending, and the vast majority of officers do their work with a strong sense of fairness and duty. But the good work of those thousands of officers is undermined when a minority behave inappropriately.
In the last year, we have seen the Leveson inquiry, which cleared the police of widespread corruption but called for greater transparency in policing, and the shocking report of the Hillsborough independent panel. We have seen the sacking of PC Simon Harwood and the investigation of several chief officers for misconduct, and yesterday I told the House about the investigation now being led by Chief Constable Mick Creedon into the work of undercover officers from the Metropolitan police.
I want everyone to understand that I do not believe there is endemic corruption in the police, and I know that the vast majority of police officers conduct themselves with the highest standards of integrity. This was confirmed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in its report last year, but that does not mean that we should ignore the fact that when it does occur, police corruption and misconduct undermines justice, lets down the decent majority of officers and damages the public’s confidence in the police.
We need the police to become much more transparent in their business. We need clearer rules for how officers should conduct themselves. We need to open up the top ranks so policing is less of a closed shop. We need to make sure that officers who do wrong are investigated and punished, and that the organisations we ask to police the police are equipped to do the job.
Many of our existing police reforms address those challenges. The new College of Policing will improve the quality of police leadership and drive up standards. Police and crime commissioners are making the police more accountable to their communities. Direct entry into the senior ranks will open up the police to talented outsiders. HMIC is more independent of the police and for the first time it is led by a non-policing figure.
These reforms will help, but we also need to take further specific measures to root out corruption and misconduct from the police. First, in line with the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson, national registers of chief officers’ pay and perks packages, gifts and hospitality, outside interests, including second jobs, and their contact with the media will be published online. Secondly, the college will publish a new code of ethics, which will be distributed to officers of all ranks. In addition, the College of Policing will work with chief officers to create a single set of professional standards on which officers will be trained and tested throughout their careers.
Thirdly, to prevent officers who lose their jobs as a result of misconduct from being recruited by other forces, we will introduce for the first time a national register of officers struck off from the police. The list will be managed and published by the College of Policing. Fourthly, to introduce a sanction for officers who resign or retire to avoid dismissal, hearings will be taken to their conclusion notwithstanding the officer’s departure from the force. Where misconduct is proven, these officers will also be struck off by the College of Policing.
Fifthly, the college will establish a stronger and more consistent system of vetting for police officers, which chief constables and police and crime commissioners will have to consider when making decisions about recruitment and promotions. Every candidate for chief officer ranks will need to be successfully vetted before being accepted by the police national assessment centre.
Sixthly, Lord Justice Leveson’s report made several recommendations in respect of policing, focused on providing greater transparency and openness. The Government accept what has been recommended, and the College of Policing, the Association of Chief Police Officers and others have agreed to take forward the relevant work that falls to them. I will place in the Library of the House details of the Government’s response to each of the Leveson report’s recommendations on policing.
Finally, I want to make sure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is equipped to do its important work. Over the years, its role has been evolving and the proposals I announce today develop it further. Public concern about the IPCC has been based on its powers and its resources, and I want to address both issues.
Regarding its powers, last year Parliament legislated, with welcome cross-party support, to give the IPCC the ability to investigate historic cases in exceptional circumstances. In the same legislation, we gave the IPCC the power to compel police officers and staff to attend interviews as witnesses. In addition, I have already said that we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to give the IPCC the power to investigate private sector companies working for the police, along with other powers that the IPCC has asked for to improve its effectiveness and increase public confidence. I am prepared to consider any further legislative changes that the commission says it needs.
I believe that the main difficulty for the IPCC is its capacity to investigate complaints itself. Last year, the commission investigated just 130 of the 2,100 serious or sensitive cases that were referred to it independently, while supervising or managing another 200. Individual police forces investigated the remainder, but 31% of appeals against forces’ handling of complaints were successful. That is simply not acceptable. I will therefore transfer to the IPCC responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive allegations. I also intend to transfer resources from individual forces’ professional standards departments and other relevant areas to the IPCC in order to ensure that it has the budget and the manpower that will enable it to do its work.
The Government’s police reforms are working well, and crime is falling. Corruption and misconduct are thankfully the rare exception and not the norm among our police. However, that does not mean that we should not act. I believe that this is a comprehensive plan to address public concern about the integrity of the police, and I commend my statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for giving me a copy of her statement. This is an important issue, and many of the measures that she has outlined are sensible in principle. However, I shall press her for more detail on how they will work in practice, and there are a couple of areas where I believe that she has not gone far enough.
The whole House will wish to recognise and show support for the international reputation of British policing, which is respected globally for low levels of corruption, high standards of integrity and our tradition of policing by consent. As the Home Secretary said, the vast majority of police officers join the force to help the public and keep people safe from crime and harm, and they take great risks when they do so. We think of the two police officers who were shot down when answering a routine 999 call in Greater Manchester, but also of officers who go the extra mile every day to help the public—perhaps stepping in to rescue people and save their lives; perhaps sitting with bereaved parents whose teenager has been killed in a traffic accident.
Police officers themselves are deeply concerned about serious cases that undermine confidence in policing: hacking, the Hillsborough tragedy, the problems with undercover officers, and cases in which policing has failed to protect the public or to deliver justice. That is why the vast majority of police officers also want action to be taken against officers who let their force and the public down, as well as action to improve standards.
Many of the Home Secretary’s measures are sensible. We support the implementation of the Leveson recommendations, and also the introduction of greater transparency. We support the establishment of a code of ethics and higher professional standards, and we support stronger action when those are breached. We have also argued for stronger action in relation to retired officers when things go wrong. The Stevens commission on the future of policing has taken evidence on issues involving codes of ethics, national registers, the role of the College of Policing and proposals for striking police officers off, and is likely to make new proposals in that regard.
However, can the Home Secretary clarify what she means? Will there be a national professional register that all police officers must be on, will there be standards that they must meet, and will they be struck off from the register if they do not meet those standards? If so, by whom will they be struck off? Will it be the IPCC or the College of Policing, and will that be underpinned by legislation? Or does the Home Secretary simply propose to put together a list of officers who have already been sacked by their local forces?
I do not believe that the Home Secretary is going far enough on the IPCC. As she will know, I have argued for the last 12 months that it does not have enough powers and resources to deliver for the public. I welcomed the action that she took and the legislation, which we supported, to strengthen powers, but her reforms of the IPCC still seem to be incremental. Increased resources are welcome, but will she tell us how much there will be and where it will come from? Is she top-slicing the budgets of police forces across the country, and if so, by how much? How many extra police officers does she think those forces will lose as a result?
During the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, Ministers argued that more cases should be dealt with by individual forces rather than by the IPCC. In the Act the Home Secretary downgraded the IPCC’s capacity, halving the minimum number of commissioners. Now she seems to be saying that more cases should be dealt with by the IPCC rather than by individual forces. Has she changed her view since the passage of the Act, and can she clarify her proposals?
I am also not convinced that the Home Secretary is doing enough to strengthen the powers and the culture of the IPCC to restore public confidence and ensure that lessons are learned. Nothing is being done about the confused and overlapping bodies that are supposed to act when policing goes wrong. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the IPCC, individual police and crime commissioners, police and crime panels and, now, the College of Policing all have a role, but it is still unclear who does what, and as a result, who should act when things go wrong and ensure that lessons are learned. I therefore think that the Home Secretary has not been sufficiently radical. May I urge her to look again at the possibility of replacing the IPCC altogether with a new police standards authority, along with a new, coherent framework of standards and accountability?
Finally, I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that the best way to ensure rising police standards is to have well-motivated, professional police officers who are keen to do a good job and serve the public. She will know that there is a massive problem with low morale among police officers, who do not feel valued, and I am keen to hear how she intends to address that.
Police officers do a vital job every day on our behalf, and our duty in this House is to make sure that they get the support they need and to have a proper framework of accountability to keep standards high. The Secretary of State’s statement is welcome and responds to many of the concerns that we have raised, but I urge her to look at the proposals again as I remain concerned that they do not go far enough and will not be sufficient to deliver what the police and public need.
Mrs May
I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s support on a number of the issues I have addressed today, most significantly the implementation of the Leveson report recommendations, the code of ethics and action on retired officers. She asked two key questions. First, on the national register, the College of Policing will look at how best to address the issue in terms of its general work with police officers and others on standards and development. I expect that there will at least be a list of those officers who have been struck off, and whom one would not expect other police forces, here in the UK or elsewhere, to take on. It is for the College of Policing to decide the form in which to publish that list, and it will consider that matter very shortly.
Secondly, the right hon. Lady said there were a lot of overlapping organisations, and she mentioned the HMIC and the IPCC. HMIC does not investigate individual complaints against individual officers; that is the job of the IPCC. HMIC has a different role. It looks at the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces; it looks across the force, not at individual complaints. Those two bodies do two different jobs.
The right hon. Lady referred to the changes and comments we made during the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. We have indeed put more low-level complaints to the individual forces, but the point I am making today is that we want to ensure the IPCC can handle all the serious and sensitive allegations made against police officers. Last year, just 330 out of 2,100 such cases were independently investigated or supervised and managed by the IPCC. I think it should be able to look at all the serious and sensitive allegations against police officers, which is why we are looking to transfer resources from police standards departments in police forces to the IPCC. We will look at any manpower or funding implications and ensure that the IPCC has sufficient resources to be able to deal with all the cases we feel it should be dealing with.
The right hon. Lady asked why we do not just scrap the IPCC and set it up again with a different name. Today, I have set out the key issues of substance that will make a difference to the ability of the IPCC to do its work. The question that she has to answer is whether she is interested merely in rebranding something, or whether she is genuinely interested in agreeing with me on what the IPCC needs to be able to do its job properly.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Home Secretary has probably done more to reform the police than any Home Secretary since Robert Peel. Many police officers are concerned, however, that their profession has come to be held in less respect. Does she expect the College of Policing to be the basis, through professional standards, on which the police can reclaim their self-respect?
Mrs May
I expect that the College of Policing will make a real difference. I believe setting up a professional standards body for the police that will set standards and take on many of the ACPO business areas in looking at those standards, as well as dealing with the ethics of policing for the area that it covers and with the training and development of officers, will give a boost to officers in terms of their professionalism and the regard in which they are held. I am pleased that Professor Shirley Pearce, former vice-chancellor of Loughborough university, is the chairman. We also have a very energetic chief executive in Chief Constable Alex Marshall, and I am pleased that members of the police force at all ranks are part of the college, including members of police staff. It is important that it covers everybody.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
As the Home Secretary who established the IPCC in the first place, may I welcome the announcements by the Home Secretary today, which seem a sensible development of those powers? I have two questions. First, the chair of the IPCC, Dame Anne Owers, served for seven years as an extremely effective and independent chief inspector of prisons and I have confidence in her work and ability to take forward the IPCC. Since the Home Secretary has not mentioned Dame Anne, would she like to do so?
My second point concerns the relationship between the professional standards units of individual forces and the IPCC. I understand that at a time of limited resources, money has to come from somewhere and that some transfer is sensible. However, will the Home Secretary take care to ensure that professional standards units in individual forces are not so denuded that they cannot do their crucial initial work of identifying early possible bad police officers, and of investigating complaints that may start at a low level but turn into more serious matters that need to be allocated to the IPCC?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, I see this as a development of the IPCC. Its role over the years has been changing and this is a necessary and important development. Dame Anne Owers has done an excellent job since becoming chairman of the IPCC. The role is changing slightly from the one she first came to, but she is addressing it with great distinction and commitment, as one would expect from her. Indeed, in her time overseeing prisons she built up a reputation for herself and her independence, and it is good that we have somebody with that reputation as chair of the IPCC.
On the transfer of services, the point is that work will be transferring from professional standards departments to the IPCC, so it therefore makes sense to transfer resources. We are not talking about not having professional standards departments at all, and a discussion will be had with forces about the level of that transfer and where the boundary appropriately falls.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great unanswered questions in the sorry saga of phone hacking is how although the police had evidence taken from Glenn Mulcaire in 2006 that suggested widespread lawbreaking was taking place, not only was nothing done about it, but it was denied that such evidence existed? That matter was intended to be examined by Lord Justice Leveson in part 2 of his inquiry. Will the Home Secretary confirm that an investigation will still take place to answer those questions?
Mrs May
My understanding is that that will indeed be part of the second part that will take place, but as my hon. Friend knows, there has always been a question about what can be done. A great deal was done by Lord Justice Leveson on issues that he needed to consider at the time of other police investigations. Of course, those police investigations are still continuing.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the excellent statement from the Home Secretary not just because it implements Leveson, but because it accepts many of the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee over a number of years. I share her ambitions for the College of Policing, and as she knows, Alex Marshall will be appearing before the Committee this afternoon.
Will the Home Secretary say whether police officers will still need to seek the permission of their individual chief constable before taking up a second job, and therefore before they are put on the register? Will she consider looking at police and crime commissioners? We still have no central register on which they can declare their outside interests, and since she is full of reforming zeal, in that same mode will she please ensure that that issue is also considered?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my statement. On his first point, yes, I would still expect individual officers to seek that permission before taking a second job, but a public document would make it clear which officers had second jobs, alongside other things. He and I have a slight disagreement on police and crime commissioners. Each individual PCC is required to publish information on their interests so that the electorate in their area know where they stand and what their interests are—just as we require others who are elected to register their interests appropriately. It is appropriate for that to be done at local level, rather than maintaining a central register.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I, too, welcome this statement, which implements not only the recent Home Affairs Committee report, but the Liberal Democrat policy motion on empowering the IPCC, which was passed last year. I especially welcome the commitment that the IPCC will cover private providers. As Nick Hardwick, the former chair of the IPCC, said,
“if it looks like a police officer, talks like a police officer, walks like a police officer, the IPCC should investigate it.”
Will the Home Secretary confirm that she has spoken to Dame Anne Owers and the IPCC about resources, and that it be well-resourced enough to deal with serious cases and also look at private contractors?
Mr Speaker
I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that in that very full question he has covered all elements of the relevant Liberal Democrat motion and brought it to the full attention of the House, just in case we had not previously noticed.
Mrs May
In other circumstances, I might say that I was now worried, Mr Speaker, but we are in coalition, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is important that private companies working for the police are included, but that will require changes to legislation for which parliamentary time would have to be made available. I am sorry, but with all the banter I have forgotten the second point.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
These reforms are welcome; they could go further, but let us give praise for what is to be done.
Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the IPCC? One factor in that is undoubtedly the number of former police officers, some of whom have held senior ranks, investigating the police. That gives the impression that the complaints body is not as genuine as it should be. Should that be looked into?
Mrs May
It will be for the IPCC, in discussion with the Department, to decide on the sort of people it wishes to employ in increasing its investigative capacity. In a sense, there is a slight Catch-22 situation because the very people in this country who are used to investigation, and have the skills and experience in that regard, are police officers.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she clarify how being struck off will affect an individual police officer’s eligibility to claim their pension? There has been concern over officers retiring early when facing disciplinary procedures in order to claim their pension.
Mrs May
My statement today does not cover anything related to pensions, but the importance of a police officer being struck off once found guilty of misconduct is that any other police force to which that officer applies will see that they have been struck off and are therefore not suitable for employment. Perhaps my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will recall PC Simon Harwood. Issues were raised about his behaviour during his employment by one force, but he then left that force and was re-employed by another. The register of struck-off officers will exist to stop that sort of issue happening.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Home Secretary referred to the quality of police officers, and in that context I want to acknowledge the service of Constable Philippa Reynolds, who was killed in the line of duty in my constituency at the weekend.
How will the Home Secretary ensure that the standards and safeguards she has referred to today will also apply to the National Crime Agency with its constabulary powers and special constables? Can she assure the House that the NCA’s engagement with the press will be to the Leveson standard?
Mrs May
May I join the hon. Gentleman in sending sympathy and condolences to the family of Constable Philippa Reynolds, who sadly died in that traffic incident at the weekend? May I also commend the officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the work they do, day in, day out, to keep people safe in Northern Ireland?
On the Leveson requirements, we will be discussing with either ACPO or the College of Policing, where relevant, how each of those can best be implemented. Lord Justice Leveson reflected in his report that the police landscape had changed over the time during which the evidence was taken, so we need to consider how best to ensure that the requirements can be implemented properly in the new policing landscape.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we are all aware that there have been some unacceptable relationships between certain police officers and journalists, the press often provides invaluable assistance in helping to solve crime? Post-Leveson, many police forces are seriously restricting contact between police officers and journalists. Is there a danger that that could become too heavy-handed and counter-productive?
Mrs May
Of course we all accept that there will be occasions when the police wish to talk to the press to enlist its help in a particular investigation that is taking place. We accept that such occasions do occur, but it is right that we say to the police that they have to be more considerate of the implications of their talking to the press in other circumstances. That is why ACPO had, prior to the Leveson report—this is picked up in the report—been looking at what appropriate relations are between the police and the press. Having transparency is a great way of ensuring that people can see that these discussions are being held where they are appropriate. It is the transparency element that Lord Justice Leveson was keen on and that we will be taking forward.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
There is much to commend in this statement. In other countries where wages and conditions are poor, the result is often that police tax rather than arrest criminals. Is the Home Secretary absolutely certain that her cut in wages for new police constables, meaning that they now earn less than a trainee manager at McDonald’s, will not have an impact on police standards in this country?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has already declared that she intends to invite talented outsiders to step forward to be considered for senior positions in the police. What sort of person is she considering? May they have no police experience whatsoever?
Mrs May
We have picked from, and are putting into place, different proposals as a result of the Winsor review recommendations. One is to have direct entry at superintendent level, where it would not be necessary for the individual to have police experience, but it would be necessary for them to go through an appropriate training period before they were able to take on their tasks as superintendent. Another is to open up the opportunities for chief constables to those with relevant policing experience—such experience would be necessary in those cases, but in a common law country. My hon. Friend asked what sort of people we might see coming in on this direct entry, and I say to him that perhaps ex-military people might be interested; I do not know, but he may very well want to forge a path.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) yesterday raised the tragic and appalling case of Frances Andrade, and the Home Secretary said she would reflect on it. To give victims and witnesses reassurance about the integrity of the police and the advice they get from the police service, will she reassure the House that she will urgently write to police forces to ensure that, in line with existing guidance, victims and witnesses can have the counselling and care they need and deserve?
Mrs May
Obviously, this issue was raised yesterday and I addressed it yesterday. It is important, and one thing that the College of Policing will be examining across the board of policing, in due course, is how police officers deal with, and how it is appropriate to deal with, certain types of crime and certain types of victim. A huge amount has been done in recent years to improve the way in which police forces deal with allegations of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and rape, but of course, as I said yesterday, we will be looking at the lessons that can be learned from that particular case.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
May I echo the Home Secretary’s remarks about the quality and standards of our officers? There are organisations, both public and private, that are benefiting from the new ideas brought in by key people with fresh experience and additional areas of expertise. Does she agree that there are no reasons why policing should not benefit in the same way?
Mrs May
I very much agree. There has been the concept over the years that someone had to come in at the bottom and work their way up. We need to change that, both by enabling the fast-tracking of individuals who are obviously talented when they enter the police force and by opening up, as he says, to new ideas, cultures and experiences, which can only benefit policing. I am very much of that view.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Constable Reynolds, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) a moment ago, was a constituent of mine, and I extend to her parents and the family circle my sympathy at this time of their bereavement.
I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that police officers are like the community they serve, in that they are not without failure or mistake, and that it is vital that the police work to the highest standard of integrity. However, does she not also agree that we must be careful that we do not tie their hands with regulation so that they are not able to do the duty they are supposed to be doing—protecting the community?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we ensure that we have the appropriate structures, frameworks and codes for the police to work with, but their job requires them to do extraordinary things and we do not want to tie them up in regulation such that they are not able to do that job in cutting crime and protecting the public.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
When we are looking at police integrity, can we also look at the integrity of those people who suggested that the Government could not make difficult financial decisions and carry out reforms without crime going up? The reforms the Government have made have ensured that the level of crime has fallen.
Mrs May
Yes, our police reforms are working. As my hon. Friend says, we were told by the official Opposition that the only thing that would happen when the reforms and the cuts in police budgets took place was that crime would go up, but of course exactly the opposite has happened and we have seen that crime continues to fall.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Although we all welcome a system that will ensure and uphold the integrity of our police, will the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that the already overstretched local police budgets will not endure any further cost pressures as a result of today’s statement?
Mrs May
As I have explained in response to another hon. Member who was questioning me on that issue, what I have announced today is that we will be transferring certain pieces of work from police forces to the IPCC, so there will be less work in that area for professional standards departments and others to do in police forces. We will be talking about how resources should appropriately transfer to the IPCC to ensure that it covers the work that it, rather than police forces, will now do.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments, and I support the move to transfer serious and sensitive cases to the IPCC. Will she ensure that the definition of “serious and sensitive” is as crystal clear as possible, so that the work of the IPCC can be enhanced and we can avoid potential ambiguities in determining what is serious and what is less serious?
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s statement says that, “to introduce a sanction for officers who resign or retire to avoid dismissal, hearings will be taken to their conclusion, notwithstanding the officer’s departure from the force.” Will she confirm that any pension payment or severance payment due will be frozen until those proceedings end? If that does not happen, there is no point in introducing the first sanction.
Mrs May
As I said earlier, my statement does not cover any arrangements in relation to pensions. The issue of police officers subject to misconduct proceedings being able to resign or retire from a force and then those proceedings not being taken through because there was no sanction is one of the things that annoys the public considerably. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman makes a gesture; I am not quite sure how Hansard will interpret that, but I think that he is indicating, “Money.” Of course the sanction we propose potentially will have an impact on officers, because misconduct proceedings will be taken through to their conclusion. If they are found guilty of misconduct, they will be placed on the list of officers who have been struck off, and that will impede their ability, for example, to get a job in policing or a similar field abroad or in the United Kingdom.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I declare my interest as a serving special constable with the British Transport police.
Some of the best, most common-sense policing in our country is done by ordinary community beat bobbies at police constable rank, by police sergeants and by police inspectors—people who are not seeking promotion but who love their job and have been doing that job for many years, perhaps decades. Although it is right that scrutiny of the police improves all the time, I do not feel that these individuals get the pat on the back that they should get often enough. What can we do to recognise and reward those long-serving officers for the skills they bring to their job?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend may not be aware that one of the matters that has been referred back to the Police Negotiating Board and that will be considered by the College of Policing is rewarding individual officers’ skills and development. The first and second parts of the Winsor review proposed an interim arrangement that did indeed suggest that recognition for neighbourhood officers be looked into. The Police Arbitration Tribunal did not feel it was appropriate to take forward those proposals and I accepted the PAT’s recommendation, but further work will be done on ensuring that there is appropriate payment for skills that are developed.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
One of my local police officers, Inspector Hillary, regularly tweets as he goes about his business in the area. Although the Home Secretary’s statement is at the hard end of accountability and particularly redress, does she agree that that everyday form of engagement and accountability is important to giving the public confidence in their local police officers, and does she welcome that initiative? She has avoided the question three times, but will she say specifically how much these changes will cost local constabularies? She is going to swipe money away—she says it is work, but that is people’s jobs. How much money is she going to swipe from Northamptonshire constabulary to pay for this?
Mrs May
The use of social media by police officers is one of the matters that HMIC considered when it was looking at integrity. Social media can be used extremely positively, and a number of forces are making active use of Twitter to get messages across to members of the public and interact with them. If Inspector Hillary is doing it in that way, I commend that officer. HMIC picked up some evidence of inappropriate use of Twitter, so it is important that forces make clear to officers what is and is not acceptable.
I have answered the question about resources several times: we will be discussing with forces and the IPCC what the appropriate level of resources is and what it is therefore right to transfer from individual police forces. I have to say to the Opposition that the concept is a simple one: work is being done in police forces that in future will be done in the IPCC, so it is appropriate to transfer resources.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
As the third north Northamptonshire MP in a row to be called, may I associate myself with the kind comments about our local force made by the previous two Members? I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement, not least because she made it first to the House and not to the media.
I have found in my constituency surgeries that the thing that annoys people when they have a serious complaint about the police is not actually the investigation, but the fact that it is conducted by the home force—by Northamptonshire police. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, in future, all serious cases will be investigated by people from outside the local force?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has homed in precisely on the crucial change we are making. I too have looked at cases where people within a force investigated serious complaints against that force, and I think that that is not appropriate. The IPCC has not had the resources to do that job, but we will give it the resources it needs so that serious and sensitive allegations will be investigated by people from outside the force concerned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House and welcome the announcement that the national register will be made available to police forces in other regions, in particular the PSNI. Will she confirm that the register will be made available in relation to other security positions, in particular civilian policing of Ministry of Defence installations in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman raises a specific point. I will reflect on that, if I may, but we will certainly discuss with the College of Policing the availability of the register of those who have been struck off and how that is most appropriately dealt with, and I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s point into account during those discussions.
Points of Order
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rarely raise points of order, but this one is about a reply I received to a question I put to the Home Secretary, which was answered by the Minister for Immigration. I tabled a question asking how many times the Home Secretary has visited Romania and Bulgaria, and how many meetings she has had with Romanian and Bulgarian Ministers on the subject of immigration—a fairly standard question. Over the past 26 years, I have tabled questions to Ministers asking about their visits to other countries and have always received a factual reply. On this occasion, however, I received a reply stating that Home Office Ministers have meetings with a number of partners, but ending with these words:
“As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such meetings.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 123W.]
I have served in government and since receiving that answer I have talked with others who have served, and none has said that they refused to disclose a meeting between a Minister in this country and a Minister in a foreign country. I have friends in the Romanian and Bulgarian Parliaments and I can ask them to table questions asking how many times the Home Secretary has visited, but this is the bread and butter of the work of Members of Parliament.
There is a question about whether Parliament has been misled, even inadvertently, by the answer given. I like the Minister for Immigration and I am sure that he would not have done that deliberately, but we should be able to ask Ministers how many times they have been to foreign countries and about the overall nature of discussions. We do not want to know what the Home Secretary did in Bucharest, whom she met or what she discussed; we just want to know how many times she has visited Romania and Bulgaria. That is a simple question to answer and it is one that every other Government Department is able to deal with. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on whether the answer is in order, or whether this is a new practice.
Mr Speaker
The response the right hon. Gentleman received has clearly provoked his curiosity and, in a notably mild-mannered Member of the House, a degree of consternation. I will happily offer a statement on the matter, but as the Home Secretary has courteously remained in the Chamber during the point of order relating to her Department, she is very welcome to offer a remark, if she so wishes.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
indicated dissent.
Mr Speaker
She does not wish to do so. In that case, I will say to the right hon. Gentleman that the content of ministerial answers, notwithstanding the practice in previous Parliaments, is not a matter for the Chair. If he is dissatisfied with the answer he has received, or what he regards as the lack of an answer, he may wish to raise the matter with the Procedure Committee.
I note in passing that, on the back of his nearly 26 consecutive years of service in the House, the right hon. Gentleman is as canny as most in the deployment of opportunities open to Members to eke out of Government information that is important to him. Moreover, as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, he may be aware of other means by which Ministers may be held to account, and is perhaps in a position himself to apply those means. We will leave it there for now.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister did not intend to mislead the House when he incorrectly claimed, in response to my question at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions this morning regarding the local government settlement to Newcastle city council, that it was shutting all arts venues in Newcastle. That is blatantly not true. Owing to the very difficult local funding settlement, the council has proposed a variety of cuts to grants awarded to arts organisations, which represent roughly 15% of the funding stream, which is no doubt a difficult decision, but it is far from shutting all arts venues in the city. Given the alarm that such a statement could raise among my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne, could you advise me on how best I may go about correcting the record in regard to the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I can say with confidence that the Deputy Prime Minister would not deliberately mislead the House, for that would be a serious transgression and I know that he would not commit it. Whether he has done so is not altogether obvious to me, but the Deputy Prime Minister will have heard, or if he has not done so, will very soon come to hear of the content of the hon. Lady’s point of order, and if in the light of it he judges that the record needs to be corrected, it is open to him to do so. On top of that, she has put her concerns on the record and it is open to her, if she judges it necessary, to pursue the matter with the right hon. Gentleman in correspondence and in other ways. That is the best guidance I can give her for now.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not the case that by asserting that Newcastle is closing all its arts venues, the Deputy Prime Minister is insulting the people of Newcastle and our long tradition of supporting the arts even in the worst of times and under the worst of Governments? Would it not therefore be in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to offer an apology to the people of Newcastle?
Mr Speaker
The question whether the people of Newcastle, whom we are not in a position now to consult, feel that they have been insulted or affronted is a matter for the people of Newcastle. In answer to the hon. Lady’s inquiry whether it would be in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to apologise, the answer is that it would be if he judged it appropriate to do so, but it is not for me to decree that he should. I hope that is helpful. All points of order on the matter have now been exhausted.
Gift Vouchers and Insolvency
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 to make purchasers of gift vouchers preferential creditors during the administration of a company; and for connected purposes.
Christmas has been described as the season when we buy this year’s gifts with next year’s money. HMV nearly rewrote that proposition, as the season when we buy this year’s gifts with next year’s money, and end up with no gift. I bring forward this proposal for consideration in the light of the recent experience of all our constituents in relation to the well-publicised case of HMV and gift vouchers. For a short time HMV refused to honour gift vouchers. That position was quickly reversed by the receivers after a public outcry, and gift vouchers will now be accepted, but it led me to look into the matter in more detail.
The issuing of vouchers is widespread in the retail world. Last month we sadly saw the demise of another respected company in our country. The photographic firm Jessops also issued gift vouchers, and on the administrators’ website, the following message is displayed:
“If you are owed money by Jessops (e.g. due to vouchers not honoured, deposits, returns, pre-paid courses etc) you can register an unsecured creditor claim with the administrators using the form below. Please note, there is no guarantee that there will be any payment to unsecured creditors of the company. If there is a dividend paid, this will be in many months time and is likely to be only a small proportion of the claimed amount.”
The last two sentences of the message are emboldened, with the intention, it appears to me, to deter claims. The message is that people can claim if they want, but they probably will not get anything for months, and even if they eventually do, it will be peanuts.
Jessops and HMV are by no means the only companies in this country to issue vouchers. Every high street or out-of-town shopping chain has its own scheme. Let us remember that in 2012 other high street names went to the wall, including Comet, JJB Sports, Game, Peacocks and Blacks Leisure. Supermarkets now have racks of vouchers that shoppers can choose from. Some of the names have had difficulties in the past, but are thankfully back in business and offering vouchers to the public. We might expect that names such as Marks and Spencer will be with us for ever, but who would have predicted a year ago what would happen to some of the well-known names that I mentioned earlier?
HMV, for example, was a solid high street name, established in 1921, with its first store in Oxford street, which grew to a business of 235 UK stores, a number of live music venues and around 4,350 UK employees. That is a key point, because if HMV can go under, so can any of the other big names that invite us to part with our money in return for a promise that they will honour future purchases that we wish to make. The HMV vouchers were estimated to be worth around £7 million, and the company’s debts totalled £176 million.
The gift voucher industry is worth a reported £4 billion per year, and in the first half of last year that business grew by around 5%. That is a significant contribution to the retail sector, worth around £220 billion a year, and means that consumers are now advancing the sector around 2% of the value of sales in the form of prepaid vouchers. That is clearly a benefit to the cash flow of retail businesses, but it raises the question of what security consumers get in return. What guarantee do they get that, if they part with their money in this way, they are going to be in any stronger position than those punters who on Derby day a few years ago placed their bets on the hill with a certain John Batten, only to find that he had run off with all their money, without paying any bets out?
The law on insolvency does not seem to provide any protection at all. My aim in introducing the Bill is to strengthen the rights of consumers in this area so that if and when companies unfortunately fail, consumers are not left high and dry, or at the mercy of administrators who decide whether or not to honour the commitments entered into when those vouchers were sold. We should remember, too, that most vouchers are bought as gifts for family members, and it is particularly unfortunate that in those circumstances a gift meant to mark a birthday or other significant event ends up disappearing into the miasma of administration.
It has been pointed out that there must have been people in charge of the companies concerned who knew that the writing was on the wall before the final collapse, and who must also have known that there was a very strong possibility that vouchers would not be honoured, yet the companies continued to sell them. Leaving aside the morality of such decisions, one must consider the negative impact on the rest of the industry. The mere suggestion of this amendment to the legislation has prompted a response from those involved in insolvency, which would give greater consideration to consumer protection. The Association of Business Recovery Professionals, known as R3, has been in touch with me with suggestions for ways in which consumers could be protected in the event of a business collapsing, including purchase of protection bonds by the company, putting money into a separate client account, or including responsibility for vouchers as part of the transfer of business obligations.
R3 does not seem to have come down in favour of any of these proposals, and even if it does back one or more of them, it will take some time for the proposals to come into effect, but something should be done now. This amendment to the legislation would provide for an additional category of preferential creditors who, in the winding up of any company, go higher up the queue for the distribution of any remaining assets. Those categories currently include a range of tax, excise and national insurance liabilities, and remuneration of employees, including holiday pay. But the ordinary consumers, who have given their money to the company in good faith, are not currently included in the list of preferential creditors.
That seems a regrettable omission, no doubt accounted for by the considerable growth of this form of payment in the past decade or so. Certainly when the Insolvency Act was conceived in 1986, the voucher industry was barely in its infancy, and may not therefore have seemed a sufficient issue to be included in the priority list. However, that is no excuse for failing to prioritise the issue now. By way of analogy, only last week, the Trading Standards Institute announced that its approved codes of practice for consumers will require retailers
“to ensure that the gift cards…are protected in the event that the business fails.”
The TSI has accepted that there has been a lacuna in its provisions on vouchers and we should also accept that the provisions on insolvency need to be updated to reflect the current retail environment.
I seek the support of the House in bringing forward legislation that will rectify the situation. The advantage will be greater confidence that, when the inconceivable happens, there will be some protection for the unfortunate consumer. Administrators may well become more willing to see vouchers honoured, which should help to restore confidence in the sector.
I do not claim that this measure alone will provide all the necessary guarantees to reassure those who buy vouchers in good faith, but it would be a start. The voucher industry itself needs to do more, but a modest change in insolvency legislation could provide a fillip to the economically pressed British public. It will reflect changes taking place elsewhere—in trading standards codes, for example—and show that the House takes seriously the concerns expressed by constituents of Members from all parties about the issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Michael McCann, Pauline Latham, Jeremy Lefroy, Steve Rotherham, Hugh Bayley, Mr Ronnie Campbell, Mr Ian Davidson and Chris White present the Bill.
Mr Michael McCann accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2013, and to be printed (Bill 136).
Opposition Day
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Horsemeat
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 236 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the main business. The first of the two Opposition day debates is on a motion about horsemeat in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to move the motion, I should say that given the number of people seeking to contribute from the Back Benches, the likelihood is that there will be a limit on Back-Bench speeches of eight minutes or thereabouts. However, the length of that limit depends on the length of the Front-Bench speeches. My successor in the Chair or I will give a ruling on the matter when we see how long Front Benchers have taken to develop their points.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I shall try to bear your comments in mind, Mr Speaker.
I beg to move,
That this House notes that up to 100 per cent horsemeat has been found in supermarket and branded processed meat products and that horsemeat has been found at the premises of a UK meat processing plant; notes with concern that seven horses which tested positive for phenylbutazone (bute) contamination have entered the human food chain, including one in England; further notes that meat supplied to UK prisons, labelled Halal, has tested positive for pork DNA; recognises that the Irish government and Northern Irish Executive have called in the police and specialist fraud units to tackle the problem of horsemeat adulteration; further recognises that thousands of jobs depend on consumer confidence in the UK and Irish meat industries; and calls on the Government to ensure that police and fraud specialists investigate the criminal networks involved in horsemeat adulteration, to speed up the Food Standards Agency official tests so that results are back in 14 days and restore consumer confidence in the meat industry by working with the food industry and other EU member states and EU institutions to define new testing, labelling and traceability standards for the meat industry to protect consumers from fraud.
It is four weeks to the day since the Irish authorities told the UK Government that they had discovered horsemeat in burgers, and 10 million suspect burgers were withdrawn. Products from Tesco, Iceland, Co-op, Lidl and Aldi have all tested positive for horsemeat. The burgers came from Silvercrest Foods in Ireland and Dalepak Hambleton in Yorkshire, subsidiaries of the ABP Food Group. A third company—Liffey Meats in County Cavan in Ireland—was also found to be supplying products with horse DNA.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the hon. Lady take this opportunity to correct comments that she made in column 612 of yesterday’s Hansard? She said that 70,000 horses are unaccounted for in Northern Ireland and being sold in the lucrative horsemeat trade. That is not the case; the evidence relates to the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a responsible organisation and made the claims not about Northern Ireland but about the Republic. Will she join me in a cross-party promotion of Northern Ireland’s red meat sector, which produces among the best, most traced and tastiest food in this country? I would be delighted if she agreed that our border is more secure than a slip of the tongue on the Front Bench.
Mr Speaker
We are deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has now made his speech.
Mary Creagh
I am happy for the record to be put straight on that; in the heat of the debate, I made a slip of the tongue. I am the granddaughter of a cattle farmer in Northern Ireland, so it is incumbent on me to recommend the meat of the good cows of Northern Ireland.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am most grateful to my fellow Yorkshire MP for giving way. May I ask her to correct another part of the record? I think she will find that no contamination was found at Dalepak in north Yorkshire.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the motion, but it lacks one thing—whether on purpose or by accident, I do not know. There is absolutely no reference to the British meat trade; its fresh, processed or frozen parts have not been implicated. We do not want any collateral damage to our excellent trade, which meets the highest standards of traceability, welfare and good food.
Mary Creagh
I believe that traces of horse DNA were found in products that emanated from the Dalepak plant in Hambleton; if the hon. Lady has information to the contrary, I am sure that she will take the opportunity to put the record straight. The British meat industry is not mentioned in the motion because now is not the time to be talking down the British meat industry, as she says.
Burger King, which sells a million burgers a week, gave “absolute assurances” that its burgers were fine; two weeks later they tested positive. Representatives of TRG, or the Restaurant Group, which runs Frankie and Benny’s, revealed last Monday that they had discovered a batch of meat at Rangeland Foods that tested positive for horse.
Furthermore, last Monday, the Irish authorities discovered a 900 kg block of mostly horsemeat sitting in the cold store of a Northern Ireland burger producer, Freeza Meats. The meat had been impounded during a routine inspection five months ago. I congratulate the inspectors from Newry and Mourne council, who on a routine inspection had concerns about that meat’s packaging and quality and about the absence of labelling on some products. If meat does not have a label, we have absolutely no idea where it has come from.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her leadership on this issue. She and the highly respected Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have said that they would not currently eat processed beef products. Does she share my amazement that Ministers are still encouraging people to do so?
Mary Creagh
A range of mixed messages has been coming out of the Government. The Secretary of State said on Friday that he would be happy to eat processed beef products, but said on Sunday that doing so could be injurious to human health—[Interruption.] Well, he said that substances could be found that could be injurious to human health; I remember him saying it on the Iain Dale radio show.
The issue is difficult because yesterday the chief medical officer said that testing had never been done, because nobody wants to test humans to find out who is susceptible to the serious blood disorder aplastic anaemia—of course, it would be completely unethical and impossible to conduct such a test. The Government are in a difficult position. They may be trying to minimise public concern, but there is no safe dose of bute in humans.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that as the responsibility now lies with the retailers to help restore confidence, there should be an aggressive campaign by all of them to assure their customers that all the beef that they buy from now on will be British? What more can be done so that customers have confidence that they really are eating British beef?
Mary Creagh
The beef on sale right now in UK supermarkets is probably of a higher quality than ever. Lots of local and independent butchers have seen a spike in trade lately as a result of what has happened.
I said that there was no safe dose of bute for humans. I am not a medical expert, but bute can cause serious adverse side effects so should be consumed only under medical supervision—[Interruption.] Government Front Benchers are chuntering already, Mr Speaker; that is not a good sign.
The positive test on Freeza Meats led the inspectors to the meat trader, Martin McAdam, who admitted to buying the meat from a UK company, Flexi Foods, in Hull last July. A spokesman for Mr McAdam said:
“That shipment was the first one that came to light. Subsequently other tests identified other shipments of meat.”
He has identified the names of other companies involved, and on Friday I received that information. These UK food companies may or may not have supplied suspect meat products to Mr McAdam, but while there is a question mark over them, the food industry has a right to have that information.
On Friday I wrote to the Secretary of State offering to share that information with him. When he replied to me yesterday, he urged me to hand it over to the police and to the Food Standards Agency, as I already had done, and I assume that he now has it. On Saturday, however, after a conversation with one of the food industry representatives, I realised that the Secretary of State had not revealed the names of those firms to the food industry at the meeting. Yesterday, when I asked him why not, he failed to answer. Why did he not tell the food industry where to look? Why has he not released those names to the public so that we can have full transparency on this problem? If the Government want the industry to test on the basis of risk, why did he not share the names of the companies at Saturday’s meeting?
In the FSA advice to the public sector issued at 10 o’clock on Sunday night, the Secretary of State laid the responsibility for food safety squarely on other people’s shoulders. He said:
“We are reminding public bodies (schools, prisons, hospitals, armed forces) of their responsibility for their own food contracts. We expect them to have rigorous procurement procedures in place with reputable suppliers.”
If he knows that there are problems with some UK-based companies, why has he not told head teachers, local authorities and hospital bosses about the companies that are being investigated? I am happy to give way now if he would like to intervene.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I am very happy to do so. I have been restraining myself, Mr Speaker, because of your injunction to be as brief as possible. The Food Standards Agency, set up by the hon. Lady’s party when in government, has been quite clear in giving advice to all those who supply to public institutions such as prisons, schools and hospitals. As I said yesterday in my statement and will say again in a few minutes, food suppliers have the ultimate responsibility for the quality of what they sell.
Mary Creagh
We are none the wiser about whether the Secretary of State knows the names of these companies, which prompts the question of whether the FSA has told him or whether he has asked it. Perhaps he will clarify that.
On Friday the FSA said that the police were involved, and I thought that things were under control. However, on Friday night the Met police said that they had had talks with the FSA but there was no live criminal investigation. Will the Secretary of State tell us what action the FSA has taken against these companies? Has it been into their premises and seized evidence, and why have the police not been called in? If there are no problems with these companies, will he say so clearly now, on the record?
Last Thursday, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced its statutory testing regime, with 28 local councils purchasing and testing eight samples each. However, the Secretary of State cannot seriously expect people to wait 10 weeks for the results. Does he think that surveying just 224 products across the country rises to the challenge of this scandal when he has asked the supermarkets to test thousands of their products by Friday? How many of the 10 million withdrawn burgers have been tested? Are there any plans to test them now? If they had been tested when they were withdrawn, Ministers would able to reassure us or tell us the extent of this scandal, but because they were paralysed by fear or incompetence, or both, we are still in the dark. Will the Secretary of State confirm that only a fraction of the supermarket tests will be completed and reported by this Friday?
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many products the large public sector catering suppliers will test and how many product lines members of the British Meat Processors Association will test? Yesterday I asked him which members of the British Hospitality Association and the British Retail Consortium have withdrawn their products as a precaution and whether any of them have withdrawn products that may have gone to schools and hospitals. Is he prepared to answer those questions today?
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
As a crofter and a producer, I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am pleased to say that the butchers in Stornoway have seen an upturn in trade as a result of this problem. It surely beggars belief that it has happened given all the tagging that has been going on in the industry. When I send a couple of beasts—lambs—to my cousin to be slaughtered, the vet has to see them. Surely we should now be pressurising the supermarkets and major retailers to stock from as close to source locally as possible—the best of Scottish lamb, beef, or whatever—to make sure that we do not have a repetition of this situation.
Mary Creagh
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns for the British meat industry. As he says, we have one of the strongest food traceability systems in the world. The British Retail Consortium’s food traceability system and authorisation of processing plant is recognised to global standards. What I worry about is the very large worldwide web that has led to some Findus products coming in from Romania via Cyprus, the Netherlands and a company in south-west France. It is inexplicable to me why that meat is being transported to all those different areas and what is happening there. Every time it is transported, there are moments of risk when it can be interfered with. That is where the problems arise in the meat trade rather than at the stage that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
For many years, we have been campaigning in Ayrshire to export many of these products to places such as China, because manufacturing in this sector in China is always a bit suspect and people there will not accept these types of manufactured goods. I believe that the situation we now face will affect that trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an important element in resolving this situation?
Mary Creagh
I do agree. The British food industry is a £12 billion industry, and hundreds of thousands of UK jobs depend on it. I know from talking to farmers across the country that they are trying to export their animals, including pigs to China, and various products all over the place, and that people are coming here to look at some of our excellent rare breeds of beef that work particularly well in particular types of climate. This is obviously a very worrying time for the UK food industry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady mentioned the upsurge in trade in local butchers over the past week. Some 30% of butchers across the whole United Kingdom had an increase in usage over the past weekend. Does she think that the traceability that is currently present within the whole United Kingdom—England, Wales, Scotland and, in particular, Northern Ireland—should be the key factor in our being able to have good products on the butchers’ shelves and in the supermarkets every week?
Mary Creagh
I agree that good traceability will be key to solving this crisis. I look forward to the Secretary of State putting in place robust measures with the entire food supply chain to make sure that this type of scandal cannot hit our industry again.
Yesterday the Secretary of State talked about inheriting the Food Standards Agency and our food regulatory system. He is right—he did—but unfortunately his Government broke it up in 2010.
Mary Creagh
The hon. Gentleman was not in the Department at that time.
The FSA website has chapter and verse on what happened. It says that in July 2010
“the food authenticity programme was transferred from the…(FSA) to Defra along with food labelling and composition policy not related to food safety or nutrition. The food authenticity programme supports the enforcement of food labelling and standards legislation through the development of methods that can determine whether foods are correctly labelled. Food authenticity…simply refers to whether the food purchased by the consumer matches its description.”
I would say that consumers who are purchasing beef burgers that later turn out to be horse would fall within that remit. The Government removed the budget and brought the 25 officials responsible for labelling the content of food back into DEFRA. In response to my parliamentary questions, we find that there are now just 12 officials working on food authenticity in DEFRA. The Secretary of State is responsible for the labelling that tells us what is in our food, the Department of Health is responsible for nutritional labelling, and the FSA for allergen labelling. That is why the official food sampling survey is a joint DEFRA-FSA survey, is it not? Will the Secretary of State confirm that this will be the very first survey of product content that his Department has carried out since his Government removed compositional labelling responsibilities from the Food Standards Agency in June 2010?
This ideological Government, who want to deregulate everything, actually created a bureaucratic nightmare for the food industry when they fragmented the FSA’s responsibility for labelling, because now manufacturers have to go to the Department of Health to look at calories, fat, salt and sugar, to the FSA to look at allergens, and to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what it should say on the tin.
Has the loss of more than 700 trading standards officers in three years made this type of consumer fraud more widespread and less likely to be detected? Is the Secretary of State confident that the FSA’s Meat Hygiene Service, which has just been merged into the FSA, can be cut by £12 million over the four years from 2010 to 2014 without affecting its ability to detect breaches of the law or to tackle a disease outbreak?
On abattoirs, at DEFRA questions nearly three weeks ago, I asked the Minister with responsibility for food, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), whom I am glad to see in his place, about problems with the horse passport system. I was concerned that horses contaminated with bute were being slaughtered in UK abattoirs and entering the human food chain. Of the nine UK horses that tested positive for bute in 2012, one was stopped, five went to France, two to the Netherlands and one to the UK. Has the Minister considered the possibility that horses are going from UK abattoirs into the food chain?
The FSA sampled 156 horses for bute out of the 9,405 horses that were slaughtered in UK abattoirs in 2012. Nine of those horses tested positive, which is a 6% positive rate. If we scale that up to the 9,000 figure, we will see that it suggests that more than 500 horses contaminated with bute may have entered the UK human food chain last year. I raised that point two and a half weeks ago, but received a garbled response from the Minister. I am glad to see that he has stopped burbling now.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again; she is being very kind. What is her view on placing dye on meats that are not meant to go into the human food chain? That would give a clear visual signal and would probably prevent an awful lot of meats from finding their way into the human food chain, whether they come from the knacker’s yard or any other source.
Mary Creagh
I do not know how condemned meat is currently dealt with, but I have heard tales of people bleaching meat. Whatever happens to this meat, when it is condemned it needs to be permanently removed from the food chain. Clearly, something much more significant needs to happen to it, but the treatment of condemned meat is something that I am not fully aware of at the moment. I am sure I will learn a lot more about it in the next 24 hours.
As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, there is evidence of an illegal trade in horses from Ireland to the UK and a programme on the subject will be aired tonight. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has also contacted me to say that it has seen horses that have been double microchipped and double passported in order to “clean” the horse. It has also given me examples of horses being microchipped at auction—many horses do not contain a microchip—and given a clean passport. Microchips can be bought for as little as 12p on the internet and it is clearly not an offence to buy one. If a microchip is put into a horse and a passport obtained from one of the 75 societies that can issue horse passports in the UK, the new passport can be linked to the microchip so that the horse looks like it has a clean history.
The increase in the number of horses and the decrease in horse prices mean that putting horses into the food chain is attractive. At the abattoir, Government inspectors check only the microchip with the passport, and if they correspond, the horse is slaughtered and allowed into the food chain. I am glad that, as of yesterday, all horses being slaughtered in UK abattoirs are now being tested for bute, but the Minister should have acted on that two weeks ago, when I first raised the issue in the House. The passport system is clearly not working as it should. The lack of a central database and DEFRA’s decision to stop funding it in 2012 only adds to the lack of visibility of where the horses are and their bute status. Does the Secretary of State regret scrapping the national equine database to save £200,000? [Interruption.] The Minister says no—I think he might regret that. [Interruption.] I look forward to hearing what the Government’s traceability system actually is.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
On working with horse passport agencies and the national equine database, does the hon. Lady agree that NED was actually far more of a competition, progeny and pedigree record, and that it would not have been possible to find out whether a horse on it had bute?
Mary Creagh
The national equine database was as the hon. Lady describes it, but the fact that it no longer exists does not help with tracking and tracing where horses have gone. There were, I think, more than 1.2 million horses on it. I will need to check the numbers, because that figure is from memory—[Interruption]—and with noises off. Michael Frayn could not have written this farce any better. My point is that without the national database, which would have eventually had a link to the microchips, the opportunities for fraud are much easier. Another issue is that of bute not being written into animal records. That needs to be looked at again.
Government Members have talked about a ban on EU imports. It has been very convenient to blame the Poles and the Romanians, but so far neither country has found anything. The risk of a Romanian horse being given expensive veterinary medicine such as bute is smaller than it is in countries such as the UK and Ireland.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
The question of whether the animal has been injected with something might be a point for discussion. However, whenever people go into a shop for a beefburger, they are not looking for a horse burger, so it has to be what it says on the packet. In my opinion—I trust that this is also the hon. Lady’s opinion—it is not meat produced in the UK, but meat from outside that causes concern for many consumers. Should not all meat coming into the United Kingdom be quarantined and tested before being released into the food chain?
Mary Creagh
We need a proportionate response. The problem with the meat found in the Northern Ireland freezer is that there was no label on it at all. In such cases, how can we say where the meat has come from? That is the problem with that approach. On quarantining and testing meat, we need to make sure that what is coming in is exactly what it says on the label.
During yesterday’s statement, I thought I was going to see unicorns dancing over a blue moon as the hon. Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who are noted, famous Eurosceptics, called for more EU regulation and asked what the European Commission was doing and whether the Health Commissioner was in control of the situation. It has been an interesting revelation for Members of all parties to see the important role that European Union regulations play.
There is an issue with large quantities of horsemeat coming in from countries such as Canada and Mexico. Kilos and tonnes of the meat come in without any traceability or any guarantee about what the horses have had injected into them.
Dr McCrea
One thing we can be sure of is that the meat did not come from Northern Ireland. Our traceability is second to none. It was the alertness of Newry and Mourne council that got it stopped in Newry. The meat was not from Northern Ireland, so it had to come from outside. We need to find out exactly where it came from, who was responsible and who acted in a criminal way, and then bring them to book.
Mary Creagh
I could not agree more, which is why I have questioned the Secretary of State so closely on the matter of the UK meat trading companies that have been named. The Secretary of State waited three and a half weeks to meet representatives of the food industry and then brought them in on a Saturday. They have now had two meetings in just four days.
Our regulatory services protect consumers and our food industry. They allow it to export all over the world. Their job has been made much more difficult by the Government’s decision to fragment the responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency. Members on both sides of the House want the British public to have confidence that the food that they buy in the shops and that comes from our producers is correctly labelled, legal and safe. The Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring that it is. It just is not good enough to say, “We don’t know what’s in your food, but whatever it is, we guarantee that it’s safe to eat.” The British people deserve so much better than that.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
It is good to be back at the Dispatch Box to talk about this subject for the second day running. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on persuading her party hierarchy to bring this important issue to the Floor of the House of Commons again. I made an oral statement to the House yesterday, in which I set out the facts about what had happened and the ongoing investigations into those incidents. I am pleased to take this opportunity to update the House on further developments.
Since yesterday, Tesco has confirmed that frozen spaghetti bolognese from the same factory as the other withdrawn Comigel products has tested positive for horsemeat. The product has been withdrawn as a precaution. That result does not suggest that there is a new source of illegal horsemeat.
I am meeting senior figures from the UK food chain at the Institute of Grocery Distribution later today with the chairman of the Food Standards Agency, Lord Rooker, to whom I spoke this morning. I can also confirm that the meeting with key European Ministers and the Commission that I proposed is taking place in Brussels tomorrow evening. I will be speaking to the Dutch Minister, Sharon Dijksma, and the Polish Minister, Stanislaw Kalemba, later today.
In my statement yesterday, I set out the action that I have taken to ensure that retailers, meat manufacturers and processors are carrying out urgent testing of processed beef products and making their test results public.
It is clear from my conversations with European Ministers and Commissioner Borg in recent days that the European Commission recognises the urgency of the incidents.
Mr Donohoe
When the Secretary of State meets his counterparts in Europe, will he raise the problems that I raised earlier, which he would have heard if he had been in his place, about exporting from our marketplace to the new markets in the far east?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to note that I jotted down his constituency and was going to mention his point later in my speech, but I will do so now. He raises a pertinent point. It is vital that we get to the bottom of this matter as fast as possible, because we have very strict traceability in this country, very rigorous production systems and very high quality, and we do not want any slur to be cast on that or any attempt to export our excellent products to be slowed down by incidents that so far appear to be the result of criminal acts carried out abroad.
Mr MacNeil
Many farmers, crofters and primary producers have an onerous burden of responsibility and bureaucracy. I seek assurances that this matter will not be used as an excuse for a cloak-and-dagger increase in that already onerous burden. The traceability should retain the vote of confidence and we should not add to the burdens.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is right that we must make absolutely sure that we do not create further regulatory burdens. What we need to do is to make the checks more relevant to the products. I will come to that point in a moment.
Mary Creagh
It is great to hear this most Eurosceptic of Secretaries of State doing his bit for European co-operation in this area. Will he press his European colleagues to carry out random testing in their countries like that being carried out by UK supermarkets?
Mr Paterson
The shadow Secretary of State is again ahead of the game with respect to what I will say in my speech. I said yesterday in my statement that I have a gut feeling—actually, it is a clear belief—that too much is taken on trust in the current system. Too often, it is taken on trust that when a truck is loaded, the contents of the pallets are marked on the manifest and the certificate. From that point on, nothing is looked at. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) that we need to do more testing. I discussed that yesterday and again this morning with Lord Rooker. When this is all over, there will be a process of learning the lessons. I will be keen to establish more systematic testing of products so that we actually look at the material. That answers some of the hon. Lady’s questions about the Freeza plant in Northern Ireland. At the moment, the system is very much paper-based and too much is taken on trust.
Ian Paisley
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the lessons that has already been learned is that it is a fallacy that people can have cheap food and quality food? The two do not go hand in hand. We have to educate the marketplace and the consumer that if people want good-quality, tasty food, they have to pay for it. Chasing the notion of cheap food, which many supermarkets have done irresponsibly, will be the ruination of a vital industry.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but I think that we have to be careful. There are citizens in this country who want to buy a product for speed and convenience, but who do not want to pay a premium price. They deserve exactly the same rigorous quality standards and exactly the same adherence to what is on the label as everybody else. If they buy a cheaper product marked “processed beef”, they should jolly well get processed beef. They should be as aggrieved as anyone who buys the most expensive sirloin steak if what they buy is not what it says on the label. If people in this country buy a cheap product, they should get a good product that conforms to the label. That is an important principle for consumers and one that I have discussed with the retailers.
Miss McIntosh
Before the meetings tomorrow, will the Secretary of State ensure that product checks have been carried out on exports from other European countries that have come into Britain? Will he take the best legal advice from the Department or the top Government lawyers on the possibility of using the Cassis de Dijon case as the basis of turning down inferior products until such time as it is shown whether they are being passed off as something that they are not? That would be entirely legal under the Food Safety Act 1990 and EU food labelling regulations.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her question. I bow to her knowledge on these matters as a former Member of the European Parliament. I discussed that matter briefly with Commissioner Borg yesterday. He confirmed what I had said over the weekend: unless there is a threat to public health and safety, there are no grounds for stopping imports. Fraudulent labelling and mislabelling are quite wrong, but he made it clear during our brief conversation, on which I hope to elaborate tomorrow, that those were not grounds for preventing the importation of a material within the European Union. However, my hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I will check the details of the regulations that she mentions. I promise that I will raise her point in the discussions tomorrow.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
The point is that when lasagne that are sold as beef contain up to 100% horsemeat, there is a clear danger of contamination by bute in those products. As such, surely they would satisfy the test of being a danger to human health.
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend raises an important question that came up yesterday. We have to take note of the clear advice given by the chief medical officer yesterday:
“It’s understandable that people will be concerned, but it is important to emphasise that even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it would cause any harm to health”.
The meat content of the lasagne that was mentioned at the weekend, for example, was as low as 15%, so one would have to eat an extraordinarily large amount of this material to ingest a quantity of bute that would exceed the warning of the chief medical officer.
Mr Paterson
I am conscious that other Members want to get in, so I will press on and make a little more progress.
It is clear that complex cross-European supply networks are involved in these incidents. I understand that Comigel was supplying customers in 16 European countries. That is why I have pressed hard for a European response. Yesterday, my Irish, French and Romanian counterparts, and the commissioner, were enthusiastic and united in wanting to work closely with us. I look forward to taking those discussions further tomorrow in Brussels.
I have made it clear to the food industry that I expect to see meaningful results from its product testing by this Friday. The results will be published as they become available.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I push the Secretary of State further on testing? Has he ordered the testing of gelatine and gelatine-based products for horse DNA? If horse DNA is found in gelatine, it would be a serious contamination of the human food chain, particularly because it would extend to food such as children’s sweets.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. However, like many Opposition Members, he is asking me to impinge on the operational independence of the Food Standards Agency, which makes decisions on the details. [Hon. Members: “Is the FSA testing that?”] I have made it clear to the food industry and the FSA that I expect to see meaningful results from the tests by Friday. I repeat what I said yesterday: consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. It is outrageous that consumers appear to have been misled by what appears to be a deliberate fraud.
It is important to distinguish between test results that indicate trace levels of DNA of an undeclared species and gross adulteration. So far, the results indicating flagrant adulteration have been limited to those products from the Silvercrest plant in Ireland and Comigel. It is too early to say whether they are indicative of a wider problem or isolated examples of such fraud. Either way, any case of fraud on the consumer is unacceptable, and I want all such cases to be pursued vigorously and those responsible brought to justice.
Mr Paterson
The European law is clear that retailers are key. They are responsible for the quality and validity of what they say is in the box and what is on the label, and for ensuring that they conform. The prime responsibility is with the retailer.
Mr Paterson
I will give way to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), because he tried to intervene earlier.
Mr Paterson
That is a perfectly valid question, but it is too early to tell. I will probably learn more in meetings tomorrow. Minister Le Foll is investigating in France to try to get to the bottom of things. The French are checking invoices, manifests, trucking times and arrival times to find out what is behind the contamination. As I said yesterday, Minister Constantin was emphatic that the procedures in Romania are correct, which is why I made a call this afternoon to the Dutch Minister. We know that something somewhere is going horribly wrong, and we are determined to work closely to get to the bottom of it.
Mr Paterson
I am looking at the clock and must push on.
The criminal justice system in the UK and across Europe is taking this very seriously. We are ready to act in whatever way is justified by the emerging facts. I shall repeat myself, because it is important that Opposition Members understand this: overall, food safety is a European competence. Council regulation 178/2002 confirms that food operators have primary responsibility for food safety and quality. In the UK, under the system this Government inherited, the independent Food Standards Agency is the lead enforcement authority for food safety and authenticity.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Paterson
That is absolutely glorious! Labour Members are attacking their own creation. That is one of the institutions they created and of which they are most proud. In previous food crises, they said politicians must not be involved and that there should be an independent agency. However, the hon. Gentleman is attacking the independent FSA, which is run effectively by Lord Rooker, who I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows well, because they are ex-colleagues. As a coalition, we are co-operating to see whether we can make the system work. There are improvements to make—I will come to those—but we are working with the FSA and respecting its independence. That is why, while the issue one of DNA and before the step change of the Findus case, we left the independent agency to take the prime lead. It is not appropriate for me to infringe on its independence.
Many cases of poor food hygiene and food adulteration are dealt with effectively by that route. The police would take the lead only if there were evidence of serious, organised criminality in the UK. The FSA identified that such criminality was potentially involved and last week alerted both the Metropolitan police and Europol. The FSA’s investigations are ongoing. The police are well aware of the developing situation, but at what point they take the lead is a judgment for them and the FSA, based on the evidence. It is not a decision for me or the shadow Secretary of State. We must respect the independence of the police.
The Opposition have made a great deal of the risks to consumers in Europe of horses slaughtered in the UK because of possible residues of the drug bute. In line with advice from the chief medical officer, the Government have tightened the system we inherited. Last week, we moved to 100% testing of horses slaughtered at abattoirs, and accelerated the rate at which tests can be completed. As of yesterday, no carcase will be released unless and until it has tested negative for bute. However, I remind the House that, to the extent that some carcases with bute residues may have in the past entered the human food chain in Europe, the chief medical officer’s advice is that, even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it will cause any harm to health.
The British food and farming industries are two of this country’s great success stories. I will not let them be talked down. The food industry has continued to grow during the current difficult economic conditions. Its export performance in particular has been strong. In 2010, the UK food and drink industry contributed £90 billion gross value to the economy, and in 2011 achieved exports worth £18.2 billion, of which meat and meat products accounted for £1.7 billion.
Food and drink manufacturing is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, employing some 3.2 million people. Jobs in the UK depend in part on consumer confidence in processed meat products. That is why I have emphasised the importance of food businesses taking rapid steps to reassure consumers and overseas markets by testing all their processed beef products and making the results public. Transparency is key to confidence.
The Government will do whatever necessary to ensure that British farmers and food manufacturers have access to export markets. That includes ensuring that British food is recognised for its rigorous standards and traceability, and that our producers do not get a bad reputation owing to the Europe-wide horsemeat incidents—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) was spot on in that respect.
The food industry also needs to look to the future and embrace new technologies.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Secretary of State made the point yesterday that tracing processed meat products is a paper chase. I am keen that we have proper inspections of the meat and meat products that come into this country, so that we can see what is in the lorries, which is otherwise signed off when it comes into the UK.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I confirmed a few minutes ago that I am concerned that the problem is a paper-based system. The problem is that there is too much faith—the certificate and manifest on the content of pallets is taken on trust and there is not enough testing of the material. I will discuss that with Commissioner Borg tomorrow, as I discussed it yesterday and today with Lord Rooker. We agree we can improve on the current system within the current arrangements by introducing some form of testing regime. Lord Rooker had some interesting ideas on how we might do that. My favoured concept is a form of random testing, but he might be more systematic. There will be a lessons-learned exercise afterwards, which I am keen to push on with.
On new technologies, the UK Government invest more than £410 million annually in research in the agriculture, food and drink sector. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science on the agri-tech strategy. There is a lot that is positive that we can do and are doing to help the British food and farming sectors make the most of their excellent products and high standards. I think we are all agreed on the need to maintain confidence, and that is not helped by muddying the waters with misleading suggestions that the current investigations are not being pursued vigorously and seriously. From my exchanges with the FSA chairman and industry leaders, I know that this issue is being taken very seriously across the whole food chain. Of course, we shall look at the lessons to be learned from these problems once the immediate incidents have been resolved. As I have just said, I am convinced we have a system that involves too much trust in paper-based systems and we need to look at better testing of actual products.
My top priority in the coming days and weeks will be to back the FSA as it follows through its investigations, and to collaborate with European Ministers, the Commission and the UK food industry to root out unacceptable practices and to rebuild justified confidence in food, in support of consumers. Consumers must have confidence in the products that they buy for themselves and their families. We must all work together to ensure that that is the case.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I just mention to Members who want to catch my eye that we are introducing an eight-minute limit?
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and the Opposition on securing such a timely debate on the eve of the discussions that the Secretary of State will have in Europe with his counterparts, and on the back of two meetings with industry. Today, we should be celebrating the food industry for the reasons that the hon. Lady set out and the people it employs. I represent one of the largest meat-producing constituencies. We celebrate Thirsk having the largest fatstock mart in the country, and Malton having a smaller mart. Farm-gate prices are falling and there is currently a crisis in the sheep industry. It is widely recognised that we are worried about the state of the lamb industry in the north of England; we fear that many sheep producers may go out of business.
We perhaps ought to take a lesson from this issue and revise our eating habits as consumers. When I was brought up I remember having a small roast with the family on a Sunday and using leftovers to go into other dishes during the week. Were we to do that and encourage manufacturers from now on to take British-sourced beef into processed and frozen foods, that would be the speediest way to restore confidence in the food industry. Retailers accept their responsibility and have risen to the challenge set by the Secretary of State. My concern is this. I am proud to have the Food and Environment Research Agency headquarters in my constituency at Sand Hutton near York, but it seems perverse that we continue to accept contaminated and suspect meat consignments, testing within a week and with the results by Friday, yet we now may have to re-export some of the suspect meats to Germany and elsewhere for testing. That is a little bit gross and I hope that that will not be the case.
I will dwell for a moment on what I believe the Secretary of State and the Government can do. Before I do so, I assure the hon. Member for Wakefield that insofar as Dalepak is concerned—it will issue a statement to this effect—the trace in its consignment was found to be less than 1%. Under present rules, that is not deemed to be contaminated meat. It would help everybody if we stopped talking about contamination when there is a trace. We need to move the debate on to what is a trace, and at some stage the FSA or the Department will have to say what trace is acceptable. We are never going to get an entire sample free of any trace, for perfectly understandable reasons.
Mary Creagh
I take on board what the hon. Lady says. I believe that the tests that are being conducted will look for equine presence up to 1%, not to 0.1%. That relates to the pork found last week in halal products that were supplied to a prison. Is she saying that it is not possible to guarantee to consumers from certain faith groups that we can never get rid of traces of other animals? What does that mean for factories branding themselves as halal? Does that mean that they can no longer deal with pork products?
Miss McIntosh
That is a separate debate. We would need to look at the costs of two separate lines, one for beef and one for pork. We need to reconsider what is acceptable as a trace and differentiate that from contamination. This debate is about gross contamination of 60% to 100%, and that is what is so offensive to consumers.
We need an assurance—whether from Romania, France, Poland, Ireland, Sweden or wherever—that exporting countries in the EU are conducting both physical and product labelling checks at the point of export. Until we have that assurance from the Commission, consumers will not have much confidence in the process. It is my firm, personal belief that if product checks had taken place, food contaminated with horsemeat would never have entered the food chain. However, the fact is that it is in the food chain; as far as we know, it is continuing to enter the food chain; and we are continuing to find more contamination in frozen foods.
I practised in the EU many years ago, so my knowledge of EU law is extremely rusty, but the Cassis de Dijon case involved the passing off of an inferior alcoholic product as Cassis to go into such drinks as kir royale and other luxury products. The inferior product clearly did not fit the bill. I understand that the member state concerned was allowed, for a temporary period, to suspend imports of products being passed off as something else until such time as a ruling could be given.
All I am asking is for the Government to stop this chain of events. There are 27 member states, or however many there are now, relying on the Food Safety Act 1990, which is entirely compatible with European food labelling regulations. I would imagine that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have huge support from all other member states in the European Union, but until we can again inspire confidence in the food industry and allow the retailers to get on with what they are good at—delivering safe, healthy food to our supermarkets—then we ought to recognise what other hon. Members have said today. This is an opportunity to recognise the excellence of British-produced beef, and to try to see to what extent that can be used.
I accept the Secretary of State’s point about a premium product now going for premium prices, but he must accept that the labelling provisions, the traceability and the additional animal welfare conditions that we in this country uniquely impose on our producers have increased costs. Farm-gate prices are going down. Feed costs have gone up. The cost of transporting animals to slaughter has gone up. Slaughterhouses are fewer and further apart. We ought to use this as an opportunity to encourage retailers to look to sourcing locally produced beef for their processed and frozen products. I celebrate the contribution of the beef industry and other meat industries to the UK, not just to locally sourced food. Much that is produced in Thirsk, Malton and Filey will go abroad for breeding purposes, because of the uniqueness and life history of each particular herd.
This debate is timely. Perhaps the FSA has been caught on the back foot. When in November the FSA was told by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that DNA tests were to be conducted on particular products entering the food chain through our supermarkets, it was a wake-up call to the FSA here to do similar tests. It was of concern to the Select Committee to hear that the original contamination could have been in the food chain for up to one year—who knows, it might have been longer. We need to get to the bottom of this. I accept the assurance that criminal proceedings will follow, but we all know that the wheels of the law move extremely slowly. The Secretary of State has the opportunity tomorrow to take this argument to Europe. It is a Europe-wide problem so we must have a Europe-wide solution. I believe that the answer lies in our food-labelling provisions and European law. I hope that this debate will give him all power to his elbow in tomorrow’s negotiations.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention trust in his speech, because it lies at the heart of this public policy issue. We need to ensure that the regulatory and legislative framework provides trust to consumers eating food off the plate. They need to know that what they buy in the supermarket is what it says on the label.
The incident involving Findus UK is instructive. I am speaking today because, when I asked the Secretary of State a question yesterday, his answer led me to believe that he was not in possession of the facts. On this occasion, I have a reasonable suspicion that it was not his fault. I think at best it was because very clever crisis public relations people had obfuscated the facts, but it might also be possible that people have been deliberately withholding the facts from the Secretary of State and his Department. In order to make my case, I need to go through the timeline of events.
I want one thing to come out of my contribution: for the Secretary of State and his team to redouble their efforts when they scrutinise what happened at Findus. In the past 24 hours, since yesterday’s Question Time, I have assembled a timeline of what I think happened. On Tuesday 29 January, Findus Group received initial test results from the Eurofins lab in Germany suggesting that horsemeat DNA had entered its beef lasagne products. By Wednesday 30 January, Findus UK had decided to quarantine the beef lasagne in its wholesale warehouses. At some point over the next few days, it would have had confirmation of the initial lab results. Experts in the industry tell me that would usually happen within 48 hours, so I am working on the assumption that it had confirmation of the test results by Thursday 31 January.
On Saturday 2 February, Comigel wrote to Findus UK asking it to withdraw its beef lasagne products, explaining that it could not guarantee the integrity of the supply chain of its products from as early as the previous August. It wanted its beef products withdrawn. On Monday 4 February, Findus communicated this information to major UK retailers, and I understand that the big retailers started to withdraw those products late on Monday evening. The rest of us understood that on Wednesday 6 February, because The Sun revealed it in a news report. Late afternoon on Thursday 7 February, the company confirmed that its beef lasagne products contained horsemeat. On Friday morning, my researcher in West Bromwich bought a Findus frozen lasagne in a shop in my constituency—so they were still available to my constituents—and yesterday the Secretary of State announced that on Saturday 9 February he had a conversation with Leendert den Hollander, the boss of the sister company to Findus UK, Young’s.
From that timeline arise several searching questions that we need to put to Findus, and I would like to share them with the remaining Ministers on the Front Bench. I know that they cannot answer them straight away, but I would like to get them on the record. First, given that the company had a reasonable suspicion that its supply chain was contaminated—or whatever word we want to use—on Tuesday 29 January, why did it not issue an immediate withdrawal of products, a product recall and a refund strategy for its customers? These were frozen goods that people stored in their freezers to eat at some point in the future, so the refund strategy would have been important.
The test results were obviously important enough to the company for it to decide to quarantine products as early as Wednesday, but not for it to remove products from the retail section. On what day did the lab results confirm beyond doubt that there was horsemeat in Findus food? That would have been the day when any company adhering to basic forms of corporate social responsibility would have pressed the red button. The company said that it was informed, in writing on Saturday 2 February by Comigel that its supply chain was contaminated. When was it told by telephone and/or e-mail? Finally, given that the company was told on Saturday 2 February that its second and third-tier suppliers could not guarantee the ingredients in the product, why did it not urgently and immediately issue a product recall on the Saturday, but instead leave it until the Monday evening?
Why do I think this is important? I honestly say to both Front-Bench teams that our respective views of the markets do not matter here—obviously, Ministers and I will differ about the markets—because even the driest economist and greatest adherent of laissez faire in the market would still consider this a market failure that needed addressing. On my side of the political and economic debate, this is probably the most perfect example of predatory capitalism I have ever seen. Findus UK was a company in crisis. Private equity investors took possession of the company a few years ago, started putting pressure on the supply chain and refinanced the company. I think that that pressure led to corporate failure and its failure to do the right thing.
This is how capitalism eats its young. It gobbles up our money and our health, it scoffs down our dignity and our children’s safety. We eat whatever it puts in the box, and it calls it whatever it likes. I say “we”, but that does not include one man, and his name is Mr Dale Morrison, who right now is sitting on the 43rd floor of his Manhattan offices on Wall street, failing to get a grip of the biggest food fraud this country has probably ever seen. That is a failure of capitalism, whatever side of the House we sit on.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The Chair of the Select Committee was quite right when she said that when the matter was first identified in Ireland about four weeks ago two separate issues were conflated: first, the small amount of contamination of beef products by another species, which was clearly an example of negligence or poor management; and, secondly, the discovery that a beef product contained 29% horsemeat, which was clearly the result of deliberate fraud in order to make an exorbitant profit. It was then, and is now, clear that this was a criminal activity and must be treated as such, but that was not seized upon by Irish officials early enough in the process.
Illegal meat trading has been a widespread and persistent crime, but because of the regulation in this country it has been largely or totally eliminated. It is noticeable that the problems we are now facing have their origin outside the UK. We know that criminal gangs involved in smuggling goods, including drugs, and people trafficking are also likely to be involved in illegal meat trading. The profits are high and the penalties usually moderate. Apart from the adulteration of meat, other forms of criminal activity include introducing unfit meat that has been condemned for human consumption back into the human food chain. Bushmeat has also been illegally imported into this country, although that has largely been eliminated by the use of sniffer dogs at Heathrow. These are all criminal activities.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware, but we ran the UK bushmeat campaign almost a decade ago. When I took precisely that issue—bushmeat coming in through British airports and into Dalston market—to Tim Smith, the then chief executive of the FSA, he positively refused to do anything about it.
Roger Williams
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman and I know he was very active in this matter. Indeed, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill in this House to reorganise the port authorities and get a better grip on the issue.
The Secretary of State was right to say that it is the responsibility of retailers to guarantee proper descriptions and the safety of their products, but there must be a co-ordinated effort to stamp out this crime. It is up to the retailers, the Food Standards Agency, trading standards, port authorities, the European Food Safety Agency and, in particular, the police, including Europol, to work together to root out these offences. I cannot emphasise enough the role of the police and their investigative skills in working across borders to combat this trade.
Although I am confident that tests will show that such products are not harmful to health, until we can trace the origin of the horsemeat, we cannot say with any certainty that it is safe. Safety depends on traceability, and traceability means being able to follow the food chain from the owner of the animal and its transportation to the abattoir to where the carcase was broken down into joints and mince and sold.
Jake Berry
We take traceability extremely seriously in Rossendale and Darwen, where we have many livestock farmers. The encouraging part of this crisis is the increase in trade with local butchers, who offer the best way of knowing where one’s meat has come from. Whitehead’s in Edgworth, Riley’s in Crawshawbooth and Turner’s in Darwen are all butchers selling locally produced meat—one can look out of the window and see the animals.
Roger Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that; I may come to a similar point later. He is quite right. Indeed, I should have declared an interest, as I am a livestock farmer producing beef, and I can surely tell everybody that the amount of paperwork and records that need to be kept are now proving their worth, because we can demonstrate that British food is safe and good to eat.
The key is finding out at what stage wrongly described horsemeat was introduced into the food chain. We know that the food chain is extremely long, complicated and convoluted, but we do not yet know where the horsemeat was introduced. We therefore do not know who the victims of the fraud are and who the perpetrators are. Until we can find out, we will not complete the work. However, it is worth reflecting on the fact that the ultimate victims of the fraud are, as always, the consumers, who have been duped into eating a product that they did not wish to eat.
The excellent traceability in the UK food industry means that meat produced and sold as British in the UK is safe and unadulterated. It is easy properly to identify a piece of sirloin, a steak or, indeed, a piece of oxtail, but that is much more difficult with processed and ready-meal products. Labelling is problematic, because there might be many different foods from different sources in different countries, put together in different proportions in one product. In the long term, lessons must be learned, particularly about regulating the food chain across borders.
To respond to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), in the short term, using one’s local butcher is probably best—I could mention a number of butchers, but I shall not as I would probably miss out one or two worthy local tradespeople. For a long time, they have had to compete against large supermarkets that have once again shown that their first interest is serving their shareholders, rather than their consumers and suppliers. It is time to repay our local butchers with our custom.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
We have heard a lot in this important debate about producer interests. I want to detain the House for a few minutes to talk about the interests of consumers and to remind the House that, even as we speak, there are mums—and dads, too—hovering over the frozen food cabinets of their corner shops, supermarkets or favourite frozen food stores, looking at their favourite processed meat product and saying, “Is this what it says it is? Is it even safe?” For those ordinary mums and dads up and down the country, it is not enough for Ministers to hide behind this or the other quango, as this horsemeat scandal has clear public health implications—possible implications, but implications none the less. There is a public health dimension, so responsibility falls fairly and squarely on Government.
We are relieved in the House today to understand that at this point there is no evidence that antibiotics or other drugs have entered the food chain. That is what we know today, but we know from previous food scandals that what we know this week may change week on week. It is the public health aspect that makes this an issue for Government. It is the public’s belief—it is a belief as old as the Chamber itself—that when it comes to the adulteration of foodstuffs, whether it is watered-down milk in the Victorian era or horsemeat in lasagne in 2013, they can look to Government to take some responsibility.
The other point to make is that we should not forget that this scandal affects the very poorest in our community and their children. Who, really, is eating £1 lasagne and so-called value burgers? Who buys those things, except the very poorest in communities such as mine? Often they feed them to children. I hear people saying, “Oh, you’d have to eat an awful lot of these things for there to be any discernible effect on your health,” but I put it to Ministers, who might not be aware of this, that there are families in communities such as mine who eat an awful lot of cheap, processed food. They deserve absolute assurances about its quality, not Ministers hiding behind quangos.
It must concern anyone taking an interest in this debate that the whistle was blown not by the Food Standards Agency in England, but by the Food Safety Authority in Ireland. What does that say about the processes and procedures in the British Isles? There are issues with the break-up and reorganisation of the FSA and the loss of trading standards officers locally. Serious issues have also been raised for some time about the cuts to the Meat Hygiene Service, so for Ministers to say that the ultimate responsibility lies somewhere else is not something that the British public accept or believe for a second. It is no coincidence that this issue has been headline news for some days in the British media, whether they ostensibly support the Government or not. I believe that it will continue to be headline news until it plays itself out, because historically there has been no issue of greater concern to British families than the quality of the food that they eat.
A fundamental issue arising from the horsemeat scandal is the price of cheap food. All along the food chain, relentless pressure has been exerted for decades to drive down costs at the farm gate, and at production, manufacturing and retail levels. There are obviously sections of the British community who cannot afford expensive products, but the main pressure on costs comes from the massive retail chains.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The consequence of driving down costs has been to drive down quality as well. Is it not invidious that some products being sold as beef have never come into contact with a cow?
Ms Abbott
I entirely agree. The pressure on costs inevitably means pressure on quality. Instead of cutting back institutions such as the Meat Hygiene Service and reorganising and destabilising the FSA, the Government should be putting more resources and effort into guaranteeing the quality of food, right down to the cheapest products being bought by the poorest members of our communities.
Ms Abbott
I will not; I want to make some progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) made an important point that relates to my points about pressures on costs and business pressures. He mentioned the delay in Findus withdrawing its products. It seems to be the case that Findus delayed withdrawing its products until after the weekend so that it could move another 100,000 units and bolster its profits. This is what I mean about the pressures; they are inimical to ensuring that our people can purchase a quality product, even at the lowest cost. My hon. Friend referred to the chief executive officer of Findus, Dale Morrison. Even as we are debating the issue in Parliament and our constituents are wondering whether the processed meat product of their choice is safe, he is sitting in his skyscraper in Manhattan, apparently oblivious to our cares so long as he can see the share price of Findus going in the right direction.
There are public health questions that need to be answered. The quality of our foodstuffs is too important a matter to be left to the moral sense of private equity predators. I believe that this issue has a long way to run. The Government should not be hiding behind civil servants or quangos. They must accept their moral responsibility for the quality of the food that our people purchase in the shops, and for any possible threat to public health.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). In many ways, I shall continue the theme that she has introduced, albeit possibly from a different perspective. There are many other Members who know a lot more than I do about traceability and supply chain management, but I have done quite a lot of work on the food system as a whole.
Let us be frank: we are facing a crisis in the food system. The crisis relates not to the replacement horsemeat that we are discussing today. That is just one of the symptoms of the crisis relating to the cost of food. The food system, particularly in this country, is designed around cheap food. That is a business model that has developed over many decades, and it is because that model is changing that we are now seeing fraud within the system.
In the UK, food prices have risen dramatically over the past five years. The 32% increase in that period is double the EU average, and the problem is going to get worse. In April, we are likely to see a significant price increase owing to the American drought. The Russians have been imposing intermittent restrictions on exports, and it is extremely worrying that Ukraine, which has signed a debt swap with the Chinese, is seeking to secure that debt swap with its food commodities. Ukraine has been acting as Europe’s traditional hedging supplier for cost reduction in raw commodities.
The crisis is that the era of cheap food is now over. We all need to put in place policies and strategies to achieve the difficult result of smoothing the transition to a higher-priced food sector and ensuring that, despite the price rises, the families the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was talking about will be able to feed themselves with quality food and be sure that the food they are putting on their tables is what it says on the package.
I have not heard the Opposition put forward any strategies to address the fundamental issue that we are facing globally. Let me put some thoughts on that to the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). First, the supermarkets —and possibly we politicians—must start to be straight with the public about rising food prices. Maybe after this disaster we will start to face up to the realities. It is not the supermarkets or the manufacturers that are absorbing the price rises; it is the consumers. Horsemeat replacement products are the result of a flawed business model, in that that has been seen as the only way to square the ludicrous circle of having cheap food in the shops and rocketing food prices in the supply chain.
Consumers are suffering not only from fraudulent food but from the substitution of the best ingredients with what some people call “arterial Polyfilla”. The £1 cottage pie in the local freezer shop that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington mentioned might have been the same price for the past five years, but will it still have the same contents? Will it contain less meat and have more high-fructose corn syrup, which some people call “heart attack central”? Packaging is also absorbing more price rises. Are people aware of how much fresh air they are buying in their cereal packets? Also, 60% of all products in supermarkets are now on promotion, but some of those promotions are misleading, as Which?, published by the Consumers Association, has rightly highlighted in its report on food promotions.
I am sure that the Government are now taking a new look at food policy. Over the past 15 years, they have more or less devolved the relationship between the consumer and food to the supermarkets. That has never been right, but it cannot now continue. We need to re-engineer our food policy around consumers, not around producers or retailers. We need to move from a “cheap as chips” model to one in which we value food. The new food cost reality might ultimately be better for the public and for our producers, but the transition is already very painful.
When I talk to the poorest families in my constituency, they tell me that they cannot afford to go to the supermarket any more. I might as well ask them whether they go to Harvey Nichols or Harrods. They get their food from pound shops, Aldi, Lidl, corner shops and street markets. Chips from the takeaway with ketchup or brown sauce will be dinner for the family.
Some of our strategies are interesting. They cover cooking and eating more healthily. Change for Life is a fantastic health programme in this country. The problem is, however, that Change for Life as a message is difficult when some of my families do not have enough time to change their clothes and they are in many ways intimidated by the thought of that type of proposition.
Mr Tom Harris
I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech a great deal, but I wonder where she is going with it. It is not necessarily a bad thing—I just wondered whether I could pre-empt the point she is perhaps coming on to. She said that we have to be realistic about the value of food. I felt that she was preparing us all to pay more for our food. How does that equate with her obvious sympathy with the poorest families in her constituency? How will they manage to make that leap if incomes stay as low as they are?
Laura Sandys
I think that that is a false choice. The issue is that we have stopped valuing, understanding and being able to use food. One thing has been a huge asset: this week, the Secretary of State for Education announced that food preparation and food cooking will be part of the national curriculum. Through such moves, we are creating a more resilient public. We cannot get away from the fact that global food prices are rising. We must support the poorest families in that transition. I do not believe that we need to eat less well, despite the rise in the food prices. What we need to do is to have greater transparency, much more resilience and greater skills to be able to use food more effectively.
Poorer families will be making cheaper choices, so it is crucial that labelling is transparent. Where is the flash on that cottage pie saying “30% less meat”? Government also need to look at tightening some of the regulations on food promotion. Products that are less expensive are going on promotion at more expensive prices. Retailers are shortening the period in which a product needs to be on full price before a discount is a true discount. That is another form of consumers absorbing price rises, but not absorbing them transparently.
We need not just a summit on food safety, but a commission on our whole food system, focusing on the consumer and ensuring that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the public who are going to have to manage the painful transition from a “cheap as chips” food model to a more expensive one. Families should be able to feed themselves as well in the new model if we provide the support and ensure that the retailers do not try to pretend that nothing has changed.
Burying our heads in the sand has got us to where we are now. Customers have had to face either lack of transparency or the actual experience of food fraud. Horsemeat in my view is only the beginning of this food crisis, if we do not face up to the realities of rising food prices and become the champion of the consumer.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate the shadow DEFRA Front-Bench team on pursuing this issue relentlessly and on choosing it as a topic for today’s debate. We had a statement yesterday, but there is a lot more to be thrashed out on this issue. I therefore greatly welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate.
This issue is important not only because it has exposed the scandal of horsemeat adulterating our food chain, but because of the spotlight it throws on the meat industry more generally—what Felicity Lawrence referred to in The Guardian on Saturday as
“the hidden unsavoury food world, in which live animals are transported vast distances across borders for slaughter, before being shipped back again in blocks of frozen offcuts that may be stored for months on end before being ground down to unrecognisable ingredients in our everyday meals”.
Lord Haskins, a farmer and the former chairman of Northern Foods—someone who definitely knows his topic—has warned that there is “endemic, institutional fraud” in the food industry. It is not enough to get to the bottom of whether there is hitherto unidentified horsemeat—or is it donkey?—in meat products on sale in the UK, or to discover whether halal products are contaminated with pork; we need to look at the whole meat industry because who knows what other scandals have yet to come to light?
We are all familiar with the past controversy about beef hormones in our meat and the EU ban in the wake of mad cow disease some years ago. Some may be familiar, too, with the more recent controversy in the USA over what the meat industry likes to refer to as “lean finely textured beef” or “boneless lean beef trimmings”. That may sound fine, but this is more commonly known as “pink slime”, which sounds much less appetising. It is used as a filler in beef products and is produced by processing low-grade beef trimmings, cartilage, connective tissue and sinew, and mechanically separating the lean beef from the fat by heating it to 100° F.
Kerry McCarthy
That is very much the point I am making. It is so important for people to know what goes into their food, but there is a conspiracy to keep that information from people.
Barry Gardiner
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have just concluded a consultation on the EU food information for consumers regulation, under which they are asking for a derogation so that they do not have to reveal that information on the label to the public in Britain? Mince, which is not allowed to be sold with 35% and 15% respectively of fat and collagen in it, will not be allowed to be sold on the continent, but it will be sold in Britain under that derogation.
Kerry McCarthy
Exactly. I raised that very issue with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs yesterday, and I have to say from his response that it looked as if it was the first he had heard of it; he simply said that we rely on scientific advice, which I think is scandalous.
I am just halfway through my description of the process involved in producing pink slime. The recovered beef material is then processed, heated and treated with gaseous ammonia or citric acid to kill bacteria. It is then finely ground, compressed into pellets, flash frozen and shipped for use as an additive. There was a public outcry over this issue a while ago, and we saw Jamie Oliver appearing on American TV decrying its use. There was a real backlash, and companies such as McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell announced that they would discontinue its use. There was also an outcry about it appearing in meals in the public sector, and promises were made that that would no longer happen. Once consumers knew that there was pink slime in their food, they did not want it and wanted the meat industry to stop producing it.
There is also a substance that has become colloquially known as “white slime” in meat products. It is officially known as “mechanically separated meat” or “mechanically recovered meat”. This is the product most likely to be used in highly processed meat products such as burgers or pies. It is a paste-like product produced by forcing beef, pork, turkey or chicken under high pressure through a sieve to get every last little scrap of meat off the bone. Questions have been raised about its safety and some have argued there should be limits on how much of it should be used in a food product—for example, no more than 20% is allowed in hot dogs. The fact is, however, that consumers do not realise that this is in their hot dogs. Finally, there is advanced meat recovery, which separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving or pressing the meat from the bone—again, typically used in hot dogs.
Let me quote what John Harris said in an excellent article in yesterday’s The Guardian—it may sound a bit of a cliché to keep quoting this newspaper, but it is not particularly fond of vegetarians generally. He said that EU regulations insist that if a product is to be called “meat”, it has to be
“skeletal muscle with naturally included or adherent fat and connective tissue”.
He said that our Food Standards Agency insists that economy beefburgers must contain at least 40% of this product, which must come from cows. That is not very reassuring; I think people expect their beefburgers to have beef in them, not cartilage, fat and connective tissue.
In talking about the relentless search for profits from cheap food, John Harris cited a Financial Times article saying that Findus products came from a factory in Luxembourg, which was supplied with meat by a company in south-west France, which had acquired frozen meat from a Cypriot trader that had subcontracted the order to a trader in the Netherlands—who was then supplied from an abattoir and butcher located in Romania. As John Harris says, how messed up has our food system become? All this is a far cry from the sort of meat that many Members praised during yesterday’s statement on horsemeat. The advisability of buying local meat from a local farm sold by a local butcher was highlighted, where the path from the pasture to the plate is a matter of public record. Indeed, I have heard people saying that they take local sourcing so far that they even know the name of the cow they are consuming.
It is very easy to say that, and in ideal world, people would be looking to buy organically reared locally produced products, but that is very expensive. Yes, it can be said that people should try to cook their own food and source it locally instead of buying ready-made meals, but I am sure many MPs grab a ready meal from Tesco or Marks and Spencer on their way home after a vote. We should not be too judgmental about people who turn to value ranges and ready-made meals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said. If someone has only a couple of pounds left in their purse and there is a £1 lasagne ready meal or an eight-pack of Tesco economy burgers left in the shop, they will buy one of those rather than buying the mince, the sheets of pasta, the flour, the butter, the tomatoes, the herbs and the cheese that they would need to make lasagne from scratch. Many people do not even have the necessary cooking facilities in any case. I have seen single men in my constituency living in bedsits with just a microwave for cooking.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
This should not seem like rocket science to the hon. Lady. If I told her that I could flog her a cheap telly, she would think to herself, “There must be something wrong with that TV.” It does not strike me as much of an extension of that argument to suggest that if those processed meat products are so much cheaper than other products, their quality will not be the same.
Kerry McCarthy
Sometimes people simply do not have a choice between buying the slightly dodgy knock-off cheap telly that has probably come off the back of a lorry and going to one of the high street shops and buying a top-of-a-range brand. That is the point that I am trying to make. People may well know that what they are eating is not as good as the organic produce that is sold in, for instance, The Better Food Company, an organic supermarket in Bristol, but they do not have the option of going there. As I have said, even if people had enough money to buy more than one day’s food and could plan ahead and try to cook their own meals, they would still not be buying premium “best of British” mince. They would be buying the sort of mince that was mentioned just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and about which I asked the Secretary of State yesterday. If the Government manage to find their way around European Union regulations, that mince could be up to 50% fat and collagen, and other substances that are not meat, without the consumer’s being any the wiser.
We need to get the message across to Government Members. We are living in a world in which people’s cost of living is being squeezed from all sides. Their incomes and benefits are being cut, their rents are going up, and fuel prices, fares and food prices are rising. Obviously they will buy the packet of eight Tesco value burgers for £1, because they have no other option. According to statistics released last week by Mintel, the market research company, some 30% of consumers now buy budget ranges, as opposed to just one in five back in 2008. We cannot insist that everyone should buy the premium, locally sourced, top-of-the-range products, because some people simply cannot afford to do that. The important point, surely, is that all food should be of a decent quality, and all consumers should know what is in their food.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Kerry McCarthy
I am about to end my speech.
That is the Government’s responsibility, and I was shocked by the Secretary of State’s complacency when he answered questions earlier. He is being very slow to act, but very quick to abdicate all responsibility and say that this is a matter for the Food Standards Agency. That is just not good enough. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that people have trust in the food that they eat.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I shall have to lower the speaking limit to seven minutes in order to enable everyone to speak. Members will keep intervening!
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is slightly challenging to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who produced one of the best cases for vegetarianism that I have ever heard.
I fear that I shall veer off into some specifics, given my experience of working for a passport-issuing organisation and the fact that I understand just a little about the way in which horse passports are issued and the value or otherwise of the national equine database. I apologise in advance if what I say becomes a bit too specific for Members, but I think that that the House needs clarification of the problems and benefits of horse passports and also of the function of the database, which did nothing to assist traceability and the establishment of what drugs might or might not have been given to equines. However, I agree with the Secretary of State that the most important aspect of all this is public health and public confidence in our foodstuffs.
I entirely endorse the policy of 100% testing of the carcases of horses that have been slaughtered in the United Kingdom for phenylbutazone, or bute. It is impossible to establish whether a horse has been fed bute by looking at its passport. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) suggested that horses might have been injected with bute, but only very rarely is the substance administered intravenously. It is fed to horses in feedstuff. Not only is the possibility of cross-contamination incredibly likely, but bute is a very useful drug which is often given to horses that are elderly or slightly lame. It prolongs their useful life, and enables them to enjoy a better quality of life.
Bute is also extremely cheap, which means that, among both veterinary surgeons and horse owners, it is incredibly popular. If the life of a much-loved family pony can be extended by a further five or 10 years by one sachet of bute a day, those sachets will be administered. However, therein lies some of the problem. Bute is readily available from veterinary surgeons. While I would not suggest that horse owners are irresponsible, if a ready supply is prescribed for one horse—as might happen in the case that I have identified—what is to prevent me from giving it to another horse?
I have here a wonderful British horse passport, which should provide a complete veterinary record of every drug and vaccination given to that much-loved pony, but there is no record of its ever having been given bute in its life. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the horse passport system will somehow inform those at the slaughterhouse of whether the pony has been given bute or not.
I commend the last Government for introducing the horse passport regulations, and for tightening them in 2009 with the introduction of microchipping. That was an important step forward, However, it is important to remember that the microchipping of foals was compulsory only from 2009 onwards. The odds of any horse over the age of four or five being chipped are fairly long. A competition horse that is regularly used and transported around the country, if it has been measured by the Joint Measurement Board, will have been microchipped, but that is unlikely to apply to an ordinary pony that has stood in the New Forest for many years of its life, or has been kept at home and not used in competitions. A horse that is presented for slaughter may or may not have a microchip.
The hon. Member for Wakefield said that it was perfectly legal to buy a microchip on the internet for 12p. That is true, but it is illegal to insert the chip into an equine. The check is there, but I would argue that it is much more common for horses to be presented at UK slaughterhouses without a microchip, and with a passport that may or may not have come from a recognised stud book. I can show the House two passports. One is fully pukka, and has come from a fantastic, historic equine charity—the oldest in the country—and the other is Irish, for a beast that has been through goodness knows how many sales in Ireland. However, it is the British passport that does not show that drugs have been administered, and the Irish one that does.
Let me now say something about the national equine database. There are some 1.3 million horses in the United Kingdom, some of which were registered on the database and some of which were not. I do not know whether the hon. Lady ever looked at NED, but I did. It had a fantastic competition record, but it did not show where a horse had been kept, what drugs had been administered or what the horse had been used for. There was simply no way of telling.
I personally lament the loss of NED because I cannot establish whether a competition record has been recorded accurately and therefore cannot boast about the potential and ability of a pony, but did the database show where I kept the pony? No. There are 10,000 licensed livery yards in the UK and many more unlicensed yards, and only about 70% of those 1.3 million horse owners keep their horses at home. There are, of course, all the other horses all around the country which may be in racehorse training or may be show jumpers or eventers. NED was utterly useless at showing where a horse was at any one time and what drugs had been administered to it.
I have made the plea that we should not necessarily regard phenylbutazone as an evil. It is not; it is a very useful drug. However, we must ensure that it is not in the human food chain, and the only way to do that is to adopt 100% testing. I would argue that given what has gone on abroad, all meat coming into this country should be tested. Who knows what has happened in Romanian slaughterhouses, and in slaughterhouses in other parts of the continent?
I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) is no longer present, because I think that she has done some fantastic work on the transport of live animals and on live exports, which I think play a massive part in this debate. We must reach a point—although who knows how it can be achieved with the European Union?—at which animals are transported for far shorter distances and are not crossing an entire continent, and we can consider not only food traceability and safety but the welfare of those animals.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). As a former Minister for the horse, I remember the early days of horse passports. I always had my doubts that they would be able to do the job in relation to bute, and the hon. Lady has ably illustrated that they could not.
Perhaps there has been no better time at which to be a food criminal. This is a time of deep economic recession across Europe. The food supply chain is extraordinarily complex, too, with swift transit of goods and products across international borders and multiple regulatory frameworks on composition, safety and labelling, and in Romania there was the sudden enforcement of a recent law to remove horses and carts from the country’s roads.
Let us be clear: this scandal has involved the most extraordinary degree of corporate blindness. Tim Smith is the former chief executive of the FSA and is now head of food security at Tesco. He had the affront to tell the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 30 January that he thought this was a rogue event and that FSA Ireland chanced to do DNA testing on precisely the day when a rogue consignment of horsemeat just happened to be present. What is most extraordinary is not his pathetic naivety, but the fact that he is still in his job at Tesco two weeks later.
We know that excuses that begin with the words “Just one rogue trader” or “Just one rogue reporter” have an unhappy history. What Tesco sought to dismiss as just one bad day at the abattoir has now infected almost every major retailer not only in the UK, but across the continent: Tesco, Iceland. Aldi, Co-op and Lidl are joined by Carrefour, Casino, Auchan and Monoprix.
The supply chain for processed meat products was ripe for criminal activity. Findus in the UK was supplied by Comigel in France, which supplies retailers in 16 countries. The contaminated Findus products came from the Comigel factory in Luxembourg, but the meat came from south-west France, from a company called Spanghero, whose parent company is Poujol, which acquired the meat from Cypriot traders, who in turn had subcontracted the sourcing of the meat to a trader in the Netherlands. We are told this trader had sourced meat from an abattoir and butcher in Romania.
Interestingly, this information came not from our UK Secretary of State, but from France’s consumer affairs Minister, Benoît Hamon. In France, many people eat horse, of course, but just like we Rosbifs, they do not want to eat horse when they are paying for, and think that they are eating, beef.
More than 25 abattoirs in Romania are properly licensed to butcher and export horsemeat, but it must be properly labelled as horse. The key question in this fraud is at what point in the complex food chain did someone wilfully take off a label saying “horse” and replace it with a label saying “beef.” Today’s motion rightly calls on the Government to ensure that police and fraud specialists investigate that criminality.
Roger Williams
The hon. Gentleman is right to want to identify the point at which the fraud took place, but more than one person will have been involved, as this is likely to have been an extremely complex and well-organised operation.
Barry Gardiner
I entirely agree, and that is why I am very pleased that the shadow Secretary of State has called on the Serious Fraud Office to look at this matter, as it has the remit and ability to address such complex cases.
How is it that all these supermarkets across Europe so singularly failed to identify the risk of substitution and contamination of their processed meat products? After all, these are the very supermarkets that drive our farmers to despair when they reject whole consignments of perfectly good fruit and vegetables because they are misshapen or blemished in some way. The point is not simply that supermarkets are unjust in their treatment of our farmers; they have the means and the will to do detailed and minute checks on their products when it is in their own interests to do so. Tesco and its ilk simply cared more that the pears they sold were the right conical shape than that the processed meat we bought was contaminated and of a different species than advertised.
Over the last decade, our UK farmers have done a magnificent job in improving animal welfare and food hygiene. The introduction of pride marks such as the red tractor scheme gives the public confidence that the food they are eating has a short supply chain and comes from local farmers who operate to the highest standards. Responsibility for food labelling policy lies with DEFRA. Its Ministers must now decide that food labels must clearly identify the country of origin. The lack of mandatory country of origin food labelling places British farmers at a disadvantage. British people want to buy British farm produce with confidence.
I have not always in the past quoted with total approval from Countryside Alliance press releases, but on this matter it is entirely right. It says:
“The lack of mandatory country of origin food labelling continues to place British farmers at a disadvantage when much of their competition comes from producers in countries, which are not subject to such robust animal welfare legislation and standards and the associated costs.”
On phenylbutazone or bute, the point is simply this: 156 tests were done last year, nine of which found the presence of bute, but 9,000 horses went through British abattoirs. On that ratio, some 520 carcases may well have been contaminated with bute—and, as the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, the tests might not have picked up all the horses with bute. There is an omission in the figures presented to us, too: we know the number of tests and the number of positives, but we do not know the number of prosecutions. If there were nine positive tests, why were there not nine positive prosecutions?
The FSA today announced its new system of positive release. The move away from a desk-based system of audit is welcome. In future, no horse carcase will be released for the food chain until it has been tested negative for bute. The FSA must have further powers, too, however. It must have the task of making risk-based assessments of the supply chain and of instructing supermarkets and retailers about the number of physical product checks that they must do on the basis of the volume they shift and the length and complexity of their supply chain. The FSA must also receive, as of right, all results from the tests that retailers carry out, whether under instruction from the FSA or on their own account.
I want to say one positive thing about what the Government are doing. We have heard in the past week that children will be taught at school how to cook. That is positive. They will no longer just put processed food in a microwave; they will be able to cook things from fresh produce for themselves. That will be a real advantage.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). Although he represents an urban constituency, he speaks with great knowledge and experience about the food industry, and has a reputation for doing so. May I also draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
This topic has not suddenly emerged over the past two and half years; the problem we are talking about today has been a long time coming, and therefore some of the comments from Opposition Members stick in my throat like a dodgy burger. They speak as if this Government have created this problem, but the entire situation has been changing since the second world war, when the proportion of cash an individual spent on their food bill was much larger than it is today. Then, families would have spent 60% of their income on food, but today that figure is much smaller and as such we have lost the context of how valuable our food is.
I drew an analogy with television, but we could say the same about car tyres. A person would never buy second-hand car tyres from someone offering them on the cheap, because they would instantly recognise that their individual safety could be at risk. However, we as consumers seem to have got into a position where we are happy to see the price of food fall and be driven down. We have lost the concept of how valuable our food is, and that has led us to the position we are in today.
The hon. Member for Brent North referred to the fact that the Education Secretary plans to reintroduce cooking and food to the curriculum, which is a great step forward. Two generations of consumer have lost contact with how food is produced and with how to cook raw product, and again, that is to the detriment of our food industry. If the Government can do anything, more education about how to cook food and deal with raw products will mean that consumers are able to buy better quality food for the same money if they learn to shop about and source food from the right places.
Today, UK agriculture finds itself in a different place from the rest of the world, but that is no fluke and comes from bitter experience. The BSE crisis in the UK taught the beef industry valuable lessons about consumer confidence and how the consumer needs to understand, know and have confidence in a product. Today we know that if we go to our local butcher, not only will they be able to sell us a very high-quality cut of meat or processed beefburger, but they will be able to identify the animal that the beefburger came from, as well as its mother and father. That is the level of traceability in the UK butchery industry today, and UK consumers should understand that. Certainly, when that is compared with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about the processed meat industry, and with some of the products sold as meat that normal people would not recognise as such, there is a strong message to deliver on behalf of the UK meat industry.
This is not rocket science: the shorter we make the chain, the easier it is to have such traceability, and labelling will be important as we move forward. We heard from the Opposition about how the labelling of our products should be more prominent, yet when they were in power, there were several private Members’ Bills and lobbying by the then Opposition to try to improve labelling and ensure that consumers understood where and how their food was being produced.
Simon Hart
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that in this instance there was nothing unclear about the labelling? It said beef but in fact it was horse.
Mr Spencer
Absolutely, and that is fundamental. Frankly, that could not happen in the UK because environmental health officers and trading standards officers are checking a paper trail that goes right back.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but surely the issue is about criminality, which is international. If a criminal changes the label, it does not matter whether the meat is British or comes from abroad; consumers will not have confidence.
Mr Spencer
I acknowledge that position, but my point is that given the traceability in the UK industry, the opportunity to change those labels is simply not there. Registered vets in every abattoir in the United Kingdom are watching the line and checking that the carcases are stamped and marked. They cannot be changed. When one buys what is basically a block of frozen meat from an international buyer, it is easy to pull off the label that says “beef” and slap on one that says something else, or reverse that process. That is a sad state of affairs.
Consumers want to know exactly what they are eating, but today we are in a position where I could set up my own little factory, buy in Brazilian chicken, make chicken pies in my kitchen, and sell them as Nottinghamshire chicken pie. We need to look more closely at the labelling process so that the industry tells consumers exactly what they are buying and where it has come from.
In the end, the consumer has the power and can choose where they source their products. They can choose to go to a supermarket or to a local, small and independent high-street butcher. They can shop around and make those decisions. I acknowledge that that becomes challenging right at the bottom, where people are struggling to make ends meet and to find the cash to buy those products. That is why we need a regulatory system that they can have confidence in, that they can support and that they acknowledge.
My final message is that this weekend, when people are thinking about what they want to have for dinner, they should go to their local butcher, look him in the eye and say, “Where has this animal come from? Tell me about it.” People will then be able to eat that dinner with confidence, knowing that they are buying good-quality, locally produced meat.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I just say to Mr Parish that he has five minutes, as we have to start the wind ups at 20 minutes to 4?
Neil Parish
May I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate?
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), who made some strong points about the traceability of the product in this country. From when animals are in the farmers’ field to the time they are slaughtered and processed, we know exactly where they have come from: the red tractor mark identifies farm assurance, giving us certainty that we are buying the right product and that it is beef.
I wish to say clearly to hon. Members that we have not suddenly got to this situation, as these things have been happening for years. I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years, serving on its agriculture committee. Time and again, we said, “We want greater traceability. We want to be able to follow these products across Europe. We want to be confident that it is not just a paper trail and that we actually have physical inspection of this meat and meat product.” None of that has happened. If there is a silver lining to this situation, it is that it is a wake-up call. We can therefore make sure we put in place a process whereby we identify the product and consumers can be absolutely confident that they are buying beef and not horsemeat.
That leads me on to the fact that what has been happening is fraud—it is criminal activity—as we should be able to buy a beefburger in the shops, even a cheap one, and have confidence in it. We have talked a great deal about educating people on how to cook meat, and that is a great step forward, but we have reached a stage where, rightly or wrongly, many more people eat processed food. We in this Chamber are not going to roll that back, so when a consumer buys a beefburger, even a cheap one, he or she should be confident that it contains beef and not horse.
People no longer want to spend their time cooking the types of meat we have used over the years—the slow-roasting joints and so on—or perhaps they do not have the time available, so much of that meat and meat product can go into cheaper burgers. There is therefore no excuse for what has been happening. I say clearly, making the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood did, that in 1970 we were spending more than 30% of our income on food whereas the figure now is about 12%. Although the percentage of their income that people are spending on food has dropped dramatically, they should still be able confident of what they eat.
We expect the food industry to stand up and be counted, and to be certain that the product it is selling is exactly what it says it is. We have seen supermarkets use a great deal of muscle in the past, and they will do so again, to try to drive prices down. In many ways, one could argue that that is of great benefit to the consumer, but that is only if the consumer gets a product they can trust and be confident in. We must be careful of the day when we go against all processed food, because processed food is not necessarily bad for us. If it is processed in the way it should be and it contains what it says it should on the label, we can eat it with confidence. We can do that if we are eating British food produced under our farm assured system.
I look forward to what the Minister is going to say in reply, because we now need to ensure that we have confidence in our food industry. We need to bring in a food labelling system that will clearly identify the country of origin of the principal meat ingredients in a processed product, so that we know where they come from and so that if we are concerned that they have come from other parts of Europe or across the world where we do not have the same confidence in the food chain, we will not buy that product. At the moment, we have only “processed in the EU” and “processed in the UK”, and we do not know where the principal ingredients came from. I urge Ministers, when they go to Europe, to make sure that we finally get proper labelling, so we can identify where our food came from. We can then act much more quickly to bring criminals to book. That is what they are: criminals who have put the wrong meat in a burger, which may bring problems. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
This has been an important and well-informed debate, and I wish to thank some Members individually for taking part. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) all made excellent speeches.
There can be few subjects more important to us as individuals than what we eat and what we feed to our children and family. I am only sorry that the Secretary of State was too busy to listen to a single speech made after his own.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
It is important that I put it on the record that the Secretary of State is having the phone meeting with the Dutch Minister that he mentioned to the House. It is also important that we make those connections.
Mr Harris
I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman reappearing in the Chamber, but I am grateful to the Minister of State for that clarification. I know that the Secretary of State has a busy schedule—he told us so. He said that he was meeting again today with the food industry, his second such meeting in four days. I thought that might be the meeting that took him away from the Chamber, and I would have congratulated him, but I realised that today’s meeting was not convened at short notice, or even as a response to the horsemeat scandal; it was convened last October to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to talk about waste and genetically modified food. It is good to see that, at least when it comes to his diary, the right hon. Gentleman has no problem with changing the label.
It is vital that we as consumers have full confidence that what we are eating is exactly what is stated on the packet and that Ministers are fighting our corner, but consumers watching the Secretary of State’s performance today and his statement yesterday will not have been encouraged. Many questions remain unanswered, so I hope that the Minister of State will answer them in his response. Some of them were asked yesterday but were left unanswered or were ignored by the right hon. Gentleman, who felt unable to answer them even today.
The Secretary of State told the House yesterday that he first became aware of the horsemeat problem on 15 January. Early in his statement, he said:
“On 15 January, the FSA was notified by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland of the results of its survey of processed beef products”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 608.]
Will the Minister of State clarify whether that communication on 15 January was the first time the FSA was aware that such tests were taking place? Was the FSA contacted by the Irish authorities at any time between mid-November and 15 January to alert the FSA to the fact that concerns about the adulteration of beef had sparked an analysis? If so, when was that first contact made? Were Ministers told at the outset? If not, why not?
I did not pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) at the start of my speech because I wanted to make special mention of her terrific speech, which the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North described as an excellent advert for vegetarianism. I tried vegetarianism once, but gave up after about a month because I really cannot stand mushrooms. After the statement yesterday, my hon. Friend asked a sensible question, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North repeated today, about an EU regulation that would limit to 50% the amount of fat and connective tissue that can be used to bulk up mincemeat. She asked about reports that the Government are seeking a derogation from that regulation. The Secretary of State dismissed her in an extremely curt and arrogant manner, which I am sure he, being a gentleman, now regrets. Will the Minister of State now answer that question? Are the Government seeking to exempt the UK from a measure that is aimed specifically at protecting the rights of consumers?
I know the Minister of State, who will respond to the debate, takes a keen interest in the Food Standards Agency. I know that because he told the “Food Programme” on Sunday not once, but twice, “I can only go on the information given to me by the Food Standards Agency.” Fine. Good. So will he now accept the advice of the chief executive of the FSA, who has said that retailers
“need to test significantly across the product range, across wider meat-based product ranges”?
She was talking about chicken and pork products. Will the Minister, who prides himself on listening to the advice of the FSA, heed her advice? Do the Government have a view on this at all? [Interruption.] The Minister will get his chance to respond. He does love to chunter from a sedentary position. I spent two years on the Science and Technology Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and he was a veritable ray of sunshine during those many overseas visits. He was great company and I have to say that he seems to have gone into an awful bad mood since he went on to the Government Front Bench. I am sure that after the next election—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure we want to get back on to the subject of horsemeat. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Minister has been eating it?
Mr Harris
I am getting back in the saddle right now, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Minister of State warned Members a few weeks ago that we should not talk down the British food industry, and he is right, but given the huge number of jobs that the industry supports and its importance to our economy does he recognise that the industry can be undermined by other factors? Does he accept that ministerial inaction and indecisiveness can be far more damaging to the industry?
In mid-November Irish authorities were concerned enough about contamination of meat products—sorry, adulteration of meat products—some of which were headed to the United Kingdom, that they initiated tests without, according to UK Ministers, informing the UK Government of their initial concerns. Four weeks ago Irish authorities alerted the UK Government that they had discovered horsemeat in burgers stocked in a number of UK supermarkets. Last Monday it was revealed that pies and pasties labelled as halal and served in UK prisons had tested positive for pig DNA. Last Thursday, reports emerged that the scandal had spread from frozen burgers to frozen ready meals.
Cue a sudden blur of belated action from the Secretary of State. On Saturday, he finally got round to meeting the British food industry to discuss the growing crisis. His food Minister had a least got round to meeting the industry before, once, one week previously. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said yesterday, “Crisis, what crisis?” At last, yesterday, the Secretary of State deigned to come to the House to berate Opposition Members for having the audacity to question him about this mess. As with the ash dieback issue, he has taken a very laid-back and relaxed approach to the issue—an attitude that, I have to tell him, is not shared by British consumers and their families.
When sales fall, when confidence in our food industry plummets, no doubt Ministers will reach for the nearest microphone to decry “scare mongering” by Opposition politicians. Who knows? Perhaps an unfortunate young relation of the Secretary of State will be encouraged to eat a Findus lasagne live on telly! But it will not be those on the Opposition Benches who are responsible for the collapse in trust. Consumers, yes, and voters well know where the blame lies.
A number of Members have highlighted the lack of an active criminal investigation. When pressed on this yesterday by my colleague, the shadow Secretary of State, the Secretary of State said that
“she went on and on about the police”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 613.]
Really? Does the Secretary of State really think that such a patronising and condescending manner is the way to win support in the House on such an issue? May I suggest to the Secretary of State and to his deputy that a bit of humility would not go amiss? I say this as a non-practitioner myself, but I hear it works wonders. Even if ministerial action had so far been above criticism, such a manner would be inappropriate, and Ministers’ actions so far have been far from being above criticism.
The shadow Secretary of State was right to go on about the police. The Secretary of State himself has repeatedly stated that the adulteration is a result of “an international criminal conspiracy” and “a straight fraud”. In line with this, the Irish Government confirmed on Monday 4 February that the Garda and fraud specialists had been called in to investigate.
The shadow Secretary of State passed the details of more British companies alleged to be involved in the scandal to the Serious Organised Crime Agency last Friday and to the FSA on Saturday. On the same Friday, the FSA revealed that the police were involved, but that no live criminal investigation was active. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that until there was criminal action in this country, the police could not take action. Is that really the case? Will he confirm that he thinks criminals are present everywhere in Europe except the United Kingdom?
I delayed reference to the first-class and powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I want to echo some of her comments. I hope we will not use this debate and crisis as an excuse to tax supermarkets, which, despite their drawbacks, have made affordable, quality food available to ordinary families throughout the country. However, with massive retail power comes huge responsibility—to make sure that the items sold are precisely as described as on the labels. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State echo that sentiment.
We all see the value of sourcing products locally. Many Members have understandably used this debate to promote local produce, but that is far too complacent—ignoring the realities of economic and time pressures on modern families, simply to advise consumers to buy the ingredients of lasagne in their corner shops rather than a ready meal at Asda or Tesco. It is also too easy for the Secretary of State to dismiss his responsibilities by saying repeatedly that retailers have ultimate responsibility for the content of food. Unless he wants the “F” removed from DEFRA, it is incumbent on him to carry out the responsibilities he already has.
I know that the Secretary of State believes in a laissez-faire form of government—he thinks that the Government should not get involved in the running of people’s lives. He seems to have taken that a step further, seeming to believe that the Government should not get involved in the running of the Government. The FSA is independent, but that does not prevent the Secretary of State’s from asking it what kind of testing it plans to carry out.
I shall wind up now, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are two types of Government: the one whose Ministers are so confident, competent and on top of their briefs that from the Opposition Benches government looks easy. Then there is the other type—the Government whose members never seem well briefed or surefooted, but always seem to be behind the curve, making the wrong decisions too late. Such a Government leave the Opposition with the distinct impression that almost anyone else could do a better job. There is no doubt about which category this Government fall into.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
In the few moments I have to respond, I should say that this has been a broadly measured and constructive debate, as is entirely appropriate on such a serious issue. It has occasionally been slightly marred by Opposition Front Benchers who wished to introduce a party political element and seemed blithely oblivious to the fact that the systems in place are now precisely the same as those under the previous Government.
My view is that this is a shared problem and shared response. The problem is shared between the Government, the House, the food companies and the regulators. It is now shared among countries across Europe that are either implicated or the victims of what may or may not be criminal behaviour. It is shared by the police and investigating authorities, which are now looking into what would appear to be—I make that qualification—significant and widespread criminality. I hope that we also share the conviction that there is only one group whose interests are paramount: the consumer, who has been cheated in having taken off the shelf something that was not what was described on the label.
Despite the occasional rhetorical swoops, there was sufficient common cause across the House. I have looked carefully at the Opposition motion, most of which is a recital of fact and therefore unexceptional. However, one part of it is wrong and suggests the Opposition’s current frame of mind. They call on the
“Government to ensure that police and fraud specialists investigate the criminal networks involved”.
It is not for the Government in this country to instruct the police on what they should investigate. It is certainly not for the Government in this country to place requirements on police authorities in other member states as to what they should investigate. On that basis, I invite my colleagues not to support the motion, but I will nevertheless acknowledge the extent to which we agree.
Let me deal with some of the individual contributions. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who I understand has had to go to a—
Mr Heath
No, because the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) took up all my time.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a very important issue that was mentioned by many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish): the importance of the traceability of meat in this country and the systems we have in place. It is incredibly important to emphasise that so far not the slightest suspicion has been raised that cut meat produced in this country is anything other than of very high quality indeed, and we should take some comfort from that.
The hon. Lady also mentioned trace contamination. We need to look at whether DNA contamination of less than 1% is anything other than environmental contamination that is below a certain threshold. We are taking advice on that, because it is very important that we do not suggest that something is adulterated when, for instance, it has merely been sitting on a butcher’s shelf next to the meat of another species. We have to be careful about that.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) raised some important points. I will look very carefully at what he said to see whether there is substance there that we need to pursue. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about fraud on a European scale and the importance of the police investigation. I absolutely agree.
The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) talked about the importance of the consumer, which I mentioned right at the beginning. She then drew some questionable conclusions in terms of public health, but I know that she did so because she wants for her constituents the same assurance that I want for mine. I want my constituents and her constituents to be absolutely assured that food on our supermarket shelves is safe to eat. Safety is the first priority, and then we need composition tests to make sure that it is what it says it is. The tests that we have carried out so far have not given any cause for concern on safety grounds, and she needs to take that back to her constituency.
The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) took a global view of food prices and raised very important points. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) gave a graphic description of some of the processes that are used in the processed meat industry. May I distinguish between what she said and what the hon. Member for Glasgow South said later about mince? Having a higher fat content in mince—British mince has always had it—does not mean that we should describe it as something else. I am sorry, but I do not think it is helpful to the consumer to say, “This is no longer mince—it is mince with fat and collagen added,” or something of that kind. That is the point of the consultation on composition that we are carrying out.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke with great knowledge about horse passports and the national equine database. She said, as I have said repeatedly, that the national equine database did nothing whatsoever in terms of traceability. If we want to improve the passport system—I think there is a strong case for doing so—we need to look at it not on that basis but on the basis of how passports are issued and their content.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South talked about an issue of timing to do with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and said that the Food Standards Agency had failed to react. He suggested that the Food Standards Authority of Ireland acted on the basis of intelligence. Let me tell him that it explicitly rejects the suggestion that it was working on the basis of an intelligence-based system, and therefore it was not operating on the basis of suspicion that there was adulteration of material going into the UK. As soon as it had confirmed results, it shared them with the FSA and the FSA shared them with the Government, and we have then had the process that is continuing. We like to work on the basis of evidence before bringing prosecutions, and we like to give the evidence to the police. [Interruption.] I am answering the question; indeed, that is the answer. They did not suspect that adulterated meat was going into the UK; they did a routine test and notified us when they had adverse results.
This House needs to send a message to food businesses that their credibility and reputation are on the line. They need to take the actions that we have agreed with them and, on the issue of convoluted and labyrinthine food supply networks, they ought to consider whether provenance is not a more important issue than profits. I think that they may need to learn that lesson.
The message to regulators is that we need to ensure that systems in place across Europe work effectively. We need to look at our own systems to see whether they can work better, including the horse passport system, and we need to consider whether the intelligence-based approach needs to be supplemented by regular audit.
The message to consumers is that they have a right to be sold what it says on the label and a right to products on the supermarket shelf that are, whatever the selling price, safe, wholesome and genuine. The regulatory authorities, the Government and everybody else involved with this—principally the retailers—have to provide the evidence for that and reassure our consumers.
Question put.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government lost in the High Court this morning. The High Court ruled that the Government’s Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 are unlawful. The regulations forced people into unpaid work—workfare—and, if they refused that work as unsuitable in assisting them in gaining employment, they lost their benefits. This morning the regulations were declared unlawful. At midday, the Government put out a written statement:
“we intend to lay new regulations which will come into force immediately and enable us to continue to refer Jobseekers Allowance claimants to our employment schemes”—
that is, back on to workfare. Those regulations have not been published yet. I am told that they may be subject to the negative procedure and so will come into immediate force without a vote in the House and with no opportunity to debate them. Could we ask the Government to make a statement to clarify the current position? A large number of people will, as a result of the regulations being ruled unlawful, be able to claim back the benefits they lost as a result of the unlawful penalties that were levelled against them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advance notice of that point of order. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his desire for a statement to be made on this matter. He has been in touch with the Journal Office and it seems that no regulations have yet been laid. I suggest that he keeps in close touch with the Table Office, which will be able to advise him on how best to pursue this matter.
Infrastructure
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the latest GDP figures from the Office for National Statistics, showing that the UK economy has now shrunk in four of the last five quarters; believes that investment in infrastructure is vital to the economy’s short term recovery and long term prosperity; further notes that, half way through the Government’s term of office, many of the major projects promised in the National Infrastructure Plan are yet to start work; further notes the admission of the Deputy Prime Minister, in the House Magazine of 24 January 2013, that the Government cut capital spending too deeply, and that figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that in the first three years of this Government’s term it has spent £12.8 billion less in capital investment than the last Government had planned; further believes that private sector investment has also been hit by weak demand and confidence in the UK’s flat-lining economy, and uncertainty resulting from the Treasury’s dithering, delay and lack of leadership; welcomes the independent review of long-term infrastructure planning undertaken by Sir John Armitt; and calls on the Government to act now to kick start the UK’s flat-lining economy by genuinely bringing forward infrastructure investment including building thousands more affordable homes.
We have secured the debate to urge the Government to take action to invest in infrastructure projects to create jobs and to boost confidence in our flagging economy, and to strengthen our productivity and competitiveness for the future. We all recognise the importance of infrastructure investment. The Prime Minister has said that
“getting construction projects off the ground is critical.”
The Chancellor agrees, saying that
“investing in Britain’s economic future is the priority of this Government”
and adding that infrastructure investment was critical in
“laying the foundations for future economic success.”
It should come as no surprise that the Government’s grand rhetoric has not been matched by grand actions. Dithering without a strategy for growth, they have cut too far and too fast, choking off demand and stifling the economic recovery.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady join me in thanking the Chancellor and the Government for the £600 million Heathrow link investment that they will be making in my constituency?
Rachel Reeves
Maybe the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene again and tell me when that investment is going to happen. The reality is that so much of the investment is not happening right now when we need jobs and growth. We have lost more than 120,000 construction jobs since the Government came to power.
Rachel Reeves
That intervention says it all. It is all jam tomorrow from this Government.
The last set of GDP figures demonstrate the scale of the Government’s economic failure. The economy shrank by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of last year, demonstrating once again the desperate need for a strategy for growth. Since the Chancellor’s spending review two years ago, out of the G20 economies Britain has been 18th out of 20 when it comes to economic growth—worse than the USA, worse than Canada, worse than Germany, worse than France and worse than Turkey. So much for the Prime Minister’s global race.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
In the previous Parliament, I was fortunate to serve on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. The Committee examined why houses were not being built under the previous Government, and 400,000 planning permissions not implemented. Surely the hon. Lady ought to be looking at what is stopping building. The permissions have not been stopping. The banks were not lending under the previous Government. This is a deeply entrenched position.
Rachel Reeves
House building was down 8% in 2012 and the think-tank Policy Exchange has warned that the Government could end up presiding over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. That is the record of the hon. Lady’s Government—not one, I would imagine, that she is proud of.
The Prime Minister says that we are in a global race, but in reality we are hardly out of the starting blocks. The Chancellor has been told time and again—most recently by the International Monetary Fund—that if economic growth undershoots expectations, the Government should boost the economy with greater infrastructure spending. Well, growth has undershot and the economy is shrinking. Over two years, economic growth has been 15 times less than the Chancellor promised in 2010.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Will the shadow Chief Secretary join me in thanking the Chancellor for the £45 million invested in the Stroud to Swindon railway line, work on which has just begun, and which will make a huge difference to my constituency?
Rachel Reeves
I wonder whether the next Government Member to intervene will congratulate the Chancellor on spending £12.8 billion less over three years than the plans he inherited from the previous Labour Government.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I hope that I do not excite the shadow Minister so much that she delivers her baby early. What does she think about the fact that once again the Government have kicked into the long grass the problems of congestion in air traffic in the south-east? Money could be invested in that without the need to spend any public money. Why are they kicking that into the long grass?
Rachel Reeves
It is being kicked into the long grass because of weak leadership. It is desperately disappointing for businesses wanting to invest today that no decision will be made and no report published from the man charged with conducting the review until the next Parliament.
The Chancellor should take the IMF’s advice and use the March Budget to rethink the Government’s failed economic plan. We told the Government that to cut too far and too fast would hurt the economic recovery and that the country needed leadership, not warm words. That is why since the Government choked off the economic recovery we have been calling for a boost to jobs and growth by bringing forward infrastructure investment, as the last Labour Government did in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
With the Government presiding over the biggest housing crisis in a generation, was it not a mistake to cut £4 billion in affordable housing investment, leading to a 68% collapse in affordable house building, and to reject out of hand the proposal for the 4G licence money to be used to build 100,000 affordable homes, which would have added 1% to GDP and created hundreds of thousands of jobs and which was hailed by the CBI as just what the economy needed?
Rachel Reeves
That is why we urged the Government, before the autumn statement, to use the money from the 4G auction to start building 100,000 new affordable homes and why we urged the Chancellor to use a tax on bank bonuses for a programme for jobs and growth, with further house building and a job guarantee for young people. But the Chancellor did not listen—[Interruption.] Clearly, the Liberal Democrats do not want to listen either. With every project delay, every investor put off and every job lost in the construction sector, we lose ground to our global competitors. With the economy flatlining and no growth over the past year, the case for action is irrefutable. We need to bring forward public investment, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, kick-start the flatlining economy and get the construction industry moving again.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the flatlining of our economy and our failure to invest is having a major impact on young people? In my constituency, there are more people out of work than there were six months ago, and long-term youth unemployment is rising.
Rachel Reeves
Close to 1 million young people are out of work, and one third of them are now long-term unemployed—a waste of their potential and a waste to our economy, as we are losing out on their skills. We so desperately need that economic recovery.
There is still no sign of the Government sharing the country’s sense of urgency. Only 14% of the 576 projects listed in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline have started and just 1% of those are said to be operational. The Government’s record on infrastructure is a complete and utter shambles. Wherever we look, the strategy is failing to deliver—a perfect storm of uncertainty, incompetence and delay.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is talking about projects. One project that might be considered seriously is the GB freight route—the building of a dedicated rail freight line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the industrial areas of Britain and able to take lorries on trains. Will she give that serious consideration?
Rachel Reeves
I know that that is something that my hon. Friend has worked on carefully and is discussing with Ministers and shadow Ministers. It is worth looking at such a scheme.
The Government’s national infrastructure plan is well worth reading. [Interruption.] Given that even the Deputy Prime Minister says that the Government have got it wrong on infrastructure investment, one would think that the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), might listen to the debate, rather than just chuntering from a sedentary position. The national infrastructure plan exemplifies the vacuum of leadership from this Government, with more projects being kicked into the long grass. Let us take the A14, which was described by the former Transport Secretary as “a crucial strategic route” and
“a lifeline to international markets.”
Now the Treasury says that construction might just begin in 2018. The Mersey gateway, which has been highlighted as one of the world’s most important infrastructure projects, has still not had a preferred bidder announced. Today we found out that 45 winning bids for the regional growth fund—the Deputy Prime Minister’s pride and joy—have already walked away from the process, which is taking so long, with millions of pounds of public money gathering dust in Whitehall. Delay, delay, delay.
That inaction is costing jobs. The construction sector has lost 129,000 jobs since this Tory-led Government came to power. What a waste. No wonder that John Cridland, director general of the CBI, is asking the Government where the diggers on the ground are.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
It was reported in The Guardian recently that total PFI liabilities are likely to be more than £300 billion. Will the hon. Lady confirm that, should the Labour party form the next UK Government, it will not return to PFI?
Rachel Reeves
PFI in my constituency built three new secondary schools and helped to rebuild primary schools, as well as building Sure Start centres. I would not have wanted any of those projects not to go ahead, so I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s criticism.
It is not just independent outsiders attempting to urge the Chancellor to change course and take action or saying that change is needed. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, in what he described as a “self-critical” mood, has stated:
“I think we’ve…realised that you actually need, in order to foster a recovery, to try and mobilise as much public and private capital into infrastructure as possible.”
He did not quite get round to saying sorry for a second time, but at least he has finally stumbled upon the problem. We said that cutting infrastructure spending too far and too fast would stifle the recovery, but the Deputy Prime Minister’s brief lapse of regret came two and a half years too late. That moment of self-realisation will not help the construction worker who has already lost his job, the children waiting for their new school or the new business waiting for improved roads. We do not need mea culpas; we need the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister to change course.
Rachel Reeves
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would like to explain why the Government have cut infrastructure spending by £12.8 billion over three years.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. Does she welcome the thousands of new houses being built in the Kilnwood Vale neighbourhood in my constituency, in addition to the £26 million upgrade of Three Bridges rail station and the £53 million upgrade of Gatwick rail station, and so on?
Rachel Reeves
The problem is that this is just a wish list. Those things are not happening—as John Cridland says, the diggers are not on the ground. As I have said, housing investment is down 8% in just one year, and 129,000 jobs have been lost in the construction sector. I look forward to hearing Government Members explaining why they are supporting those policies.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chinese have a five-year plan involving $1.5 trillion of investment in strategic new industry and infrastructure, and that their economy has been growing at 10% a year for 10 years. Is it not time that we took some lessons from growth economies such as China, and indeed Brazil, which is investing some $66 billion in its fiscal stimulus? Let us get on with it.
Rachel Reeves
The economic and political system in China is a bit different from that of the UK, but what we must learn from other countries is that we need a proper industrial strategy if we are going to create the jobs and growth that we need, and if we are going to excel and win the global race that the Prime Minister has talked about.
Two weeks ago, at Treasury questions, the Chancellor said that I was being “creative” with the facts when I said that he was spending less than Labour planned to on infrastructure investment. He said that I was being misleading on his record on investment. He had to withdraw that slur. Channel 4’s “FactCheck” has looked into his claims. The verdict is in, and I quote from its conclusion:
“Latest figures from the ONS show that Mr Osborne’s claim to have spent more on infrastructure than what Labour had planned is wrong.”
The Chancellor has refused to come to the House to put the record straight, so let us do that now. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility—which the Government set up—the Government are spending £12.8 billion less in capital investment compared with the plans they inherited from the last Labour Government. They are cutting too far and too fast. I am happy to take an intervention on that point.
Rachel Reeves
Yes, I would like to hear why the Government are spending £12.8 billion less.
Mrs Main
The Labour Administration had a target for rail freight interchanges, and the Howbury Park project was given the go-ahead in 2007. However, no work has yet been done. Should not the Labour Government have insisted on proper investment being put into the project, which would have benefited the local area?
Rachel Reeves
I have generously let the hon. Lady have another chance at intervening, but she did not explain why, in the first year of this Parliament, her Government spent £3.2 billion less than the last Labour Government planned to spend, or why, in their second year, her Government spent £2.9 billion less than the amount in the plans they inherited. Nor did she explain why, in the third year of this Parliament, they spent £6.7 billion less than we had planned. When the Chancellor says that he has matched the plans of the last Labour Government, he is just plain wrong.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I wish her well with her impending delivery. What figure would she place on the capital expenditure budget for this year, if there were a Labour Government at this time?
Rachel Reeves
In the plan set out by the last Labour Government for 2012-13, the amount was £48.4 billion. In the plan set out by this Government, it is £41.7 billion. We had a plan to halve the deficit during the course of this Parliament. This Government wanted to go further and eliminate the structural deficit in that time. The reality is that they are borrowing more than the amounts set out in the plans left by the last Labour Government. They are not borrowing it to invest in infrastructure, either. They are spending £12.8 billion less on infrastructure than the last Labour Government, but they are spending £13 billion more on social security. Why is that? It is because there are more people out of work and more people claiming tax credits as a result of this Government’s failure to get the economy growing again. They are spending £13 billion more than they had planned to on social security. Is that really what they came into power to do? No, but the reality is that their decision to cut as far and as fast as they did has choked off the economic recovery. The result has been an economy that has flatlined for two years.
This Government are lethargic in the face of a flatlining economy, and inept in the face of long-term challenges. They came in and abandoned Labour projects, such as the plans for 715 schools, in a tranche of ideologically motivated cuts. Then, having at least partly recognised their mistake, they announced a new school building programme in 2012. Progress is painfully slow, however, with work planned to start only sometime in the spring. More delay. It is simply not good enough. This is a Government without a plan for the present and without a vision for the future—[Interruption.] If any Liberal Democrats would like to intervene, I look forward to hearing from them. [Interruption.] If someone just wants to mutter from a sedentary position and does not have the guts to intervene, that is their problem, not mine. Do we have an intervention from the Liberal Democrats?
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Let me point out to her that spending on PFI schemes amounts to billions and billions of pounds—as I understand it, somewhere in the region of £800 billion—and is totally unaffordable. Is it right to spend money on a hospital—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen. Is it right to build a hospital under a PFI scheme whereby at the end of 25 years, we will have paid for it 18 times over? It might have cost £120 million to build, but by the time it is finished it will have cost more than £2 billion. I will not agree to spending money on that basis. We should spend money in the correct manner that is affordable for the people of this country; we should not have to pay for something 18 times over. Would you buy a house and pay for it 18 times over?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That means me. Members should speak through the Chair.
Rachel Reeves
I do not know how the hon. Gentleman bought his house, but when I bought mine, I had a mortgage because I could not afford to buy it outright. That is why schemes such as PFI were introduced. I am not sure what school, hospital or children’s centre in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency he would prefer not to have opened during the last Labour Government. I bet a lot more of those things opened under the last Labour Government than have been opened under this Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government.
The reality is that what the Government are doing is hurting business confidence. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has described the Government’s plan for infrastructure as
“hot air, a complete fiction”.
Rachel Reeves
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to explain why even the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce thinks that the Government’s plans are hot air.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is very much on broadcast rather than reception. On PFI, she mentioned her mortgage, so what would happen to her if she were unable to make the repayments on that mortgage?
Rachel Reeves
I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government are not going to be able to make the repayments on their debt. We know that their triple A rating is under threat, so if this is a warning that the Government are planning on not paying their debts and the deficit back, it will be interesting news.
The CBI has warned the Government that
“businesses in Britain are looking for action and we haven’t seen any yet”.
Yesterday, the monthly index published by BDO showed that business confidence hit a 21-year low. That is the lowest level of business confidence since Norman Lamont was Chancellor and sterling was ejected from the exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday in 1992. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will remember that day. The Prime Minister certainly does—he was working for the Chancellor at the time. Confidence is now at those low levels again.
It is now clear: business has lost confidence in this Government, who do not have a plan for jobs or growth. It is hardly surprising, then, that the Government are failing to attract the private sector funds they need for their infrastructure investment. It is worth remembering how the Government’s plan to target £20 billion of pension funds for investment is going. Responding to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had to tell us that the Government were on course for just a 10th of their original target: £2 billion out of £20 billion raised.
The Government lack the policy framework to attract the long-term investment we need. Changes such as cuts to feed-in tariffs have had a detrimental impact on low-carbon investment. The CBI warned the Government that such measures have been
“damaging to business confidence, with implications not just for immediate investment decisions but for longer-term trust in government policy”.
It is no wonder that, last year, 50 companies, investors and industry bodies wrote to the Chancellor asking him to set a firm decarbonisation target for 2030 to give investors the confidence they needed. On energy policy, the Institution of Engineering and Technology has been clear in saying:
“Short-term uncertainty around UK energy policy…is very unhelpful and has the potential to… delay much-needed investment in all forms of energy infrastructure.”
According to the findings of a poll by KPMG, two thirds of businesses believe that the UK’s energy and water infrastructure is unlikely to get any better because of uncertainty about the policy framework.
From the business community, we hear resounding frustration when it comes to the Government’s infrastructure policy. The Government do not seem to understand that businesses long for certainty when attempting to grow, employ more people and build for the future. Those are the people and businesses that we need to encourage, not put off, and infrastructure is vital to that, but the Government’s ideological decision to cut infrastructure investment further and faster is hampering confidence rather than nurturing it.
Small businesses, the engines of growth, are still waiting for the Government to roll out universal broadband. The Government abandoned the commitment from the last Labour Government to provide broadband for virtually every household by 2012. When business needs this Government, they are nowhere to be found.
Fundamentally, the Government fail to understand the need for a comprehensive and long-term plan to build Britain’s infrastructure for the 21st century. That is why the Labour party has commissioned Sir John Armitt, chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, to consider how long-term infrastructure decision making, planning, delivery and finance can be radically improved. The Olympics taught us what we could achieve together as one nation. With the right leadership and the right investment, and by building consensus around the long-term projects that are essential for our energy, transport and housing needs, we can compete globally, with a national infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century. Labour is therefore making the case for a British investment bank, which would help to support long-term finance for British businesses so that they could take risks and grow. That is especially urgent given that net lending to businesses has fallen by a staggering £13.5 billion over the last year.
Investing in infrastructure is about more than the tarmac on our roads or the bricks that make up our schools. It is about creating skilled jobs for our youngsters. It is about supporting the entrepreneurs who want to export and grow their businesses. It is about ensuring we can grow and operate across the globe. It is about attracting investment from abroad. It is about being ambitious in the face of challenges, and attempting to build a better country for the next generation.
The Prime Minister said in his new year address:
“This is, quite simply, a government in a hurry. And there’s a reason for that. Britain is in a global race to succeed today.”
Whichever way we look at it, however, this Government do not seem to be in a hurry to invest in our country’s infrastructure. Indeed, as I said earlier, they are spending £12.8 billion less on capital investment than the amount specified in the plans that they inherited from the last Government, which amounts to an 8% cut. A Government in a hurry? Hardly. Inertia is the watchword of this Government, at a time when what we need is action.
When other countries are investing in their infrastructure, aware of the benefits, this Government dither. On infrastructure, as on so much else, the country needs decisive leadership. Instead, we get incompetence, delay and cuts. It is time that we changed course.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I should inform the House that a speaking time limit for Back Benchers will be announced when he has sat down. I advise Members not to think much beyond eight minutes for the moment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that the previous administration’s final Budget planned to cut capital investment by 6 per cent more than this Government’s latest plans, in the period 2010 to 2014; further notes that this Government has increased capital plans by £20 billion at the Spending Review and at the last two Autumn Statements, by taking tough but necessary decisions to cut current spending, with a result that public investment as a share of GDP will be higher on average over this Parliament than it was under the previous administration; further notes that this Government announced £5.5 billion of extra infrastructure investment in the last Autumn Statement, including £1.5 billion for roads, £1 billion for new schools, £900 million for science and £1.8 billion for housing and local infrastructure; further notes that it has supported the largest investment in the railways since Victorian times under the High Level Output Specification; further notes that no national infrastructure plan existed under the previous administration whereas this Government has set out for the first time a multi-year long-term strategy for the UK’s infrastructure, with over 50 per cent of the Government’s top 40 projects and programmes due to be in construction, procurement or completed by the end of 2014-15; and believes that sweeping away red tape and developing new finance initiatives such as the UK Guarantees Scheme will also support up to £40 billion of extra important projects”.
I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), but there is little that can be said by Labour Members that should not start with an apology. Infrastructure, more than most issues, is an area of policy in which the present is haunted by the decisions of the past. By their very nature, major infrastructure projects must be planned years in advance, capital spending budgets must be allocated years in advance and private sector investment must be secured years in advance. All those things require a Government who can look ahead, anticipate the needs of the future, and make the necessary decisions in a timely fashion.
Rachel Reeves
Plans do need to be made for the future, so why did the Government cancel the building of 715 schools under the Building Schools for the Future scheme when they came to power?
Greg Clark
I should have thought that in two and a half years the hon. Lady would have learned the lesson from that. The deficit that Labour was running was greater than the deficit in any other G7 country. We needed to sort that out, and to create confidence in our economy. If Labour Members have not learned the lesson after two and a half years, what hope is there for the future?
The economic arguments advanced from the Opposition Benches sometimes purport to draw on the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes, but Keynes recommended that Governments should run a surplus in the good times, enabling spending, especially on infrastructure, to take place in the lean years.
Greg Clark
Our capital revenue spending would have been determined by a visit to the International Monetary Fund if we had followed the course set by the Opposition.
In the years prior to the financial crisis the previous Government ran the biggest structural deficit in the G7. Despite the denials of the shadow Chancellor, that is a matter of record, and the fact that he refuses to acknowledge what has now been made very clear merits an apology.
One of the most enduring mysteries of the 13 years in which Labour was in office is what they did with the money. We would think that 13 years in which they spent, taxed and borrowed like no peacetime Government before would at least have left us with an infrastructure that we could have been proud of and that would have been world-beating.
Neil Carmichael
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the almost 30 million jobs we now have in this country will benefit enormously from the fact that we are at last getting something done about broadband, a massively important infrastructure project? We are spending a huge amount on it, and just this week I heard about how much progress we are making in Gloucestershire.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right. Not just in our cities, but also in our rural areas, during Labour’s 13 years in office broadband went backwards relative to the rest of the world. We are now addressing that and making progress.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that during much of the Labour Government’s period in office a good deal of debt was repaid? That was one of the things that was done, and in my constituency people can point to new schools and new buildings, so there is something to be seen. Is that not the case in his constituency?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady seems to be unaware of the fact that under the last Labour Government the national debt almost trebled. That is the legacy that they left and with which this Government are dealing. Over 13 years, they borrowed so much they left us with a deficit that was as big as that of Greece, and bigger than that of Spain, Portugal or Italy.
We would think that there would be something to show for all that money spent. We would think our roads, railways and power stations would be at least as good as those of Spain, Portugal and Italy. That, at least, would be a consolation prize: modern, up-to-date national infrastructure available to support British business and help us to generate the billions of pounds we need to pay off the deficit and reduce our debts.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I have never heard such an absurd statement in this Chamber. Of course the increase in the debt in the last two years of the Labour Government did not produce new roads; that is because it went into supporting the banks, and if we had not done that, we would have had a banking collapse.
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady did not hear what I said. The structural deficit the Labour Government ran was in place before the financial crisis. That is the root of the problems we now face.
I do not for a moment want to suggest those 13 years did not result in a transformation of Britain’s position in respect of infrastructure. It was transformed, all right: the quality of our infrastructure declined in relation to that of our world competitors.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman address the issue of rail and tell the House what his party did about High Speed 1 and Crossrail when it was in government? Will he congratulate the last Government on completing HS1—the first new high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel, some 15 years after the channel tunnel was opened—and on starting the Crossrail scheme, which is essential to the future of London? How can he possibly repudiate that record of achievement?
Greg Clark
That was a good example of cross-party support, and the idea that it was some unilateral initiative by the Labour party is for the birds. We should have been more ambitious; we should have gone further and faster. It will be 15 years before we can count on the first trains running on High Speed 2. Why were those plans not advanced by the previous Government from the beginning? After 13 years we could have been looking forward to seeing progress in a couple of years’ time, rather than waiting for this Government to lay the necessary legislation.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Perhaps I can answer the Minister’s question. The investment that the previous Labour Government put into the west coast main line was swallowing up money that could have been spent elsewhere. He is right about investment in schools, hospitals and so on, but will he tell the House what the previous Conservative Government’s idea was for funding capital projects? Am I correct in saying that it was private finance initiatives—millions spent but not a brick laid?
Greg Clark
It is not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman is criticising PFI. If PFI was initiated by the previous Conservative Government, the champion of it—the party that relied on it and put it off balance sheet, and that misused it and mortgaged the future of our country—was clearly the Labour party.
After 13 years of the Labour Government our roads were more congested, our railways were creaking, house building was at its lowest level since the 1920s and electricity customers were facing black-outs for the first time since before the war. Our great cities were as poorly connected as they had been a century earlier, while across Europe and the world, new roads and railways brought cities together in 21st-century networks of prosperity. As the excellent report published recently by the London School of Economics states,
“infrastructure has been neglected, particularly in the areas of transport and energy. For example, more than a fifth of the UK’s electricity-generating capacity will go out of commission over the next decade and Ofgem…has warned of power shortages by 2015.”
That is the reflection after 13 years of neglect of Britain’s infrastructure.
Greg Clark
Of course I will give way to my friend the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee.
Mr Betts
I hope to find a bit of common ground with the Minister. He knows that local authority borrowing is covered by prudential guidelines, apart from borrowing for house building, which is covered by a separate cap imposed by the Treasury. Given that housing finance accounts are now separate, if a local authority were allowed to borrow up to the prudential limits for house building, it could potentially borrow to build another 60,000 homes without any cost to the Treasury. In other countries, that would not even count as Government borrowing. Is the Minister prepared to look at that as one way of kick-starting house building and creating more jobs in the construction industry?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman knows that it does count as Government borrowing in this country, which constrains this Government as it did the previous Government. Being a fair man he will be the first to acknowledge that the work I have been doing with our eight core cities has found innovative ways through tax increment financing and other schemes to invest in infrastructure in anticipation of some of the revenues associated with that. We are doing everything we can and have had some success in being creative in that regard.
As Europe and the developing world streaked ahead, the gulf in this country between London and the north widened under Labour. Only one of the eight largest cities outside London has an income per head that is above the country’s national average, which is in marked contrast to the norm on the continent of Europe. Seven out of the eight biggest German cities outside Berlin, and six out of the eight biggest cities in Italy, have an income per head that is above the national average. In France, that is true for half the largest cities, and for the others the figure is close to the national average. In other countries around Europe and the world, great cities outside the capital are motors of growth and drive the local economy. In this country, the legacy of 13 years of Labour is that the gulf with the north and in our cities across the country has widened and is a source of shame.
Helen Goodman
I am sorry to correct the Minister for the second time, but the rate of growth in the north-east went from being the lowest of the regions during the 1990s to the second highest during the last decade. Only two English regions grew faster than the national average under the Labour Government—London and the north-east.
Greg Clark
I do not quite understand the basis of the hon. Lady’s intervention, because the point I was making was precisely about the gulf between the capital and our provincial cities, and she has pointed out that London streaked ahead. By contrast, in other countries the performance of the regional economy kept pace with the capital, and that is something I want to champion; I want to encourage our provincial cities to be the equal of the capital on growth. I know she will recognise that in the past two years, at least, the performance of my native north-east, the place she represents, has indeed outstripped the rest of the country on creating jobs.
Geraint Davies
On the basis of what the Minister has said, does he agree that Wales should get its fair share of the High Speed 2 investment? It will run from the south to the north of England at a cost of £33 billion, and our fair share would be about £1.9 billion. On the basis of what he has just said, does he not agree that Wales needs a fair deal and that extra £2 billion?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman is a fair man. He will know that the plans to electrify the Great Western railway and the railways in the valleys represent an important investment—I am sure he would acknowledge that—and a big contribution to the economic revival of Wales. It is very important that they should do that.
The divergence between London and the south-east, and the rest of the country is not a record of which to be proud. In the most difficult of circumstances, this Government are having to find the money to build the infrastructure that should already have been put in place during these years of plenty, speeding Britain to recovery. By failing to control current spending in the good times, the legacy of the previous Labour Government was not just a record deficit, but an infrastructure backlog and reduced capital budgets to pay for it. We need to invest more in infrastructure. Nick Pearce, of Labour’s favourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has said that the
“cut…was a decision of the last Labour government which the Coalition inherited”.
We need to remember that successful infrastructure investment does not begin with the allocation of budgets, but with clear-sighted, strategic decision making.
Let me give just two examples of the way in which Labour, over 13 years, failed to address the strategic need for leadership on infrastructure, the first of which relates to roads. When Labour was first elected, John Prescott was appointed as Secretary of State and soon took charge of transport. One of his first actions was to cancel almost all approved road schemes, all across the country, including the dualling of the A21 in my constituency. The reason was not that the Government did not have the cash. I am pleased to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) had left the economy in rude health and so they were in a good position. These road schemes were cancelled, along with many others, because John Prescott had fallen under the spell of a doctrine that said, “If you build more roads, they will only attract more traffic, so you should not build them in the first place.”
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
As I have told the Minister before, Corby, in east Northamptonshire, is the most difficult place in the country for a young person to find work. The level of youth unemployment in my constituency has rocketed. Does he recognise how completely out of touch he looks to those young people when he talks about policy 15 years ago, whatever its rights and wrongs, rather than addressing the here and now? He talks about having the political will to take forward infrastructure projects. Was John Longworth wrong—I think he was right—when he said recently, speaking for the CBI, that this Government lack the political will to drive through infrastructure projects?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman will know that infrastructure is particularly important to Corby, and the link road that is to be built there is very important to that. He will also know that the increase in youth unemployment of 17% that happened under the Government he supported has contributed to the situation he describes.
Let me address the point of strategic leadership. How can we have long-term leadership and long-term vision for the future of our country, when important economic contributions to success, such as road schemes, are cancelled? That lunacy persisted for years, as our roads became more congested, to the detriment of the environment as well as the economy. It was not until years had passed that that nonsense was recanted by Lord Prescott, the then Deputy Prime Minister, and we decided that, after all, more traffic required more and better roads.
Mrs Main
Did the Minister note that the list of needs for strategic infrastructure put forward by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) did not include the requirements of the location? There is no point in our having strategic infrastructure just where there happens to be a need for jobs if it is not where we strategically need to place the infrastructure. That should be crucial to our decision making.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right, and what she says makes the point I am making: a long-term strategic view of where we need to invest is crucial. Unfortunately, by the time the then Deputy Prime Minister had decided that we did need to have new roads after all, he had fallen prey to a new fad, regional assemblies—remember them? Having created those unnecessary and unwanted bureaucracies, they needed to be given something to do. What were they given to do? They were given the task of reviewing and prioritising every proposed regional road scheme that had previously been about to proceed. Projects that had been about to commence were delayed for years as regional bureaucrats invented methodologies to reprioritise them. The result was that, 13 years after Labour took office, the A21 road scheme in my constituency and countless other projects around the country languished undelivered.
The Opposition motion talks about dither and delay, which is pretty ripe stuff considering the sorry saga of their roads policy and, for that matter, their stewardship of British energy policy. In July 2009, after 12 years in office, the then Government announced that they expected to have to resort to power cuts in the years ahead. They even published a chart in their strategy for energy predicting an annual shortfall of 3,000 MWh by 2017—a truly shameful and damaging admission for the Government of a developed nation after 12 years in power.
How did things reach that point? As on the economy, when it came to infrastructure, the previous Administration took a typically ostrich-like pose to the challenges of the future. They knew for 12 years that, for example, most of our nuclear power stations and most of our polluting coal-fired power stations would have to close in the decade ahead—indeed, they signed the agreement to close down those power plants—but, unbelievably, by the time they finally made up their mind about nuclear new build, it was already too late to have the new stations up and running before the old ones closed down. How is that for dither and delay? They did not even get around to the long overdue reform of energy markets on which investment in new capacity depends. That surely is something that marks the record of Labour’s first and last Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whose name escapes me just now.
This Government have recognised the importance of infrastructure to the long-term prosperity of the British economy in a way that Labour never understood. We have published for the first time a national infrastructure plan, comprising £310 billion of investment in the most strategically important projects—keeping in mind the point my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made about the importance of looking ahead and looking at where those investments are needed—in sectors such as transport, energy and communications in the period to 2015 and beyond. The man who delivered the Olympics in east London with such spectacular success, Lord Deighton, is the Minister in charge of implementing that plan.
Despite inheriting the most disastrous set of public finances that any Government have bequeathed to their successors outside wartime, we are not only investing in infrastructure, but increasing that investment. Public sector infrastructure investment from 2010 to 2012 was £33 billion a year, which is £4 billion more than during the previous Parliament, and as the National Audit Office states in its report, “Planning for economic infrastructure”:
“Future investment is expected to exceed recent levels.”
Last year’s autumn statement included a further £5.5 billion of investment, including £1.5 billion for the strategic road network. That includes upgrades to the M1, the M3, the M6 and the A60 at Immingham; £378 million to upgrade the A1 between Leeming and Barton, as part of a much-needed drive to bring the A1 up to motorway standard between Newcastle and the M25; a new link between the A5 and M1; and dualling of the A30. On 27 of the road and rail schemes announced in the 2011 autumn statement either construction has already started or work is due to begin this year, including on the A453 widening, the A11 Fiveways to Thetford improvement, and the A43 Corby link road, which will be of interest to the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford).
This Government are ushering in the largest programme of investment in the railways since Victorian times, with £9.5 billion of capital investment allocated from 2014 to 2019. That includes £1 billion to electrify the Great Western line between London and south Wales, as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) will recognise; £500 million for the north-west and trans-Pennine electrification scheme, for which work is already under way; £800 million to electrify the midland main line and increase its speed, which I would have thought the hon. Member for Corby would welcome; and £500 million for the northern hub, which is of benefit to all the cross-Pennine services.
This Government are committed to investing in Britain’s infrastructure for the long term. The first phase of High Speed 1 will be followed by phase 2, which will revolutionise rail travel in Britain, with 211 miles of new track. I am surprised that the Opposition spokesperson, a Leeds MP, did not mention in her speech a project that will link Birmingham to Leeds and Manchester, create five new stations, and cut journey times from Birmingham to Leeds, for example, from two hours to one hour. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Leeds West would mention that. I should have thought that northern MPs would mention the cut in journey times from London to Manchester from two hours eight minutes to one hour eight minutes. The hon. Lady talks about the time it takes to build the track. If we had commenced in 1997, when Labour took power, we could be looking forward to buying our tickets for that railway now.
Mr Rob Wilson
My right hon. Friend is delivering a powerful response. In his list of major infrastructure projects, he forgot to mention Reading station, an £800 million investment, and Heathrow rail at £600 million. He mentioned the £1 billion electrification project to south Wales. Will he join me in asking the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to apologise for her comments about Reading UTC? It was disappointing to see her laughing at such an investment in skills when I raised it earlier.
Greg Clark
It is disappointing when the Opposition treat these things as matters of levity rather than of seriousness that should be pursued. I neglected to mention the improvements to Reading station only because if I were to list all the investments that are taking place, I would detain the House for longer than I have done already.
Had Labour in government taken a greater interest in the long-term future of our railways and of our cities and begun action immediately when it took office, we could have been looking at a high-speed line to Birmingham and beyond opening before the end of this Parliament. High-speed rail is a long-term project. It takes a long time to execute, but even in the two and a half years that this Government have been in office, we have increased the pace of delivery on the ground. As well as six national road schemes funded since October 2010, 17 local transport schemes approved by the Government are already under construction, including the Mansfield interchange, the Kingskerswell bypass and the Portsmouth northern road bridge, and by May 2015, 36 of these vital new schemes will be open.
We are changing the way that decisions are made in funding infrastructure investment. Why should it be the case, as it has been for the past 13 years, that our great cities should have to come cap in hand to London to beg for the investment that they need? Our programme of city deals has given the right of initiative back to the civic and business leaders of the cities themselves. Greater Manchester is, as a result, investing over £2 billion of its own resources in transport infrastructure, and it is able to do so because it has negotiated a city deal that allows it to share directly in the increased prosperity of the area that would otherwise flow to the Treasury. City deals have been struck with each of the eight biggest English cities outside London, and I am currently examining expressions of interest from 20 more cities, from Plymouth to Sunderland, from Preston to Portsmouth.
Geraint Davies
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. He mentions the city deals, where the cities invest and get a share of the economic added value. Is that something the Government might consider for Wales so that with investment in economic development, we could get a share back and reinvest?
Greg Clark
There is a Government of the Welsh Assembly led by the hon. Gentleman’s party. I commend the example that we have put forward in this country. Our close working with each of the leaders of the eight cities has achieved very encouraging results to date. I dare say the hon. Gentleman can go back to Wales and commend that to his colleagues.
The way that investments can be financed has also been transformed for the better. Labour saddled future generations with PFI debts of £279 billion, of which less than £40 billion has been paid off, and which cost at least five times and often more than the original project cost of the underlying investment.
Greg Clark
I have given way to the hon. Lady.
Our programme of infrastructure guarantees has made available £40 billion to underpin important projects, of which £10 billion of investments have already been pre-qualified only months after the initiative was begun. This will unlock vital investment, such as the £1 billion extension to the Northern line in Battersea. On energy policy, our reforms are driving investment in new capacity, not only in generation, but in energy efficiency and extraction. Our energy industry is now alive again—a new start after years of neglect under Labour.
All Governments are stewards of the country that elects them. The test of their stewardship is whether they leave their country better equipped and better prepared to prosper in the future through having taken the long-term decisions on which major infrastructure investment depends. In two short years, Britain’s reputation for infrastructure has been transformed. Having plummeted down the international league table of countries rated by their infrastructure, we are now climbing it again. The rest of the world has seen this country shaking off the torpor of the past. After more than a decade of inaction, we are once more laying the foundations of the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I inform Members that there is an eight-minute limit on speeches.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
What a ragbag of complacency and distorted history we have heard. All of us will surely remember that, pre-1997, we were under a Government with problems of massive unemployment, repossessions, companies going bust and people dying as they waited for operations. The reason was that people were not working and paying tax—debt and taxes were going up and public services were being cut. From 1997 to 2008, there was an unprecedented period of economic growth, thanks to a Labour Government’s getting people back to work. People were then paying tax and the money was reinvested in jobs and public services.
In 2008, the sub-prime debt tsunami hit our shores; if it had not been for Mr Obama and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who invoked the fiscal stimulus, we would have gone into a world depression instead of a mild recession, which ended in 2010 with the fragile growth inherited by the coalition Government. They then wasted that opportunity by immediately announcing that half a million people in the public services would be sacked. They did not say when or who, so people stopped spending money. Consumer demand went down to the floor and since then growth has stagnated. The result, of course, is that tax revenues have fallen, debt has risen and more people are on the dole.
We hear figures that claim that more people are in jobs, but how are more people in jobs when there has been no increase in production? The simple answer is that people who used to be in full-time jobs now have two part-time jobs. The situation is a complete mess. The amount of infrastructure investment was cut in the first two years of the Government. There are proposals for more infrastructure investment, which I want, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating—we will believe it when it comes.
I want to make a couple of quick comments about my own area. It is my firm contention that Wales should get its fair share of HS2—£1.9 billion. I welcome the electrification to Swansea, which has been mentioned. I am also interested in city regions and more investment in those, and I welcome those thoughts. More investment is needed in the M4 in south Wales, around Newport and Port Talbot, to speed up business, commuter and tourist flows and to spark more investment. I would like to see an evaluation, which has been promised to me by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, of the Severn bridge tolls. If the Government paid for them, would they recover the money from more income tax and lower benefits because of increased jobs? The tolls are simply a tax on trade between Wales and England.
I move swiftly on. As I said in an intervention, we should look further afield to the emerging economies, which are growing at an enormous rate. I appreciate that we do not have the Chinese political system, but we could look closely at the Chinese commitment to, and focus on, investment in research and development. Brazil has; it is investing $5.3 billion in renewable energy and biotech and becoming a world leader. China’s investment has meant that certain US and European companies that used to lead in solar power are being taken out. We need to think strategically about how to invest in both the infrastructure and the innovation agenda.
I make no apology for again mentioning Swansea, where, in a fine example of strategic investment, the European Investment Bank is investing to enable an overall investment of £250 million in a second campus at Swansea university. The university is linked up with industrial partnerships in modern manufacturing, green technology, biotech, and so on—new, cutting-edge, exportable technologies which, interestingly, are the very areas that Brazil and China are looking at.
This is not just a matter of spades in the ground, and roads and railways. I welcome roads and railways, as well as flood defences and the like, but it is also about making rational choices and investing in infrastructure alongside innovation. When we look at the migration of global companies and where they go, it is clear that it is partly about infrastructure, partly about cutting-edge research and development, and partly about markets. We need to get our mix right.
On housing, the Government need to remember that when one looks at the accounts, one needs to look at the balance sheet. If we invest in housing, then clearly we have an asset. Looking at the balance sheet and the net liabilities, we see houses as assets for the future that we need to drive down people’s rents and give them somewhere to live and the stability to work and have jobs. I encourage the Government to look at more innovative housing schemes in the United States whereby a local authority will provide the land and then a property company will come along with a shared equity and spend the money on building houses, half of which will be social housing and the other half private houses. The public sector then ends up with free council houses, an income stream from the private houses, and half the overall equity. This is also supported by pension funds for long-term rental opportunities.
There are enormous opportunities for bringing in outside capital investment from countries with surpluses, be it from oil or trade. Countries such as Qatar are looking to invest in tourism infrastructure and cultural infrastructure so that downstream, when the oil runs out, they will have alternative income streams. We should be creatively looking at that rather then saying, “Oh no, we can’t afford it.” We need to invest to increase our trajectory of economic growth, and that includes things such as schools. It is very sad that the preparatory work done by the previous Government through Building Schools for the Future was dashed, and it is now being looked at again. Investment in hospitals, keeping workers in work and keeping people in good condition, is clearly a good investment as well.
The other key strategic investment is the internet. People running companies in costly and congested London can now consider the possibility of going down a high-speed route on an electrified railway to sunny Swansea and locating there on the internet, outside the cost and congestion, helping us to spread out our economy. This is the strategic approach that we need to take, but we very much need to up our game.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I profoundly disagree with the motion, particularly what it says about “dithering” and “delay”. I am all for a bit of dithering and delay, but I would call it caution and sensible planning. I am speaking up for the environment because I want us to take a considered approach to planning as well as kick-starting our economy. Carpenters have the old adage, “Measure twice and cut once.” We should be very careful that we get our infrastructure right rather than just dashing forward and building on any old place.
The motion stresses the need to get Britain building, but we need to have a cohesive approach, not a mad dash for growth without considering local communities or what is actually needed. I am concerned that we are intrinsically entwining planning and the Treasury. I want to make sure that we are giving these matters due consideration and are not trampling over communities, historic landscapes, and, importantly, the green belt, but getting our infrastructure right and getting it in the right place.
I want the infrastructure debate to be associated with economic benefit, local regeneration and jobs, but never to lose sight of the environment. The two are intrinsically linked. Local communities need to ensure that plans are not granted in a hasty fashion just to join the ranks of unimplemented or badly located permissions. The absence of a joined-up approach to getting our infrastructure right and ensuring that there are full appraisals of alternative sites for large, private-funded proposals, such as those for rail freight interchanges, is likely to result in a developer-led scramble to see who can get their project through first, and it will often not end up on the best site for the local area or for national economic growth. That can also affect investment in other sites that may be more suitable, but which are starved of potential investment as investors hold fire in case another rival site gets permission through the planning system.
I want to make sure that we ask where we need to deliver such infrastructure in Britain. It is obvious that large infrastructure projects can create jobs and they should, if possible, be based in those areas where there is a need for those jobs, while at the same time doing minimum harm to the environment. That would be a win-win situation for everyone.
There has been a “minded to grant” decision on a rail freight terminal in my constituency. According to the developer of the site, it will create more than 3,000 jobs, the vast majority of which will be blue collar. Such a development could—I agree with the Labour party on this—provide a considerable boost for a struggling local area if it had the work force. It would be a shot in the arm for an area that needed those jobs. In St Albans, however, we are fortunate to have an unemployment rate of just 2.5% and the vast majority of those 1,155 people are white-collar workers. In fact, we have a deficit of blue-collar workers. Beyond that, neither my constituents—some of whom would be situated 100 metres from the development—nor Hertfordshire county council want the site, we are not a regeneration area, and the site will depress our local house prices, concrete over 10% of our green belt and compromise commuter routes into London.
The site has had three refusals, but on the Friday before Christmas, there was a volte-face and the “minded to grant” decision was made. Residents were stunned, because, if we compare and contrast the situation with that of a nearby site in Upper Sundon, just a few miles north of St Albans, we will see—this may be coincidental —that it has all the supposed national benefits that I believe we should be looking for and none of the drawbacks, or very few of them. The site is located in an old quarry—it is not on the green belt—and a ready, accessible work force, who would not need to travel in an unsustainable fashion, want it. It is also on the M1, which I am pleased to say is being upgraded, as we have heard from the Government today.
The site is in the central Bedfordshire development plan and has the support of the council, which would make the planning process simple and, I hope, amicable. Luton airport is also nearby, which is also looking to expand. The site will have easy accessibility to roads and road freight. From the economic point of view, the site is located near Luton, where the most recent figures show that 5.6% of the population are unemployed, most of them blue-collar workers.
I want to marry up those two happy coincidences, but I am concerned that the prevailing mood—driven by the Opposition in particular—is that, in the name of economic necessity, we must give permission to build at whatever cost. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) would not let me intervene when I wanted to ask her whether she agreed—
Rachel Reeves
Of course infrastructure investment should be in the right place, but there is no risk of any infrastructure under this Government. That is the problem that we have been trying to highlight today, and the hon. Lady seems to welcome that lack of investment.
Mrs Main
I point out to the hon. Lady that in 2007, under her Government, the Infrastructure Planning Commission granted the decision to build Howbery park, against much opposition from local residents, on the green belt, on the basis that the Strategic Rail Authority said that it should be situated just about there. However, not a shovel has been turned on that development —the previous Government did nothing about it. I do not see why we should not have a strict rule that infrastructure must be placed exactly where it is needed, not where a developer happens to want it, which may lead to a situation such as that in Alconbury, which ended up with the Trojan horse of a business development park because it never got the rail links it was promised. That is not what we should be doing with our infrastructure. It should be in the right place and linked to the right work force.
If we are going to allow the development of much-needed housing, we should also look at why we have 142,000 unimplemented planning permissions that have already been granted. Across England, the figure is up to 400,000. Our priority should be to look at what has already been granted and ask why it was not built in the first place or why it was not built according to the planning permission that was granted to it, as in the case of Alconbury. If we do not make sure that infrastructure is correctly located, future generations will judge whether we had proper stewardship of our countryside.
We should examine historical permissions, both for large-scale infrastructure developments and large housing developments, that have not come to fruition. We must not just speed up the planning process and churn out more permissions that can be banked for five years, because that does not help the economy by ensuring that development happens where there is economic need and where there are people who can take up the job opportunities that are created.
A clear-sighted strategic decision-making process that was more “steady as she goes” would give investors confidence that they would not end up with permissions granted but never see the developments delivered properly in the way that was envisaged. If people want to get involved in strategic rail, there are many spin-offs such as people working on the site and promises of additional infrastructure upgrades to support the development. However, all those things fail if the developer never puts a spade in the ground and does not deliver the site as it was envisaged. All the potential jobs that are linked to such planning permissions never actually happen.
That has happened under previous Governments, and not only the last Government. However, the Opposition are now arguing that we should rush through more planning permissions and accuse this Government of dithering. I ask the Treasury to please be a bit more cautious and not to do what the previous Government did in allowing loads of permissions to be granted that never delivered what they should have delivered. We should consider applications slowly, cautiously and carefully to ensure that instead of a developer pushing the area where he would like to build, developments are built where we want them to be built and where communities want them to be built. That would be in the best interests of this country as a whole.
To return to the site in St Albans, it will not benefit my constituency one jot to have a rail freight interchange. It would probably benefit Sundon quarry and the surrounding area because of the jobs that it would create, but it would not benefit my constituency if it happened in Radlett. I hope sincerely that the “minded to grant” decision is suddenly reversed to match the original three refusals, because those refusals were sensible. Two of them came under the previous Government, so I hope that Labour Members would approve of them as well. The harm that will be done by that development certainly does not justify its going ahead, especially where an authority slightly further up the road would like to have such development, very much as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said his area would.
We should encourage development to go where communities would welcome it, and where it fits in with our with our bigger, broader strategic plan for the economy of this country.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on bringing forward this debate on what the Opposition know to be an incredibly important and urgent issue.
I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) when she says that we need to go slowly in bringing forward infrastructure in this country. Given the desperate state of our economy and the number of people who are desperately looking for work, we need a great deal of urgency from the Government, particularly given their appalling record over the past two and a half years.
It was interesting that the Financial Secretary chose to speak mainly about policies from the past. Most of his speech was actually about the last century. Some of the people who are now suffering, such as those who want school places in my constituency while the Government are failing to bring forward infrastructure investment, were not even born at the time of the decisions that he talked about.
The Financial Secretary took on the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, in particular. I was at the opening of the new St Pancras station when John Prescott was praised by Lord Heseltine for his fantastic contribution to ensuring that the channel tunnel rail link went ahead and that that fantastic building was saved for the nation. The many people who arrived at that station ahead of the Olympics saw what we can do in this country when we commit ourselves to major infrastructure projects. I agree with the CBI and the many other people, including some of the economists who previously endorsed this Government’s plans, who say that this Government lack the political will to take forward major infrastructure projects.
When people get on the train at St Pancras, which John Prescott and the last Labour Government did so much to make possible, they can now come to Corby and see the new railway station that has been built there. If the Minister tells any one of the commuters or the people who use that line for leisure day in and day out that the last Labour Government did not do enough to improve rail services in my constituency, they will laugh him out of town on the next train.
We want to do more and to go further. We want to have northbound routes on that railway line. The other week, the Government made an announcement that was typical of their infrastructure announcements. They said that they were going to electrify the midland main line with £1 billion of expenditure. However, the figure was exactly the same as the amount of money they disastrously took out of the plans for infrastructure spending to which the previous Government had committed in this Parliament. They give us jam tomorrow.
Earlier, the Economic Secretary whispered to the Financial Secretary about the improvement to the A43 in my constituency. Ministers talk about that proudly, but nobody was fooled when that announcement was made—it was just weeks before a by-election. I was surprised there was no announcement today of an Eastleigh bypass or orbital route, a south coast Hampshire link road or some other such potential bribe. Perhaps the coalition parties cannot agree on what appropriate bribe to give.
Labour can give hope to the people of Eastleigh because we have a plan—a five-point plan for jobs and growth. We have talked—[Interruption.] You can laugh.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman meant to say, “The Financial Secretary can laugh.”
Andy Sawford
Some young people from my constituency were here yesterday to learn about parliamentary etiquette —I should have taken more tips, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Financial Secretary had laughed in front of those young people when I talked about the desperate need to invest in jobs and growth in this country, they would have given him very little credit indeed.
There is a fanciful picture of how the Labour Government did not invest in infrastructure, but hon. Members should come to Corby and east Northamptonshire and drive past the schools that were built there, such as the brand-new Kingswood school, which is a fantastic facility. My nieces get a fantastic education at the Corby business academy—[Interruption.] The Economic Secretary says that we will pay for those projects, but a combination of funding from the public and private sector—[Interruption.] He should listen to bodies such as the Monetary Policy Committee, which says that we need to find ways of investing in infrastructure in this country.
Gordon Birtwistle
No, I am not going to mention Eastleigh at all. Hon. Members are interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point on PFI—[Interruption.] No, he was talking about new colleges. Will he tell us when those massive infrastructure deals will be paid for? Will my grandchildren be paying for them?
Andy Sawford
The overwhelming majority of the investment in new children’s centres, schools and health improvement projects in my constituency was publicly funded. Government Members should remember that PFI was dreamt up by a previous Conservative Government, and that they did not oppose a single new school, children’s centre or hospital built by the Labour Government. If they were honest, they would have objected to them being built in the first place—or say they would close them down now. Let us have honesty on that.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is right about the benefits of the new schools and children’s centres. A group of sixth-formers from Deyes high school were at an education event in the Palace earlier today. Their school building was due to be replaced under Building Schools for the Future, but they will not see it, and neither—more importantly—will their brothers and sisters. However, it would have been replaced under a Labour Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that is the disgrace in what the current Government have done. They have cancelled the future in schools for many of our young people.
Andy Sawford
I absolutely agree. The planned rebuilding of Lodge Park school in my constituency under Building Schools for the Future was cancelled—one of the Government’s first acts. The Secretary of State for Education later apologised for his bungling and mishandling of that, but his apology means nothing to the young people whose education is suffering, or to the construction workers who otherwise would have had employment in my town. It is all part of the story of the past two years. This Government’s policies took Britain back into recession—one of only two G20 countries to go back into recession. The very people who counselled that Britain needed a plan to reduce its deficit over time—the previous Government set out a reasonable, sensible plan—are now telling the Government that they got it wrong and reduced the deficit too quickly, and that the plan has been hugely damaging to our economy. The Government’s economic arguments present a false divide between the public and private sectors. The public sector and the private sector are intimately interconnected in my constituency, as in any other. The Government create a false divide between the role of Government and Government spending and prospects for growth.
Corby and east Northamptonshire has a new railway station and new schools, and the new Tresham college building is a fantastic facility for young people. That investment helps companies such as AGI Amaray, which makes all the DVD boxes we have in our homes. It helps companies such as Tata Steel to recruit people with the skills they need. It helps innovative new start-ups such as KwikScreen—some people from that company were in Parliament yesterday and I visited them a few weeks ago—which is now selling all over the world. It helps them because we are investing in the young people they need to compete in the world. The Corby east midlands international swimming pool is an incredible investment of which the whole country can proud. The Leader of the Opposition went there with me to meet visiting international swimmers and to wonder at the facility. It is impressive to people looking to invest in the town and provides a wide range of facilities for local people, including ways of keeping them healthy, and we need a healthy population for the work force of the future.
All the good that Labour did for Corby contrasts with what is happening now. It is reasonable to contrast Government records, and important to do so when looking ahead. The slow-down in the market has had huge consequences for my community. We have one of the fastest growing populations in the country—it is set to double in the next 20 years. Little Stanion is a new development that, because the bottom dropped out of the housing market and the construction sector, has not yet reached the trigger point for the infrastructure it needs. I have talked to local people. They do not have the parks, play areas, public transport provision or the investment in schools and other facilities that they need. We need to get the economy growing. That is why, in my by-election, many people came out to vote for me on a cold, dark November evening. They voted because I made a pledge to support a jobs guarantee for young people, funded by a one-year national insurance tax break for small firms—I do not why the Government will not listen to that idea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West is absolutely right to press the Government for action to get young people back to work. There are specific projects in east Northamptonshire and Corby, such as the Chowns Mill roundabout, investment in the A45, the Rockingham northern orbital route, getting the Geddington road reopened again and broadband. The previous Government promised 2 megabit broadband for every household in my constituency by 2012, but those plans were cancelled. We are now hoping that that might happen by 2015, but it is all part of a picture for my constituents of jam tomorrow—the investment was removed just when it was most needed. The Government really should listen.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Unusually, I would like to start by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for choosing the subject of this debate, even if the text of his motion is fundamentally flawed. In the language of “Yes Minister”, it is extremely courageous of the Opposition to choose a debate on a subject on which their own record is so weak, particularly when they would have cut investment by 50% had they won the last election. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that investment in infrastructure is vital to the economy’s long-term prosperity. It is also vital that we take effective action today to address the infrastructure deficit left by the previous Government.
There is no question that poor infrastructure discourages inward investment. As Professor Dieter Helm wrote towards the end of the last Labour Government in 2009:
“Few would choose to locate in Britain because of its infrastructure”.
He went on to describe it as
“not fit for the digital age”.
Bringing our infrastructure up to a standard that businesses and residents should be able to expect is essential if we are to create the flexible and successful economy on which prosperity will depend.
One of the most damaging legacies the Government inherited was the unsustainable imbalance in the economy that had built up over previous decades. We cannot build the prosperity we need based on London and the south-east alone and we cannot unlock the potential of the whole country without the modern infrastructure that makes doing business across the country and around the world as straightforward as it can be.
The prosperity gap between the black country, part of which I represent, and the south-east grew out of control under the previous Government. Gross value added per head in Dudley and Sandwell fell from 88% of the national average in 1997 to just 74% in 2008. World-class transport infrastructure such as the HS2 scheme will play an important role in closing that gap. We need to make it as easy to do business with Frankfurt, New York and vital emerging markets from our regional cities as it is from the City of London.
Labour left a rail system rapidly approaching capacity. Network Rail forecast that the west coast main line would be completely full by 2004. The inter-city rail network would be unable to cope without the additional capacity that will provided by HS2, and I am proud that the Government are taking the bold steps necessary to take that scheme forward. Businesses thinking of locating in my constituency know that they will have regular connecting services from the three main line stations in my constituency to the HS2 terminal in Birmingham, offering fast routes to London and later to Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
I would like to make one representation to the Minister. That investment, which is so important to bringing our largest cities together, must be complemented by a new focus on the importance of our regional airports. Whatever the rights and wrongs over the debate about expanding Heathrow, there can be no doubting the benefits of making better use of existing and potential capacity at airports outside London. Building a second runway at Birmingham airport, for example, would increase spare capacity to 50 million passengers per year, creating or sustaining 50,000 jobs. Transforming Birmingham, Manchester and other regional airports into additional hub airports would transform our regional economies and relieve some of the pressure on Heathrow.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that we also need to increase the turnover and capacity of regional airports in Scotland and Northern Ireland, particularly Aldergrove, Belfast city and Londonderry airports, in order to strengthen the economy across the whole of the UK?
James Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We need to encourage greater use of capacity for all our regional airports, as part of the vital effort to rebalance the British economy in the way I described.
Transport infrastructure is not only vital to business, but essential to people’s everyday lives. As the Minister said, the previous Government explicitly set out to price people out of their cars in order to reduce demand for investment in road infrastructure. Instead, we need to look at how we can make our roads better. My constituents are pleased that the Government are investing more in local roads through the highways maintenance block grant to councils. Unfortunately, Labour’s record in local government highlights the hypocrisy of the Opposition’s motion. People in Dudley borough have benefited from £2 million of additional investment in local road maintenance. Unfortunately, the new Labour administration is cutting the road maintenance budget by the same amount, pound for pound, as the additional funding from the Department for Transport. Labour in local government has shown time and again that, as far as it is concerned, infrastructure spending is a very low priority, but residents know that we cannot build a strong local economy with third-rate local infrastructure.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman understands that some of the cuts that local government is delivering might well be the result of the 50% cash reduction that most authorities are experiencing over the comprehensive spending review period.
James Morris
The hon. Gentleman knows that the decisions taken by local authorities are about priorities. I was giving an example from Dudley borough of a specific decision about priorities for local funding which will be greatly detrimental to local residents.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to effective and efficient investment in vital infrastructure at a time when finances are constrained by the need to tackle the record deficits built up by their predecessors. Using Government guarantees to leverage private investment is a prudent use of public funds, whereas overuse of PFI has left taxpayers paying over the odds for capital schemes, as has been described in this debate.
The Chancellor’s announcement of the new PF2 scheme in the autumn statement was badly needed. We must restore people’s confidence that public money allocated for infrastructure is being spent on roads, schools and hospitals, rather than on swelling contractors’ profits. My constituents were particularly pleased that the proposed new Midland Metropolitan hospital in Sandwell was cited as the first candidate for the new scheme in the NHS. The local hospitals trust has been working hard with the Department of Health and the Treasury to ensure that those plans progress. I hope that my constituents can look forward to further good news shortly. Such investment would not only undoubtedly stimulate local economic activity in the short term, but provide a valuable new facility, providing better services more efficiently for years to come.
I believe that the Government are taking the necessary and tough decisions to invest for the long term in Britain’s infrastructure in order to make up the gap and the deficit left by the previous Government.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I draw attention at the outset to my interests as declared in the register.
This has been a curious debate to date. Infrastructure is, at least in theory, a subject on which there is a large measure of cross-party support. There is general agreement across the House that we need to ensure that we have the transport networks, power arrangements, waste and water distribution systems, sewerage systems, flood protection systems and all the other necessary infrastructure that is essential to a modern, functioning economy. Really, we should have been debating how to make a reality of the current investment programmes to deliver the kind of infrastructure that is essential to our economic well-being in the longer term and, in the short term, that will help to create jobs, employment and growth in our stuttering economy.
However, we did not do that. Instead, we have seen a series of differences—not just across the House, between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on our Front Bench, but between the Minister and his Back-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who took a very different view from him. Rather than echoing his stated wish that infrastructure investment should be speeded up, she made a fairly passionate case for slowing it down.
Mrs Main
The right hon. Gentleman will see clearly that I talked about the strategic rail freight interchange in my constituency. More to the point, I am sure he would agree that these issues—whether waste disposal or otherwise—cause tensions in communities and that harm to the environment has to be weighed in the balance against development.
Mr Raynsford
I put it to the hon. Lady that when she reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see some pretty clear references to going slowly and not following the advice of her Front-Bench colleague, who wants to accelerate development. He has not been very successful in doing that, but at least his heart is in the right place, and I am with him on that.
The Minister chose to present a case that was, frankly, absurdly partisan—perhaps to divert attention away from his difficulties with his own party, which does not always share his enthusiasm for speeding up the development of infrastructure. The implication that there was no worthwhile infrastructure investment under the previous Government and that the arrival of the current Government has unleashed a cornucopia of new infrastructure schemes is, frankly, risible.
Let us look at the record. I tried in my intervention to point out to the Minister that it was completely unfair to say that there had been no worthwhile investment, particularly in rail, under the previous Government. Let us look at the history of High Speed 1, the link between the channel tunnel and London. That link was not constructed when the channel tunnel was built, because the then Government, headed by Baroness Thatcher, did not believe in rail investment. The French did, and there was a high-speed link between the tunnel and Paris. The Belgians did, and there was a high-speed link between the tunnel and Brussels. But there was no high-speed link between the tunnel and London because the then Conservative Government did not believe in it. Eventually, the Major Government had a last-minute change of heart and began to recognise the importance of such a link, but they could not get it together and the scheme was in a state of financial uncertainty when the Labour Government came to power. The Minister is a fair-minded man, and I hope that he will recognise that High Speed 1, an important piece of infrastructure investment, was the achievement of the last Labour Government.
I would also like to remind the Minister about Crossrail. The scheme had been talked about for a very long time, since the mists of antiquity, but it was the Major Government who introduced a Bill to enable it to be built. However, rather characteristically of them, their political management in this place was so poor that they entrusted the project to a hybrid Bill Committee, which rejected it. So the Bill never progressed, the infrastructure was not built and, once again, it was left to the Labour Government to introduce the Crossrail scheme, to take the Bill through Parliament and to begin the work.
I give credit to the current Government, because they have sustained the investment in the Crossrail scheme. I am glad that they have done so, but it is risible to argue that everything being done today is wonderful and that nothing good was done before. As the Minister must recognise, the Crossrail scheme was developed by the previous Government and is being carried forward by the current Government. Making a reality of such long-term investment schemes depends on that degree of cross-party consensus.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I made no criticism of Labour in that regard. In fact, I said that these were long-term decisions, and that the proposals that he has mentioned enjoyed cross- party support. My particular criticism of the previous Government was the decision of the Minister for whom he worked, now Lord Prescott, to cancel 103 out of 140 road schemes. In the spirit of bipartisanship, will he now reflect on that point and accept that that was the wrong thing to do?
Mr Raynsford
Perhaps the Minister will reflect on the point ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) about Lord Prescott’s part in the creation of High Speed 1 and the praise that was given to him by Michael Heseltine, whom I am sure the Minister would accept as a colleague.
Mr Raynsford
Unlike the Minister’s, my speech is time-limited, and I have now given way twice. I cannot do so again, so I hope he will bear with me.
I want to take the Minister to task once more—I might give way to him again at that point, as this is a new subject—over the national infrastructure plan. The Government’s amendment to the motion is based on the absurd proposition that the national infrastructure plan is entirely the product of the current Government and that no such plan existed under the previous Government. He will know very well that Infrastructure UK was set up by the previous Government, and that all the preparatory work for the national infrastructure plan was done under that Government. That is why his Government were able to publish the national infrastructure plan in October 2010. If he thinks about it, he will realise that it would have been completely impossible to put together and publish the plan within four months or so of his party coming into government.
The national infrastructure plan was a bipartisan achievement, and I hope that we can continue this debate in a more mature spirit, and recognise that cross-party agreement is essential if we are to get the real infrastructure investment that we need and if we are to do this properly without the kind of problems that we have encountered too often in the past as a result of the failings of all Governments of all complexions.
I should also like to focus on the ambivalence that exists in relation to whether housing constitutes infrastructure. The national infrastructure plan does not define housing as infrastructure, but the Government have made provision in their Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012 for £10 billion of support for investment in housing schemes. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on whether infrastructure should be defined so as to embrace housing and, if so, how quickly he thinks housing might benefit from that Act.
Last summer, Lord Sassoon, who was then the responsible Minister, talked about £40 billion-worth of schemes that were shovel ready—all ready to go—in the autumn. We are now well past the autumn and to the best of my knowledge not a single housing scheme has been given the go-ahead. Indeed, we have got to the point only of defining the criteria by which schemes may be assessed. This does not look like speedy progress. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister on when he expects that financial support mechanism to have any impact in the housing sector, which is facing a terrible problem of undersupply.
I personally believe that it is impossible to consider infrastructure without including housing, because accommodation is needed for people just as much they need the roads or rail for access, the power supply and all the other things essential for economic development. I would therefore include provision for housing within infrastructure development. I would do so particularly at the moment because the output of housing is appalling. In the last 12 months, only 98,000 housing starts were made. I put it to the Minister, who was critical of the previous Government’s failure in this respect, that if he goes back to 2007—the last year before the recession hit—we started 185,000 homes. If his Government get anywhere near the level of output of the previous Government, they will be doing very well. They are not there at the moment; they need to go very much further and rather faster than they have. I hope they will think about how this scheme can be used to stimulate housing development.
The one other area I want to touch on is aviation. The Minister was interestingly coy about aviation. We know perfectly well—we are constantly reminded of it, not least by the Mayor of London, who I believe is of the same party as the right hon. Gentleman—that there is a chronic problem of undercapacity for aviation in London and the south-east, and an urgent need for new investment. There are and will be differences about where we believe this increase in capacity should be located. I believe that the Thames estuary is the right location and I have advocated that for a long time—I am with the Mayor on that. Other people believe that Heathrow should be expanded, while others believe Stansted is the right location. But no one who has looked at this seriously believes that we do not need to expand capacity. What have the Government done? Kicked it into touch until after the next general election. That is simply not an adequate response. I put it to the Minister that the Government will have to be more serious and should approach this issue on a more cross-party basis if we really are to get progress in infrastructure investment, which is essential to us.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but in order to accommodate remaining colleagues, it is necessary to reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to six minutes with immediate effect. Apologies, but that has to be done.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Given the new time limit and the scope of the Government’s activities in the infrastructure field, I shall limit my remarks to the rail sector.
It is pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). I must say, however, that the second most absurd comment in his speech—after the one about the Thames estuary airport—was when he invited the Minister to recognise that HS1 was the achievement of the last Labour Government. I thought he was about to make an appeal by saying that infrastructure was a long-term thing and that both parties had been involved in it, but no. Perhaps even more striking was the comment of the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), when he said that we had Lord Prescott to thank for the preservation of the wonderful façade of St Pancras station. That might have been news to the late Sir John Betjeman.
HS1 certainly has better branding than the channel tunnel rail link, and I congratulate Labour Members on that, but the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act was passed in 1996, and it included outline planning permission. The then Government decided as part of that to have the station at Ebbsfleet, and very serious redevelopment in north Kent flowed from that. HS1 cuts through my constituency and there was significant opposition to it at the time. To a degree, the community’s view of it has settled down; certainly the noise and interference from those trains has not been as great as I feared. We have very significant benefits from having Ebbsfleet, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich should recognise the cross-party impetus that was behind HS1.
As for HS2, Opposition Members have spoken of it as it were just some little add-on. We have heard that great things are being done in Brazil; some project worth about £5 billion has been mentioned. However, the scope, scale and ambition of the HS2 project, and the vision shown by the Chancellor in driving forward that project from his time in opposition until now—despite the state of the public finances that we were left—are hugely impressive. That £35 billion project is basically inventing a high-speed rail network for this country.
Opposition Members complain that trains will not stop in certain places or will not go to others, but the fact is that even places that will not be on the new line and will not be given new stations will gain significant benefits from HS2. I am thinking particularly of the link that will go all the way to Wigan, the link that will go almost as far as York, and the link that will allow trains to come on from Crewe. All those will provide huge benefits for Newcastle, Liverpool and Scotland, which, as with the cities actually on the network, will see substantial reductions in travel times. The Government deserve to be given a measure of credit by Opposition Members for pushing ahead with HS2, particularly given the finances with which we were left.
I am happy to give credit to the Opposition when it comes to Crossrail, and I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman give credit to us for keeping it. I think that particular credit is due to us in view of the financial circumstances in which we have proceeded with Crossrail. If he will do me the courtesy of allowing me to visit his constituency on 27 February, I look forward to seeing the handover of the Woolwich station box to Crossrail. Berkeley has done an excellent job, and it will be a real gain for his area and for south-east London in general. I am an Eltham boy of old myself. I also think that there will be huge benefits for north Kent. Crossrail will go through Woolwich to Abbey Wood, and the connections with Dartford, Gravesend and the Medway towns will be much improved.
A Crossrail spur from Stratford to Stansted could serve as a tribute to, and be a legacy of, the current Government. We are seeking to have infrastructure projects that can be proceeded with quickly. The Davies commission is due to report in 2015, but an interim report is expected this year, which will consider how existing runway capacity in the south-east can be better used. The single best answer to that must be Stansted, because it has one runway which is only half used. It has the capacity for a further 18 million passenger movements per year, but it does not have good links with central London. If we had the Crossrail spur, it would.
The former aviation Minister Steve Norris is doing fantastic work in promoting that idea. He proposes a six-mile tunnel from Stratford to Fairlop Waters, and for the railway to run along the M11 all the way to Stansted. As a result, the journey from Stansted to Liverpool Street would take only 23 minutes, and it would take only half an hour to travel to the west end or to Ebbsfleet. What a legacy for the Government that would be! What better way could we find of kick-starting the construction industry? I would expect the Liberal Democrats to support it: they may not want any new runways ever to be built in the south-east, but at least they believe in improved rail connections, and they are working with the Conservatives to deliver that.
I hope that Treasury Ministers will allow Steve Norris, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and me, to put the case to them. I think that it would be more than a short-term—perhaps a longer-term—solution to the aviation issue.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument for the joined-up thinking that I stressed in my speech. I hope that he continues with it, because the more we can marry areas that want development with the benefits that result from it, the better the position will be for all concerned.
Mark Reckless
I think that the Stansted Crossrail spur could provide an answer to that, from not just a local but a regional and a national perspective.
I was sorry to learn that my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, was encountering a difficulty in regard to the freight terminal that is planned for the lovely area of Radlett. In my constituency, the infrastructure is being put where we want it. Only last month, the Government announced that we were to be given a brand-new railway station in Rochester, which will be built exactly where we want regeneration to happen, in the area around Rochester Riverside. It will hugely assist us in making the case to developers, and in encouraging people to visit and to move to Rochester. It will improve the transport times to London, it will be immediately open to the whole of Rochester high street, and it will link the high street with the regeneration area. This Government have worked very closely with Medway council, through Network Rail, to get this announcement and to get these funds, for which I am very grateful.
Mark Reckless
I agree. I am a localist in these matters. I had the privilege to serve under the Financial Secretary when he ran the Conservative party’s policy unit, and he probably did more than any single person in our party to push that localist agenda. What he has achieved in planning, and in getting agreement for a planning system that boosts the economy and regeneration in this country yet allows local needs to be reflected and gives proper powers to the local democratically elected councillors, has been exemplary. The more we can work to get the economy moving through investment in infrastructure where both communities and the nation want it, the better.
I ask the Financial Secretary to take this agenda forward and to look in particular at giving a further boost to the economy with an extension of Crossrail. I urge him to ensure that the Treasury, as well as the Department for Transport, looks at the case that has been made for a Crossrail spur from Stratford to Stansted.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on securing this debate on this important issue. I want to draw the House’s attention to the Croydon tram extension—or, rather, the lack of it. That project has huge local support. It was also supported by the Mayor of London; in his re-election campaign, he came to the area twice and was photographed on the proposed tram route. I greatly regret that the scheme is now not proposed for delivery, the cause of which is an unhappy combination of a Tory Mayor of London and a Tory-led Government abandoning a major infrastructure project that had huge regenerative potential for areas including Upper Norwood and Crystal Palace in my constituency. The constituency has extremely high, and growing, youth unemployment. That was a huge issue in the by-election at which I was elected. I would very much like all parties concerned to think again about recommitting to the promise that the Mayor of London made in his re-election campaign.
Before I was elected at the end of November, one of the roles I had was chair of the Vauxhall Nine Elms strategy board. That is a fantastic project just across the river from here. It is led by local government, which the Government frequently take pleasure in denigrating and decrying. It was led by the Labour administration in Lambeth and the Conservative administration in Wandsworth, acting together with private sector partners to create a regeneration project that is bigger than the Olympics in the heart of London. It will be the single biggest generator of new homes in the entire country, delivering about 16,000 new homes and creating about 20,000 new jobs, as well as the Northern line extension.
I am surprised by how frequently we hear the Government taking credit for that scheme. Indeed, the Chancellor did so in both of the last two autumn statements. There is no Government money of any note going into this scheme, however. It is not a Government project—although I give them credit for underwriting it—and all the parties involved would be pleased if they would stop trying to take credit for something they are not doing.
Although the Government are pleased to talk up that excellent and vital infrastructure project, their planning reform proposals will slow it down. A number of schemes with permissions in place are ready to go, but the Government have now told the developers that if they delay implementation, they may be able to reduce or remove some of the social housing requirements. Therefore, as a result of Government intervention, we are looking at fewer affordable homes at a time of record homelessness, and the delay of planned jobs at a time of record unemployment, none of which makes sense.
As a Member of this House I am also privileged to be a member of the Public Administration Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into Government procurement. While taking evidence, the Committee has repeatedly been told that the lack of a long-term Government procurement pipeline for national infrastructure means that businesses are not confident, cannot plan for growth and jobs, and therefore do not invest. As a result, yes, there are more jobs—low-paid and part-time jobs—but there is no growth, and when there are more jobs but no growth there is a collapse in productivity. The confidence of business has been broken by the failure of the Government to invest, and that can only be a harbinger of further trouble for our economy.
The Government failure to invest in infrastructure is one of the key causes of their failure on jobs, growth and the economy. The Deputy Prime Minister is right to admit that the Government have got it wrong. The country needs them to change course and I commend Labour’s five-point plan as an excellent starting point.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) about the unwillingness of business to invest, and the effect on jobs and growth of our lack of confidence in the economic prospects of the country, which is caused by the Government’s economic policy. That point summarised the problems and set out why this debate is crucial and why it is crucial that the Government get infrastructure investment right.
When the coalition Government were elected, one of their first acts was to cancel a number of infrastructure projects, including the Building Schools for the Future programme. Chesterfield high school in my constituency was one victim of that decision and did not receive the investment in new buildings it so badly needed. The decision also meant the end of plans for Chesterfield high school to be integrated with Crosby high school. Crosby high school is a special school, and students and staff at both schools would have benefited from the integration of special and mainstream education on the same site. Sadly, that was not to be, and hon. Members across the country will have similar examples of the impact of the cancellation of Building Schools for the Future.
When they took power the Government scrapped a number of infrastructure schemes and reviewed a number of schemes that the previous Government had already approved. On infrastructure spending, it is clear that the Government have cut investment by £12.8 billion compared with the plans of the previous Government. The Treasury identifies 574 projects worth £310 billion in the Government’s 2012 infrastructure pipeline, but just seven of those are completed or operational and they include a road scheme started under the Labour Government.
In my area, the Mersey Gateway has been described by KPMG as one of the world’s most important infrastructure projects, yet as we heard from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), a preferred bidder has yet to be announced for that important scheme. In my constituency, the previous Labour Government gave the go-ahead for the Switch Island to Thornton relief road. That road was put on hold in May 2010 by the incoming coalition Government but reinstated after a review.
Sefton council spent considerable time and money negotiating first with the Government and then with various landowners. The road has widespread local support, as it will relieve congestion for the residents of Thornton and speed up journeys for people from Formby, Crosby, Maghull and Aintree in my constituency. It will help the economy and boost jobs and growth. It has been discussed for at least 40 years, and the news that it was to go ahead was welcomed by nearly all my constituents. There has been a marked absence of opposition to the road, partly because the consultation carried out by Sefton council was so thorough. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State decided to call in the project and hold a public inquiry.
At the cost of an inquiry, the Government have delayed a much-needed piece of infrastructure, and three years later there is still no sign of building work. I am sure colleagues will know the cost of such inquiries, and the final cost of the Thornton relief road inquiry will be of great interest to my constituents. I dare say that Members across the House will know of schemes that have suffered similar delays because of how we deal with infrastructure in this country. The slow progress made on the Thornton relief road and the complete lack of progress on most of the projects in the infrastructure pipeline—the Treasury’s words, not mine—highlight an institutional delay that happens in this country and a real problem that we have on infrastructure.
Some Members have talked about consensus, and that issue must be addressed across the House, but the lack of progress, the delay in starting work and the decline in the construction industry show a much bigger problem, which lies at the heart of the economic problems in this country. The Thornton relief road is important for the economic benefits it will bring once it is built, but it is also vital because of the impact of construction on the local economy, on jobs and on the multiplier effect of infrastructure spending on the wider economy.
The lack of activity in the construction industry is a key reason why our economy has stalled since May 2010, and the fact that the construction sector has declined so much is a cause for great long-term concern, as well as concern about its short-term impact. Output in the construction industry fell by 9.3% between the end of 2011 and the end of 2012, and 129,000 jobs have been lost in construction since the Tories and Lib Dems joined forces nearly three years ago. The delay in infrastructure planning and the impact on the construction industry, on jobs and on the economy will have a long-term effect. The firms that have closed cannot just reopen, and workers who have been laid off cannot simply be re-employed. For projects such as the Thornton relief road, delay means that potential economic benefit is not realised when it is most needed, which is now.
The Government state that they want to speed up the planning process to drive economic development, yet they hold unnecessary and expensive planning inquiries, which only delay the start of projects. To listen to the Minister, one might have thought that the whole country had been turned into one big building site—how far from the truth can that be? His description of large-scale, widespread projects in road, rail and energy might have led us to believe that we have a thriving, growing economy, where the construction sector is booming. Sadly, that is just not the case. Even the Government’s own figures show what is really happening.
The case for infrastructure has been made by the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce. Unless we see those investments, we will not see the return to growth and prosperity, and the jobs that are so desperately needed. The Government need to take action now.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I found the Minister’s description of the recent history of this country totally astonishing. In my constituency, I can think immediately of a new bypass, a new further education college, a new hospital, several GP surgeries, several new schools and thousands of people who benefited from the decent homes programme under the last Labour Government. I am very concerned that this Government are not investing in the north-east as they should be. In the autumn statement of 2011, only 0.03% of the £40 billion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer switched into capital spending came to the north-east. In the autumn statement of 2012, there was an injection of £124 million, a road-widening scheme in Gateshead and some housing, which takes our share of the Government’s capital spend to an incredible 0.5%. That is an appalling waste of opportunity and potential in the north-east.
I am sorry that the Minister who opened the debate is not in his place, and I urge the Treasury to examine what the report from the Institute for Public Policy Research says about the way in which calculations for cost-benefit analysis on roads are made. The report makes it very clear that there is no level playing field between how cost-benefit analysis is carried out in sparse areas and how it is done in densely populated areas. I hope that the Treasury revisits that.
I also hope that the Treasury will examine the report from the North East chamber of commerce, which makes it clear that we have a large number of projects that would significantly improve the operation of the north-east economy. That is important, because we face the highest level of unemployment in the entire country at 9.1%. That is the short-term problem that the Government have pushed us into.
The long-term problem set out by Oxford Economics, which did some special simulations for us, is that in the 10 years from 2010, we will see a deficit of 20,000 jobs in our region. That is 20,000 lives wasted because this Government are not making intelligent decisions about investment. This Government’s infrastructure decisions are driven almost entirely by political considerations rather than economic considerations.
The Chancellor’s unstable approach to energy policy is such that we do not have a framework to enable investment in offshore wind and renewables. Those are of value in themselves and offer a significant opportunity for the north-east economy.
Another area where the Government are ignoring this country’s potential is connectedness. Since 2005, more than 7 million UK households have gone online. The explosion in internet use has had significant economic benefits: in 2010, the internet economy made up 8.3% of this country’s GDP—a higher proportion than in any country in the world. Underpinning that is the roll-out of Britain’s broadband infrastructure, but what this Government have done has almost halted the roll-out of broadband in England. The Labour Government had a plan to ensure that by 2012, 90% of the country would have access to at least a good speed of broadband, but this Government put the achievement of the target back to 2015, and last week we heard from British Telecom that it is unlikely to be achieved until 2017. That is five lost years from this Government.
We need solutions that allow the benefits of broadband to be spread as widely as possible, but what the Government are doing by failing to invest in broadband disadvantages rural communities in particular. That is extraordinary in view of the fact that both coalition parties claim to represent the countryside; neither is doing so effectively. By breaking up the large areas on which we were letting the contracts for broadband and instead adopting a policy of fragmentation by local authority area, this Government made it uneconomic for many providers to bid for the contracts; consequently, they have produced a market in which there is almost no competition. Clearly the slogan is, “Vote Tory, vote against competition.” That is not the way to develop our economy. It is really important that we move forward and have one digital nation.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about infrastructure in our capital city, London. The capital is about to be hit by a demographic time bomb, which seems to have taken both the Government and City hall by surprise. The Mayor’s London plan forecast that the capital’s population would be 8.5 million by 2027, but we know that that is likely to be exceeded in 2016 or earlier, and by 2031, there will be 9.5 million people living here in London. Today’s creaking infrastructure will be burdened by 1.5 million extra people.
The House has already heard the depressing detail of the housing shortage here in London, with young couples unable to save for a deposit, families of six being squashed into flats built for three, and young professionals being extorted out of more rent by their landlord and more fees by their letting agent. Less has been said about London’s transport network, which is already at breaking point and is set to be pushed over the edge. We now require the sort of vision that gave us the London underground 150 years ago.
Right hon. and hon. Members will already know about the scrum to get on the tube at rush hour. How much worse will that become over the next decade, in which an additional 700,000 jobs will be located in central London? How much more congested will it be when High Speed 2 ferries even more passengers into central London terminals at peak times? For that privilege, Londoners are paying the highest transport fares in the world.
Yet these are problems that some Londoners are envious of, because parts of our capital remain islands of isolation. Even in 2013 some of my constituents are served by only one train an hour and at weekends none at all—here in our capital city, in one of the poorest wards, Northumberland Park, which has the highest unemployment, the highest levels of child poverty and the lowest levels of attainment in the country. Without transport links, such areas are starved of investment, bled of ambition and left marooned from the throbbing economic heart of the centre.
Not only is London failing its commuters and entire swathes of its suburbs, but the very status of the capital as one of the world’s greatest cities is under threat. It is not difficult to comprehend why London has been so successful. London’s triumph over the centuries is that it has constantly been open to the world as a centre for trade and finance. Today London is a magnet for some of the brightest and most innovative talents from every corner of the globe. That opportunity is being rivalled by cities such as Frankfurt and New York, and the growth in India and China.
How have the Government prepared London to meet the challenges of the next 20 years? They almost cancelled Crossrail 1. The Thameslink programme is beset by delays. They cancelled the third runway at Heathrow and kicked the search for an alternative into the long grass. They cancelled the four-tracking of the West Anglia line that would finally have provided a decent train service from one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the capital. The only ambition that this Government seem to have for the capital—the only vignette of a solution to the challenges it faces—is the two-station spur of the Northern line to Battersea power station. Small increases in capacity are set to be outstripped and overwhelmed by the forecast growth in the number of commuters. Now the Government look set to drop the ball once again, this time on Crossrail 2.
The Chancellor and the Minister will have the seen the report published last week by Lord Adonis and the London First group that details the case for a new line linking the south-west of London with the north-east of London, including three stations in my constituency. As my noble Friend made clear, this is the only way that London will be able to cope with the challenges presented to it over the next 20 years; it is the only way that London will be able to handle the growing number of commuters; and it is the only way that passengers arriving in London from High Speed 2 can be efficiently dispersed from Euston station. It is the only way that we can relieve the dangerous levels of congestion on London’s major north-south tube lines—the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines—the severe overcrowding that Londoners experience on mainline routes into Clapham junction and Waterloo, and the overcrowding across the tube.
Most important are the economic benefits that the proposal would bring to some of the poorest neighbourhoods in our capital. For areas such as Northumberland Park in my constituency, Edmonton, Hackney and large parts of our capital city, we need these infrastructure projects. We need a renewed vision for transport in our city. We must have Crossrail 2, building on Crossrail 1. We need a commitment from the Minister that the Government will get on with that. We need a Bill before the next Parliament to introduce Crossrail 2 so that we can see the infrastructure here in the city, and the city can provide the economic boost to our country that is so desperately needed.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
It is very important to realise that investment in infrastructure works in boosting the economy. I want to give an example from Scotland that is about investment in housing, and I will start, but not necessarily finish, by praising something that the current Scottish Government did. At the beginning of the UK Government’s term of office, they took a decision to bring forward capital spending in order to boost the economy. They put some of that spending into housing, particularly affordable housing. As a result, for a brief period, they were able to increase the proportion of spending on affordable housing.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
In the spirit of generosity to other parties, will my hon. Friend also commend the coalition Government for introducing the borrowing guarantees and earmarking £10 billion for housing, classifying it categorically as infrastructure for the first time? To make her point, I should say that every £1 million of public money that goes into house building generates 11 jobs.
Sheila Gilmore
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The spending in Scotland enabled the Scottish Government to announce that unemployment was not rising as fast as in the rest of the UK, and they took great pleasure in that. Sadly, the situation has not been maintained, and we are hearing less of how wonderful the Scottish Government are at dealing with unemployment; at present, the opposite is happening. I would argue that one of the reasons is that the investment in infrastructure, particularly in housing, has not been sustained. The figures are stark. In Scotland, there were 7,915 new affordable housing starts in 2009-10; in 2010-11, the figure fell slightly to 6,460; and in 2011-12, it fell to 3,405—a halving in less than two years.
There is a consequence for the construction industry, its employees and unemployment in Scotland. The Scottish Government showed that such investment worked, but they have not been able to sustain it. They would probably argue that that is solely because of what has been happening at the UK level—investment in housing and in capital has been falling. They would be right to some extent, although I would add that they are not particularly interested in showing that the situation can be overcome. I suggest two ways in which they could overcome it.
First, the Scottish Government could use the tax-raising powers given in 1999 as part of devolution. They have not chosen to use those, although I think people in Scotland would be prepared for them to be used if they thought that the money could be invested as it was previously. They have also put a stranglehold on local government by having a five-year council tax freeze, which has meant that local government cannot make the choice to say to its local population, “We desperately need more housing. We will put up council tax so that we can borrow”—that is perfectly possible—“and build that much-needed housing.”
So there are ways in which the Scottish Government could continue with policies that for a brief period showed that investment in infrastructure boosts the economy and employment. I urge them to go back to doing that, rather than allowing things to deteriorate so that they can always blame London; that, I am afraid, is what they tend to do.
Some of the discussion is fascinating. If someone had fallen asleep in 1997 and woken up watching this debate, they would have wondered which party was talking. Government Members want to argue, “The last Government didn’t do anything on infrastructure and when they did, it was all this horrible PFI.” I seem to recall that PFI was not a Labour Government invention, but was enthusiastically put forward by the preceding Conservative Government. I am interested to know when that conversion happened. We can get that sort of investment better, but my city is a lot better for some of the public-private partnerships that we put in place—the schools that were built and the investment that was taking place.
A lot of things seem to happen in Scotland first these days, which are then followed, not always for the better, here. In 2007 a Scottish Government of a nationalist persuasion took over, and in my city a Lib Dem-Scottish National party council took over. They both decided that they did not like public-private partnerships and so would instead come up with some magic way of creating these investments. As a result, not one new school was started in the five years of that Lib Dem-SNP administration—not one. Several were finished, and councillors were very pleased to go and open them and have their name put on the opening plaque, but those schools had been planned and funded through PPPs. We seem to have undergone a miraculous conversion at some point—I am not quite sure when—but we have not come up with anything that really works in its place.
I call in support of this argument none other than the Mayor of London, who is quoted in tonight’s edition of The Evening Standard as calling for a £1.3 billion investment in housing in London. Perhaps the Government would like to listen to a mayor of their own political persuasion.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
This has been a good and thoughtful debate with Members on both sides of the House illustrating how important infrastructure projects are to their constituencies, to the wider region and to UK plc as a whole.
I want to highlight some of the more memorable moments in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) summed up the Minister’s opening speech as a dismal display of dither and delay; I hope that I have paraphrased him correctly. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) gave the Government’s position away by speaking up for dither and delay and cautioning against a mad dash for growth. One could not accuse the Government of that—it is more like a mad dash for the dip.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) spoke my mind when he expressed deep concern about the Government’s very backward-looking approach on this issue. He also made a passionate plea for more infrastructure investment in his area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) spoke passionately about High Speed 1—a major achievement by Labour in government—and set out his concerns about the lack of housing investment by this Government.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) limited his comments to rail infrastructure. He claimed that that was because the Government’s infrastructure activities are too broad and varied, but I would argue that it is the only area they are taking any action on at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) raised the crucial issue of youth unemployment, which the Government, with their complacent approach, seem to overlook too often. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) recalled the cancellation of Building Schools for the Future—the decision made so rashly by the Government on taking office that has impacted not only on children but, as we now know, on economic growth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) talked about the lack of investment in the north-east region, with 0.05% of Government investment being the north-east’s share to date and the Government’s decisions being driven by a political rather than an economic rationale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) set out the desperate need for investment in London. He was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who cited the Mayor of London’s having called for much the same thing.
The majority of Members on whom I have commented are Labour Members. That is because we called this debate to raise the fundamental role that infrastructure projects could and should be playing in getting our country and our economy on the road to recovery and growth. This is an economy that has been flatlining as a result of the Government’s failing plan, that did not grow at all in the whole of 2012 and that has now shrunk in four of the past five quarters.
Andy Sawford
This country’s growth rate since the 2010 comprehensive spending review is 0.4%. On infrastructure, does my hon. Friend agree that the huge contrast between us and America, Germany and other countries that are maintaining their stimulus is highlighted by the fact that they are now above their pre-crisis peak? They are now growing by 3% or 4%, compared with the abysmal record of this Government.
Catherine McKinnell
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes that point very well. Infrastructure investment fell off the cliff when this Government came to power and we are seeing the economic consequences of that today. Many Members have referred to the Chancellor’s 2010 spending review. It took place in the fourth quarter of 2010 and the UK’s economy has grown by just 0.4% since then. During that time, the USA economy has grown by 4.2%, Germany’s by 3.6% and France’s by 1.5%. Our economy, however, has been stagnating for the past two years, and borrowing is now rising, not falling, as a result.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that the United States strategy for the top 2% to pay more towards reflating the economy and getting 1% extra growth is a good idea and that we should not be hitting the poor to pay for debts?
Catherine McKinnell
This Government’s choices on spending and tax have resulted in millionaires being given a tax cut while the poorest bear the brunt. We are seeing the results of that, not just in the suffering that we see at our constituency surgeries, but in the lack of economic growth. That is why it is so disappointing—indeed, unforgiveable—that the coalition Government have been asleep at the wheel on the issue of infrastructure investment.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Catherine McKinnell
I will give way one last time and then I must make some progress.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she not recall that a pledge was slipped into and hidden away in the Labour manifesto to cut capital spending—that is, infrastructure spending—by 50% had her party formed the next Government?
Catherine McKinnell
That shows, once again, the Government’s utter complacency and head-in-the-sand approach to this whole issue. The hon. Gentleman knows that his Government have spent £12.8 billion less on capital investment than Labour planned, so I will not take lectures on that from any Government Member.
Time and again over the past two years we have heard the Prime Minister and Chancellor expound the value of infrastructure investment in delivering growth in the economy and, crucially, creating new jobs. All the evidence shows, however, that their record is one of inaction, complacency, delay and failure to deliver, which, combined with private sector uncertainty, is having a highly damaging effect on Britain’s construction industry for one.
The much-vaunted national infrastructure plan, published back in 2011, identified 40 priority projects that the Government stated were
“of national significance and critical for growth”.
However, despite the Government’s proclaimed focus on those so-called priority areas—and, indeed, a Cabinet Committee that is supposed to be overseeing progress—we are yet to see spades in the ground for too many of those projects.
Last year’s autumn statement announced a £5.5 billion infrastructure package, but this is to be paid for by cuts to departmental spending and underspend, including capital underspends, and one third of the projects included in the package had been previously announced by the Government. Indeed, describing the 2011 infrastructure plan as
“hot air, a complete fiction”,
the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce urged the Government to develop
“bold leadership and some creative ideas”
and to “get a grip” on this issue in order to stimulate economic growth.
The CBI’s assessment of the Government’s performance does not get any better, with its annual infrastructure survey last year finding that 73% of its members do not think that transport infrastructure will improve over the next five years and that two thirds believe that the UK’s energy and water infrastructure is unlikely to get any better. This has been damningly described by the CBI director general John Cridland as
“a wake-up call that businesses in Britain are looking for action and we haven’t seen any yet.”
Even the Deputy Prime Minister finally appeared to wake up to the importance of this issue—although a little late in the day—when he acknowledged last month that the coalition cut capital spending too deeply when it came into government. We were all desperately disappointed that the latest apology did not come via YouTube—the “I’m Sorry” infrastructure remix. We were offered this particular mea culpa via The House magazine, which he told:
“I think we’ve all realised that you actually need, in order to foster a recovery, to try and mobilise as much public and private capital into infrastructure as possible.”
Yes, that is what the Opposition have been saying all along.
In their first three years, this Tory-led Government have spent £12.8 billion less in capital investment than would have been spent under the plans inherited from Labour. That is a fall of 8%. According to the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility, the coalition will spend £7.3 billion less on capital investment over the course of this Parliament than was planned by Labour.
This debate is not just about investment. Ensuring that infrastructure projects get off the ground and deliver jobs and growth requires the political will and determination to drive things through—something that is sadly and damagingly lacking under this Government. The economic situation in which we find ourselves requires urgent action from Government, such as that proposed in Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, which would bring forward long-term infrastructure projects, as we did in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. That plan includes the construction of thousands of affordable homes.
We need a comprehensive long-term plan to rebuild Britain’s infrastructure for the 21st century—a long-term framework that gives investors the confidence that they need to invest consistently and that will deliver real results for the UK economy. That is why my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor have asked Sir John Armitt, the chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, to conduct a review into how long-term infrastructure decision making, planning, delivery and finance can all be improved.
As this issue is of such national significance, a cross-party consensus is required to deliver what we need. We have seen what can be achieved when we reach a consensus and plan for the long term across Parliaments and across political divides. The Olympics showcased Britain as the great country and the one nation that it is, but that was Labour’s legacy. What will be this Government’s legacy? If they are not careful, it will be dither, delay, stifled economic growth and stagnation. It is time to get a grip. The Opposition motion calls on the Government to do just that, and I commend it to the House.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude this debate.
I have listened with great interest to the 11 Back-Bench contributions in the Chamber this afternoon. This is clearly an issue about which many Members feel strongly. It is also an issue that Members on both sides of the House seem to agree on in many ways. Both sides want to see a UK with world-class infrastructure and both sides recognise the importance of improved infrastructure for the nation’s economic future.
However, only one party ruined the UK economy after 13 years in government, hugely damaging the UK’s ability to invest in the very infrastructure that we all care about. It was the party that tabled the motion. That same party left the UK with the largest budget deficit in the G20. [Interruption.] Labour Members say that we should look forward. It is no surprise that they want the country to look forward, because they do not want us to remember their legacy, but the country must remember. They left a budget deficit higher than 11% of GDP. They borrowed £159 billion in their last year in government—£5,000 in each and every second of that final year.
Had the previous Government not messed up the regulation of the financial sector, they would not have had to carry out the biggest banking bail-out the world has ever seen, with £65 billion being put into RBS and Lloyds alone. Imagine how much new infrastructure that money could have been invested in. As if that was not bad enough, let us not forget the decision to sell off the nation’s gold reserves at record low prices. Had they not done that, the country would have been £10 billion richer. One thing that we did not hear from a single Labour Member this afternoon was an apology for the damage that they did to this country.
Despite that toxic legacy, this Government have restored economic confidence. We have slashed the record budget deficit by a quarter. We have restored economic credibility and opened Britain up for business again. That credibility has led to record low interest rates, with the Government’s 10-year funding costs having halved since 2010. Each of those steps has been crucial to creating an economic environment in which the Government can invest in infrastructure, and one in which investors feel their funds are secure.
Sheila Gilmore
Will the Minister explain to the House and the country why the OBR predictions at the time of the so-called emergency Budget and the comprehensive spending review have not happened, why growth has not happened, and why the deficit has not been reduced at the rate the Government originally promised?
Sajid Javid
I direct the hon. Lady to read the OBR report, which mentions a number of reasons, not least the eurozone crisis. She might like to read that report for herself.
I should respond to the points hon. Members have raised in the debate. Many accusations were made by Opposition Members. They said that, had they won the election, they would have miraculously invested more. The reality is that, had they won the election, they would have continued borrowing recklessly, which would have led to much higher interest rates. They would probably have led this country into the hands of the International Monetary Fund once again, which seems to be their speciality.
Let us look at Labour’s March 2010 Budget. It shows that the previous Government planned to cut capital spending by 6% compared with our latest plans. In fact, in nominal terms, they planned to cut capital spending by 22% between 2010 and 2014. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made a good point, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) dismissed. Let me read to her the words of the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). In July 2010, he said the previous Government would have halved the share of national income going into capital spending. That is the truth, and Labour Members want to deny it.
Meanwhile, this Government have overseen an increase in total investment in infrastructure from £29 billion a year, which was the level between 2005 and 2010, to £33 billion a year between 2010 and 2012. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor unveiled a further £5.5 billion of investment, including £1.5 billion for the strategic road network.
Hon. Members are aware that the vast majority of spending needs to come from the private sector. That is why we have taken measures to target and support investment—measures such as the UK guarantee scheme, which will provide up to £40 billion of support to critical infrastructure.
John Healey
In an answer last month on the guarantee scheme, the Financial Secretary told me:
“No project has been guaranteed under the UK Guarantee Scheme at this stage.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 981W.]
However, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor said:
“I can today confirm a £1 billion loan and a guarantee to extend the Northern line to Battersea power station and support a new development on a similar scale to the Olympic park.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 876.]
Does that not show the uncertainty and confusion at the heart of the Government’s infrastructure failures? Who is right: the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman rightly made a point earlier about the action the Government have taken to implement the guarantee scheme. Of the £40 billion of guarantees available, about £10 billion have pre-qualified but are not yet issued, and there has been an offer of a £1 billion guarantee for the Northern line extension project to Battersea. That is substantial progress since Royal Assent to the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012 in October 2012.
The Government are working tirelessly to encourage further investment, not just from overseas, but from pension funds. However, the debate should not focus solely on the amount of money we secure for projects. We should also focus on how to ensure the best possible return on those investments—a point made well by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). That is why the Government are running a cost review to reduce infrastructure costs by a target 15%, and why we have reviewed and reformed PF1 and launched PF2. The Government are investing wisely, collaboratively and efficiently.
Some Labour Members would have us believe that our investment is resulting in no action. I found it strange to hear the criticism that our investment has resulted in no spades in the ground. As the Financial Secretary told us earlier, a number of projects are already up and running. For example, major flood risk infrastructure projects have been completed in Nottingham, Truro and Keswick, and four new major road projects and 16 local transport schemes are under construction.
This is a Government with a long-term strategy for infrastructure. Our national infrastructure plan—the first time a Government have set out such a plan—identifies 550 projects with a value of more than £310 billion. It has seen us publish an investment pipeline that gives certainty to investors, which is absolutely key; prioritise projects through the creation of a top 40 list; and utilise a dedicated Cabinet Committee to ensure infrastructure delivery. The Opposition motion alludes to Sir John Armitt’s review into long-term infrastructure. Given the important and valuable role he played in the Olympics, I am sure it will be an interesting read and I will look at his recommendations. I am also sure that his advice will be considered, balanced and politically neutral. I would be very surprised if it were influenced by the shadow Chancellor in any way.
We have recently appointed our own Olympic expert to the role of Commercial Secretary. Lord Deighton is overseeing a review of Whitehall’s ability to deliver infrastructure, to increase commercial expertise across Government. We are enhancing the mandate of Infrastructure UK, increasing its capability to make sure that projects are delivered. Those steps show that this is a Government committed to investing in infrastructure projects and a Government committed to delivering infrastructure projects.
Let me turn briefly to two points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). They talked about the importance of rail investment and alluded to making greater investment in regional aviation. They made powerful cases and that is something the Government will look at. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood asked whether I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further—I would be very pleased to do so.
In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. I am sure we all want to see improved infrastructure in our constituencies and in the UK as a whole. While the Opposition have no answers for the challenges our country faces, this Government are getting on with the job. I therefore urge Members to reject the Opposition’s motion and to back the Government’s amendment.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
delegated legislation
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
delegated legislation
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
petition
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Over 400 residents of Kinnerton have signed this petition in favour of the non-development of a valuable green space. The campaign to protect the field has gone on for more than 20 years, and the issue needs to be resolved in the long term.
The Petitioners
believe that there is a real risk that unless the land is awarded Field in Trust status, designated as a village green or alternatively Flintshire County Council agree to a long-term lease of the land to the Community Council for recreational use beyond 2015, that the community will lose a valuable and much used recreational area in the heart of the village.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to secure protected status for Main Road Recreation Ground.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition.
[The Petition of residents of Higher Kinnerton, Flintshire,
Declares that earlier this year the Community Council nominated Main Road Recreation Ground to be protected under the Queen Elizabeth II Fields in Trust Challenge—a UK wide programme to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee and London Olympic Games by permanently protecting outdoor recreational spaces for future generations. However Flintshire County Council refused the nomination claiming the site has ‘long-term residential development potential’ which appears to contradict with Flintshire County Council’s own Unitary Development Plan which describes the field as ‘an important green space within the heart of Higher Kinnerton providing a green break within the built fabric of the village’.
Further that Flintshire County Council have now rejected an application to register Main Road Recreation Ground as a new village green—a move which had been supported by organisations including Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW) and national charity Play Wales; further that Alyn and Deeside MP Mark Tami and AM Carl Sargeant had also written to Flintshire County Council’s chief executive Colin Everett supporting the application for village green status and the move to retain this area of land for recreational use.
Further that the Petitioners believe that there is a real risk that unless the land is awarded Field in Trust status, designated as a village green or alternatively Flintshire County Council agree to a long-term lease of the land to the Community Council for recreational use beyond 2015, that the community will lose a valuable and much used recreational area in the heart of the village.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to secure protected status for Main Road Recreation Ground.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001154]
Common Agricultural Policy Reform
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as regards agriculture and farming.
I would like to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing time for today’s debate on common agricultural policy reform. It is important that the House is able to discuss issues that will affect farmers across England and Wales—and Scotland, Northern Ireland and, indeed, the whole of Europe—for the seven years after 2014.
Last week’s deal to reduce the overall EU budget by €58 billion will have a considerable impact on the direct payments to farmers and on the rural development budget that makes up the common agricultural policy, now said to be worth €373 billion over seven years. The funding for the CAP will be in the region of 13% less than the 2007 to 2013 deal. Relative reductions will be made to direct payments, falling from €283 billion to €277 billion, with rural development reduced from €91 billion to €85 billion. While I am pleased that the deal has been agreed on the €908 billion budget, it is important that these cuts are applied equally across the EU.
I and farming representatives such as the National Farmers Union believe that these reforms are an excellent opportunity to simplify, reduce and eliminate competitive distortions within the common market, to continue the process towards market orientation and to encourage farmers to become more competitive. I must emphasise once again that these reductions should be equal across the single market or else distortions will disadvantage UK farmers. It is pleasing to hear that the capping proposal to limit direct payments to larger farms will be used on a voluntary member state basis.
A number of issues need to be addressed. Under the current agreement, England and Wales—and, indeed, Scotland and Northern Ireland—receive less direct payment support than our main competitors in western Europe. This gap between us and France, Ireland, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands needs to be narrowed, or at most kept at current levels, especially if the situation is made more difficult by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposals to remove up to 20% of the direct payment that farmers now receive, especially at a time when other member states are looking to improve farmers’ direct payments through reverse transfers.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I need to draw attention to my own entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I think my interests are similar to those of my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the issue is not so much about a reduction in the level of support as about securing a level playing field, particularly in respect of the greening policy? On a number of issues, British farmers might well be seriously disadvantaged as compared with their European competitors unless we get that level playing field. That must underpin what we do.
Roger Williams
I agree. I am not arguing for an increase in the CAP budget; what I am arguing for is equality across the whole of Europe. At present, for instance, dairy farmers in the Netherlands receive twice as much support as those who farm in England.
DEFRA’s attempts to cut payments unilaterally, were they to be realised, would hit our farmers far harder than the proposed EU budget cut. In that context, I want to raise a few regional concerns that have arisen following discussions with the Farmers Union of Wales.
Although many of the draft CAP regulations and recently proposed amendments acknowledge regional administrations, others do not. Is the Minister confident that the final regulations will properly acknowledge devolved Administrations such as those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
The impact of greening measures on the regions was also raised with me by the FUW. Greening accounts for 30% of direct payments. Analysis by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board suggests that Wales, Scotland and northern England would be worst hit by the European Commission’s crop rotation greening proposals. That impact is likely to be due to the particular climatic and topographical challenges faced by farmers in those areas, which, as the Minister will know, are limited in terms of what arable crops can be grown in them, and are therefore at an instant disadvantage in relation to other regions. There is a fear that the greening measures will be perceived as too prescriptive and therefore unhelpful.
I should like the Government to make allowances for farmers in higher latitudinal areas, for example, to take into account the challenge of farming in a tougher environment. I should also like them to support amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleague George Lyon MEP and agreed to by the EU’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which will allow farms to be exempt from greening requirements if they undertake actions that reduce agriculture’s impact on the global environment.
It will be difficult to ensure that the greening measures that generate 30% of direct payments will have an equal impact in countries whose climates and agricultural systems vary as much as Finland and Malta. I fear that DEFRA wants to impose one form of greening on English farmers, namely the ELS-light approach in pillar one. It is one thing to say that a farmer who participates in the entry level stewardship scheme should be exempt from greening, and another to say that the only way in which he can receive his greening payment is to participate in the scheme. We see DEFRA’s approach as an interesting addition to the Commission’s proposals, but only as an accompaniment, not as a replacement. Forcing farmers in England to take part in ELS management measures when, say, Scottish, Irish or French farmers have access to choice and the various “green by definition” derogations sounds very much like domestic gold-plating to me.
I hope that the Government do not consider it necessary to use the new flexibility in the proposals to allow for voluntary modulation of funds in the region of 15% that can be made by member states between the two pillars. While it does represent a liberalisation of the voluntary modulation principle introduced for the UK and Portugal under the previous CAP regime, does the increased possible modulation not represent a threat that could undermine UK farmers’ ability to compete within a common market?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the likely shrinkage in the overall size of the EU budget, a decision by the UK Government to reduce the amount of modulation would be one way of ensuring that livestock and dairy farmers in particular see no reduction in their single farm payments?
Roger Williams
I agree. UK farmers certainly need a level of direct payment to remain financially viable and to play their part in the activities in which the people of this country would like to see them play a part.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising a matter that is worthy of a three-hour debate. Northern Ireland farmers have experienced a 52% reduction in their real incomes at a time when the supermarkets are not paying them the money that they need to recoup some of their losses. Does he agree that, while it is good that there has been a seven-year continuation of the CAP moneys until 2020, those moneys should have been set at a level that would help the farmer rather than penalising him?
Roger Williams
I agree. The direct payment protects the farmer from various things, including volatile commodity prices and poor and problematic weather conditions, which have a huge effect on profitability. Without the direct payment, many farmers would not be able to continue in business.
I, along with organisations such as the Country Land and Business Association, fear that modulation of this kind could undermine the ability of UK farmers to compete. I note the findings of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee “Greening the CAP” report. It stated:
“The competitiveness of UK farmers will be reduced if they are exposed to higher modulation rates than their European counterparts. We therefore recommend that Defra does not set modulation rates higher than other Member States that receive similar single farm payment rates.”
In terms of rural development, or pillar two, the UK receives the lowest per hectare allocation of funds because of the rebate the Government receive from Europe. A further reduction could turn farmers away from all the good they are doing in developing wildlife under the existing pillar two. The Government must make sure that as much positive management for wildlife as possible continues as we approach the 2020 deadline for improvements in biodiversity. Pillar two has delivered real improvements for the environment; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds receives £5 million from the CAP, for instance.
For a number of agricultural sectors, direct payments make up the majority of farm income, yet under EU rules farmers cannot receive payments for undertaking environmental work. They can be paid compensation only for the losses and costs incurred as a result of that environmental work. I believe there should be a system that genuinely rewards farmers for undertaking environmental work, and I am sure the Minister agrees. A deal must be done under the Irish presidency, thereby allowing for a period of transition in which farmers can make informed business decisions before the policy takes effect.
The British and European public have great expectations for CAP reform. They expect farmers across Europe to provide quality food and increase food security, and to increase exports within the EU and further afield. They also require our farmers to be sustainable and to deliver public goods such as biodiversity, landscaping, water purity and granting greater access to farmland. These two goals can be achieved only if agriculture is profitable and successful. Farmers cannot, however, be expected to commit their lives to such a role within the sector without receiving sufficient support and investment. It is therefore essential to have a single farm payment that is set at a level that allows farmers to remain profitable and deal with the challenges they face.
Recently, the single farm payment accounted for 80% of the total profitability of English agriculture, and in this financial year it will probably account for even more. The profitability of English agriculture is therefore clearly closely linked to the income from the single farm payment.
The challenges facing farmers vary widely. Globally, prices for commodities remain volatile, and the dairy industry has seen some of the lowest prices for milk in recent times. High input costs such as for fuel, fertiliser, feed and chemicals are hitting farmers across all sectors, too. We also face increasingly inconsistent weather, which has resulted in the lowest wheat yields since the 1980s, while dairy farmers have had to keep cattle indoors and revert to winter feeding early, all at extra cost. These effects are felt globally as well as here in the UK; the United States has experienced its worst drought in 56 years, for instance, leading to poor yields and crop abandonment in some areas.
I also want to make the case for extra support for hill farmers. They find it difficult to compete with people farming more advantageous areas. The CAP does not give specific support for hill farming.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The point about hill farmers leads me back to one of his original questions about the voice of regional government and national Government in the final regulations. Is he satisfied that the voice of Wales—in particular Welsh hill farmers—is being acknowledged in those negotiations and discussions?
Roger Williams
My hon. Friend points to a significant problem and I am not convinced at the moment that the future of hill farmers in Wales, England and the other devolved nations is secure. Will the Minister say what negotiations are taking place on behalf of the hill farming community? I do not seek to maintain the absolute level for CAP expenditure and it is far more important that British farmers are treated fairly and equitably. We operate in a single market in Europe and whatever settlement is finally reached, the terms and conditions applied to our farmers—whether the transfer to pillar two or the greening rules—must not put us at a disadvantage with our major competitors.
English farmers have already undergone substantial and radical reform through the full decoupling of direct support payments, the cutting of farm payments at national level, and the progressive move towards an area-based payments system. The combination of those policy decisions, all taken at national level by previous DEFRA Ministers, means that this year a dairy farmer in the Netherlands will receive a payment that is 91% higher than that received by an English dairy farmer. The reform should seek to narrow the gap in support levels compared with our competitors, and it certainly should not make it any worse.
I thank the Minister for listening and appreciate the size of the challenge faced by him and his ministerial team.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) for securing this debate, because it is extremely timely? We are about to enter probably the most intensive period of debate in Europe on common agricultural policy. There were doubts about whether we would have agreement on the overall EU budget, but that is now in place and was agreed last week. The Agriculture Committee in the European Parliament voted on its amendments last month, and I am optimistic that we will secure an agreement on CAP reform during the Irish presidency. My hon. Friend raised that point and it is important not least because we do not want our agricultural businesses and farmers to have a prolonged period of uncertainty. They need to know exactly where we are.
My hon. Friend set out to some extent the broad parameters of last week’s deal in which the Prime Minister secured a reduction in the CAP of €55 billion—13% less than the current budget. We do not need to be apologetic that we have sought a reduction in the overall budget of the European Union, as that is consonant with what taxpayers and national Governments across the European Union are experiencing. We also do not need to be apologetic that it will have consequences for the size of the agriculture budget, as no sector can be entirely immune from the process. The key is to ensure that the available funds are used in the most effective way to support agriculture across the United Kingdom.
Although my hon. Friend was concerned, I see the additional flexibility of the 50% potential transfer from the pillar one budget to pillar two as a key part of that support. He mentioned the importance of high-level environmental schemes, and I want to ensure that those continue, because they have enormous value not only for the United Kingdom but for our wider environmental responsibilities. I also believe that our rural programmes are of enormous value and want to ensure that they are still intact. My hon. Friend’s concern is whether the transfer will effectively move money out of farming and into another pot. I understand that and perhaps we need to define better our terms for pillar two and pillar one.
For instance, the definition of greening measures is very important in determining whether they lie in pillar two or pillar one, and whether there is, in effect, a transfer of funding from pillar two to pillar one that compensates for money going in the other direction. I will go on to discuss greening in a moment, but if we had a process under which other member states were required to consider what they could do to introduce in their agricultural systems environmental support schemes such as those in this country, that would improve not only the comparative competitiveness of our industry, but the environment, and most people in this country would like to see that.
What are the Government’s priorities? Of course, we want to negotiate a good deal for farmers, for taxpayers and for consumers. What about in the long run? I do not resile from the view—this is the Government’s clear policy—that we want a common agricultural policy that continues to orientate itself to the market, that increases the international competitiveness of EU agriculture, let alone our own, and that increases the capacity to deliver environmental outcomes. Ultimately, we want an efficient and responsive agricultural sector in the EU and globally, and we want the future CAP to help to achieve that. That is why it is really important that the CAP continues on the path of reform and that we reduce, in the long run, our reliance on direct subsidy.
My hon. Friend asked about the extent to which we involve the priorities of the devolved Administrations in what we argue for, and I can tell him that we involve them fundamentally. It is really important that we hear what every part of the UK agriculture has to say about CAP reform, which is why we devote a great deal of time, both at official and ministerial level, to listening to the devolved Administrations and securing, as far as we can, a common UK position, on the basis of which we then negotiate.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am reassured to hear the Minister say that he will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on this issue. However, I wish to put on the record the fact that the Scottish Government’s top priority has been ensuring that a fair proportion of the allocation comes to Scottish farmers. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who has led the debate so ably this afternoon, pointed out the disparities between the different beneficiaries of this policy; a level playing field just does not exist at the moment.
Mr Heath
However, there is of course a difference between the distribution per farm and the distribution per hectare. Scotland has a distorting factor, because there are very large holdings that are “lightly farmed”; these holdings sometimes fall within a definition that I know the Scottish Minister is keen to look at to see whether they are actively farmed at all. There are specific issues to address there.
I spent the past two days in Scotland talking to Scottish farmers and to Scottish Ministers, and I was there last week. As I say, we do listen carefully, for instance on the issue relating to the highlands, the definition of permanent pasture and how heather is treated. We have now secured a workable definition, which includes heather. That is important for Scotland and for Scottish agriculture, and it was secured by the negotiations in which we took part. I assure hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom that we take that matter seriously and we continue to listen.
Let me give another example. In Scotland, coupled payments are still a key part of the distribution mechanism, whereas they are not in the rest of the UK. Therefore, the fact that we can provide some cover within the national ceiling from, in effect, an English contribution to enable Scotland to persist with its schemes is important.
Mr Heath
I have given way once to the hon. Lady, and as the debate was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire I really need to answer the points he raised.
Let us examine some of the other issues. The first is greening, on which we still have a lot to negotiate. The one thing that all member states were agreed on was that Commissioner Ciolos’s initial thoughts were not the answer. They were far too prescriptive and far too inappropriate in many areas. They displayed a lack of recognition that hugely different farming procedures are used, even in various parts of this country, let alone in the wider European family. What we want is a continued orientation of the CAP towards rewarding farmers for the public goods they deliver, which includes environmental benefits and protecting and enhancing wildlife, but not in a form that is over-bureaucratic and over-demanding in implementation, which may result in a tick-box mentality that does not help the environment and certainly does not help farming.
We believe that some of the proposals simply do not represent good value, whereas some of our existing agri-environmental schemes do. I hope everyone agrees that what we need is flexibility to allow local definition of environmental benefits and schemes that do not force people into inappropriate farming practices. I am hopeful that we will secure that degree of flexibility, but we should not take it for granted. The other thing we do not want is duplication, so that people are paid twice for doing precisely the same thing. There is a risk that the outcome of some of the European Parliament proposals will be farmers being paid once under pillar two and once under pillar one for doing exactly what they are doing now. I doubt our taxpayers would thank us for that. It is important that we reach a successful outcome.
My hon. Friend mentioned George Lyon, who is one of the beacons of common sense on the European Parliament Agriculture Committee. I have worked closely with him, and we certainly want to continue to do so in the future.
Our concerns in relation to intervention in the market have been well rehearsed. We have been clear over the years about our desire to reduce the reliance on trade-distorting measures and the importance of the CAP sticking to that path of reform. That is where we part company with the European Parliament Agriculture Committee, because many of the amendments voted through there would move us backwards, away from market orientation, and increase budget pressures for old-style market support. There is a place for recognition of the need to support some farmers, especially hill farmers and those in less-favoured areas. I stress that and argue in favour of doing that, but when it comes to providing subsidy for European farmers to start growing tobacco again and get taxpayers’ money to do so, I draw the line, because that is clearly not in the interest of taxpayers or of the EU.
Roger Williams
The key issue is flexibility on modulation to allow some countries—people think the UK will be one of them—to move money from pillar one to pillar two, while other countries move money from pillar two to pillar one, thereby further disadvantaging UK farming.
Mr Heath
As I said, what we want is flexibility to find the right solutions for our farmers. At one point, my hon. Friend praised high-level agri-environmental schemes, and we want those to continue. We may need that flexibility to ensure that we can achieve that within our pillar two framework, but at the same time I want the level playing field with other countries that he seeks, so that they do some of the same things that we do, and do well, in their domestic agriculture. I am not convinced that they are doing that yet. The thrust of our argument is: yes, we want public money to support public good, but we do not want public money to support distortions of trade and agricultural production which result in a regression across the EU.
I am clear that to achieve that we need flexibility not only in definitions, but in being able to move cash between headings. We need to make sure that we have an appropriate period of transition—it would be disastrous for British agriculture were we to move too fast and in too rigid a way to a solution that is not appropriate for many of our farmers. We need to make sure that the implementation period is sufficiently long to allow an orderly transition, so that we do not repeat the chaos of 2005 with the Rural Payments Agency—I am determined that we will not do that again. Most of all, we need to listen to what our agriculture industry needs, relate that to what our taxpayer needs in value for money, and make sure that we have prosperous and sustainable agriculture right across the UK in the future. That is what we are trying to achieve from CAP reform, and I believe it is possible to do so, but I do not underestimate the difficulties in reaching a successful conclusion.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Bill Committee Debate 11th Sitting: Energy Bill
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Hayes
The Secretary of State also has the power to impose a levy on electricity suppliers to recoup the cost of purchasing the renewable certificates by the purchasing body. The levy will replace the current obligation to submit ROCs and will be in line with their share of the market for electricity supplied. I emphasise that the RO will remain open to new entrants until March 2017, at which point the length of support offered under the RO will begin to reduce. From 2017 the RO will be closed to new entrants, but all projects that are already receiving support within the RO at that time will continue to do so, subject to the maximum period of 20 years of support. The RO will close in 2030, and as that date approaches, the obligation, which is currently set annually, will be set against an ever-decreasing pool of generators.
[Official Report, 31 January 2013, PBC100 Energy Bill, 11th sitting c. 424.]
Letter of correction from John Hayes:
An error has been identified in the response provided during the Public Bill Committee Debate.
The correct response should have been:
Mr Hayes
The Secretary of State also has the power to impose a levy on electricity suppliers to recoup the cost of purchasing the renewable certificates by the purchasing body. The levy will replace the current obligation to submit ROCs and will be in line with their share of the market for electricity supplied. I emphasise that the RO will remain open to new entrants until March 2017, at which point the length of support offered under the RO will begin to reduce. From 2017 the RO will be closed to new entrants, but all projects that are already receiving support within the RO at that time will continue to do so, subject to the maximum period of 20 years of support. The RO will close in 2037, and as that date approaches, the obligation, which is currently set annually, will be set against an ever-decreasing pool of generators.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 10 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
Manufacturing (East Midlands)
(11 years, 10 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
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am not allowed to take part in the debate from the Chair, but, because I am an east midlands MP, I hope everyone present has enjoyed an east midlands breakfast of either Weetabix, Ready Brek or Alpen, all of which are made in Burton Latimer in my Kettering constituency.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a pleasure to be here to discuss the manufacturing sector in the east midlands.
We have a great deal to be proud of. Nottinghamshire has been at the heart of manufacturing for centuries. Members will be familiar with brands such as Raleigh, which started in the city of Nottingham in 1887, but they might not be familiar with William Lee, the reverend who invented the knitting frame in the village of Calverton in my constituency, starting the industrial revolution. That is something of which we can be proud. We have many claims to fame.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the world’s first factory was the silk mill in the centre of Derby?
Mr Spencer
I am keen that we remain as a team in the east midlands. I do not want to get into the Nottinghamshire-Derby rivalry, because—[Interruption.] I forget there are other counties in the east midlands.
As a region, we have a great deal to offer and a proud history. Many other Members will go on to talk about some of the great companies such as Toyota and Rolls-Royce in Derby. Of course, in the town of Hucknall in Sherwood more than 800 staff work at Rolls-Royce making parts for jet engines assembled in Derby. Rolls-Royce has invested more than £40 million in the Hucknall plant in the past 10 years, with more to come for the industrial estate.
Manufacturing is not only about greasy metal, but a range of different manufacturing processes, including drugs—we have Boots in Nottingham—food, hosiery and many other products to which value is added.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early. Does he also accept that, although great names such as Rolls-Royce, Boots and other well known regional and national companies are to be found within the east midlands, the bedrock of the industrial and manufacturing scene in our area are the smaller, family-sized businesses with perhaps 10 employees or fewer and a turnover of less than £500,000? That is the real foundation of the manufacturing sector in our region.
Mr Spencer
I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend—it is easy to focus on the big boys, but small family businesses are driving the economy. They are starting to expand and take on new staff, and they will move us forward as a region so that we are seen on the map. I want to highlight some of those companies.
I do not want my speech to turn into a list of companies in my constituency, but I have mentioned hosiery and I still have a sock manufacturer, F. J. Bamkin and Son. The company was formed in 1886 and is still making socks in the town of Hucknall. It has made them for the Ministry of Defence, although the MOD has decided to procure its socks from foreign manufacturers over the past 15 years. I hope the Government can redress some of those changes of the past 20-odd years—we have looked to foreign rather than UK-based manufacturers—and start to consider quality. I can guarantee that the socks are top quality. I have even worn a pair myself. [Interruption.] I am not wearing them today.
Yesterday I was at a company called Doff Portland, which, as well as manufacturing fertilisers and agri-chemicals for garden centres, is one of the major manufacturers of slug pellets. Anyone with an allotment or garden will know what a fight it was last year to keep slugs out. If it were not for companies such as Doff Portland that turn UK-grown wheat products into slug pellets and distribute them, we would all be much hungrier.
Not all the companies in my constituency date from 1886 and 1887. Howard Marshall Engineering was formed only 10 years ago. Howard Marshall is a young entrepreneur who set up his own agricultural engineering company, and he can produce anything out of metal that people might want. He has worked for a well-known BBC car programme that I had better not name, because it does not want to be publicly linked. He has also designed and made a grass-collection machine for Arsenal football club. His going from a young man starting in business to having more than 20 staff should be celebrated, and he should be congratulated.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
We started many things in Northern Ireland but not the industrial revolution. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the point he raises about a young man starting in business, will he congratulate the new university in Derby that will teach not only manufacturing but business, entrepreneurship and financial skills to young people at 14?
Mr Spencer
I happily add my congratulations to the new university. I will go on to talk about skills training, which is one area we need to improve.
I want to highlight two more companies. Many Members may be familiar with the old Robin Hood sports cars, which were manufactured locally; the company is now called Great British Sports Cars Ltd. I know the Minister might not be able to afford a sports car on his salary, but should he ever decide to purchase one, I highly recommend the two-seater manufactured in my constituency. Perhaps at some future point he would like to visit the great constituency of Sherwood to see those cars for himself.
Mr Spencer
I am sure the Minister is more than comfortable with his own life, but should any Member decide to purchase a sports car, I highly recommend one manufactured in the constituency of Sherwood.
Next door is a company called Jonam Composites, which is at the other extreme. It manufactures high-tech composite bicycle spokes that have the same tensile strength as steel but are much lighter. That is a real indication of the progress we have made in manufacturing in Nottinghamshire and the east midlands. We are going in a high-technology direction. We are at the cutting edge of what is possible in manufacturing. As a country we must acknowledge that we will probably not become the great shipbuilders of the world that we were, but there are lots of opportunities to be right at the cutting edge, as we always have been. We were at the cutting edge of the industrial revolution, and we can remain there by looking to new technologies and using our skills, so that we can once again trade with the rest of the world and ensure that we are at the right place.
One area we often overlook is food and drink. Again, Nottinghamshire has a great tradition of producing food and drink with companies such as Home Ales and Mansfield brewery, which sadly have been bought up and gone to other parts of the country. Food manufacturing makes an enormous contribution not only to the east midlands but to the UK as a whole. Mr Hollobone, I know your constituency has an interest with companies such as Weetabix.
Smaller manufacturers have been mentioned. Every butcher in my constituency adds value to their product. They produce their own burgers, pasties and pork pies. Given the issue that is right at the top of this week’s political agenda, anyone who wants a top-quality burger or pork pie and wants to know exactly what has gone into it can buy one from their local butcher. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) tempts me to mention farm shops, but I would have to declare an interest if I did. By going down the chain to smaller manufacturers, people can get the high-quality products that consumers are keen to purchase.
However, we can do more. The east midlands is ideally placed. We hear a lot about our country’s north-south divide, but the east midlands are smack bang in the middle. Geographically, we are ideally positioned to trade with the rest of the country. We have great connections with the A1 and M1, fairly good railway links, the possibility of High Speed 2, and East Midlands airport and Robin Hood airport. We have lots of good communication links and the ability to get products in and out.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He, like the rest of us, will be aware of the Smith Institute report showing that the east midlands fares the worst of any area in being awarded regional growth fund money. Given what he is saying about the great strengths of the east midlands—I entirely concur—why does he think the region fares so badly when it comes to Government support from the regional growth fund?
Mr Spencer
I think we need to look at ourselves: perhaps we MPs should be banging the drum harder. We should be cheerleading for the east midlands and supporting our businesses in making bids. Because the east midlands is ahead of the game and other areas are trying to catch up, perhaps we have not done as well as we could in that regard. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We need to get out there and bang the drum for the east midlands. We need to ensure that people know we are there and know what we can offer, and I hope this debate will contribute to that knowledge.
Sir Edward Garnier
On the subject of banging the drum, may I commend to my hon. Friend Premier Percussion in my constituency?
Mr Spencer
I must confess that I have never banged a Premier drum, but I shall endeavour to do so at some point in future.
The east midlands also has energy supply, which is important to businesses—
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, particularly as you are my constituency neighbour. On the subject of energy, one of the great industries of Corby in east Northamptonshire, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, is the steel industry. That, along with boot and shoe, made communities in my constituency, but Tata Steel’s particular concern at the moment is energy prices, which are much higher in this country than in France and Germany. Does he not agree that it is important that the manufacturing industry in my constituency and his can compete on a level playing field, including on energy prices?
Mr Spencer
I agree, and it is important that we as a Government address those concerns, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise how difficult it is to strike a balance between energy prices to consumers and to industry. It could be argued that logically, the more energy one buys the more cheaply one should get it; that would have a knock-on effect on our consumers and constituents. It is difficult to strike that balance and ensure that energy-consuming industries get a reasonable price, as well as our constituents who are struggling to pay their energy bills.
It comes down to energy security as well as price. Within the east midlands, the Trent valley provides a lot of electricity generation, so at least we are not far away from a power station, but we need to do more. The Government particularly need to consider carbon leakage. Energy-intensive industries are under pressure and looking to relocate elsewhere in the world. We talk about reducing the carbon footprint of industry and manufacturing, but it would be wrong to push out industries to other parts of the world where energy is probably bought from higher-carbon sources than in the UK, and then to import the goods. We should be aware of that.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point about energy, we are now in the midst of global competition on a scale never seen before, and it is a threat to UK manufacturing. In the US, gas has fallen to one sixth of the price of four or five years ago, while our energy prices continue to rise, partly because of the contribution made to bills by wind energy. It is causing great concern in businesses such as Tata and Cummins, in my constituency. Does he have any views on that?
Mr Spencer
I recognise those challenges. Energy supply will be vital if we are to see our way through and ensure a thriving manufacturing sector. The Government need to address it and are addressing it. We must ensure that we have energy security as we move forward.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is important for the Government to provide certainty about their direction of travel on energy? In my constituency, we have a fantastic engineering company, Romax Technology, which relies on providing service to the automotive industry and offshore wind. I know how important it is for the industry to have certainty about where the Government are travelling, in order to have the confidence to invest.
Mr Spencer
I recognise that challenge, but I feel that we are 15 years behind the game. We should have addressed these problems a long time ago. The nuclear decision was put off by previous Governments. Had we bitten that bullet much earlier, we would not be as concerned about energy security as we are today. I am glad to see that the current Government are trying to address the issue and get a clear direction. Of course, being a coalition Government brings its own challenges. Sometimes there is disagreement within the coalition about the best way to procure energy security.
I have been open about my view that nuclear is a great option that we should be pursuing. I also think coal has a role to play. Sherwood sits not only on a former coal field but on great reserves of shale gas, which could assist us. We also have a great deal of water, which can be important to manufacturing. Nottinghamshire sits on Bunter sandstone with aquifers. However, at the top of the list must be a willing and ready work force, which we in the east midlands have. We have great skills. As we have a thriving manufacturing sector, we already have a high skills base for any company that wants to relocate to the east midlands.
I hope the message of this debate will be that the east midlands is open for business to manufacturers of any sort looking for somewhere to relocate. The east midlands is the ideal place, and we would welcome manufacturers with open arms. I hope the Minister, as he goes around the country in his many dealings, will recognise how important the east midlands is and what it has to offer. If he is having discussions with any foreign or other companies looking to relocate, I hope he will recommend the east midlands. It would assist us in procuring more companies to come and make use of the area.
There is a lot more that we can do, and I want to emphasise what Government and local authorities can do. Broadband is important. People trying to run businesses in rural locations need access to good-quality broadband, and we must do more to get it out into rural locations so that companies can relocate to those areas as well. Infrastructure and traffic are a constant battle. Every time one improvement is made, it knocks on to another area. We must keep doing more to improve infrastructure to remove bottlenecks, so people can get around the country.
Finally, on training, we need the best-quality engineers and the most highly skilled individuals, which requires the work and support of some of our great training institutions, such as Loughborough university, Nottingham university and the many others that educate people to a high degree. Some colleges in and around our constituencies deliver courses on food and drink manufacturing, welding skills and so on. Such skills will be absolutely vital to our companies as we go forward. We have a little bit further to go.
Many of the businesses I talk to are crying out for good quality, highly skilled staff and they do not want to look to eastern Europe to procure those people; they want UK-based, qualified people and we need to keep pushing that door to ensure that they are coming forward.
Andy Sawford
It is my hope, as I am sure it is the hon. Gentleman’s, that the manufacturing industries in our constituencies employ local people. Does he recognise many people’s concern about the role of agencies, particularly those recruiting in eastern European countries for jobs that could be done by local people? Does he agree that we ought to ask the Government and Opposition Front Benchers to consider how we can deal with that?
Mr Spencer
I agree; it causes a great deal of frustration. Constituents e-mailing me with a copy of a job advert published in Polish feel excluded from that process, although I have tried to argue that such an advert is probably published in English as well. Our companies need quality staff and if they cannot procure local people, I suppose they will look to the rest of Europe to try to get people with the skills they need. We need to ensure that we train our constituents in those skills, so that they can compete on a level playing field. We are starting to get there—starting to push back and improve things—but there is further to go. There has been a deficit in the past 10 to 15 years and we need to start dealing with that. I hope that we are starting that process.
I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, so I do not want to take up too much time. I want to emphasise the fundamental message of this debate: there is a great manufacturing sector in the east midlands and we are open for business. If people want to locate somewhere, the east midlands is a great place to come. I hope the Minister takes the opportunity to visit businesses in Sherwood. I would be delighted to be his host, should he find time in his diary.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Six Members wish to speak. If they limit their remarks to about six minutes each—it is not a formal time limit—they will all get in, with one or two interventions. That is just a guideline. The first four speakers will be in this order: Lilian Greenwood, Andrew Bingham, Jonathan Ashworth and Andrew Bridgen.
Mr Spencer mentioned that socks are made in his constituency. I am standing before you in Loake’s quality men’s shoes, made in Kettering.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Mr Hollobone, it is a great pleasure to have an east midlands Member of Parliament in the Chair for this debate, particularly one who makes such a fantastic contribution every time he introduces a speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing today’s debate and on giving us the opportunity to highlight the strengths of, and the challenges faced by, the manufacturing industry in the east midlands. As he said, the industrial revolution began in the east midlands, and manufacturing there still employs a higher proportion of people than in any other region: within the D2N2 local enterprise partnership, covering Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire, 16.7% of full-time jobs were in manufacturing, compared to 14.5% in the east midlands and 10.5% in the whole UK. Unfortunately, that is not so in Nottingham city, where at the moment manufacturing accounts for only 6.2% of full-time employment.
The largest manufacturing subsectors in the D2N2 economy are transport equipment, metals and food and drink. I will say a bit more about the local firms involved and their needs shortly. In the 19th century, Nottingham was at the centre of the world’s lace industry, a legacy that recently once again received national attention when it was featured in Mary Portas’ “Mary’s Bottom Line” programme. Sadly, there are no lace manufacturers left in the city.
During the 19th century, world-famous names were founded in the city, some of which have been mentioned already, including Boots the Chemist, the Raleigh Bicycle Company, and John Player and Sons. I cannot resist mentioning Frederick Gibson Garton, who recorded his secret recipe for HP Sauce in the Meadows in my constituency in 1894.
Life in those industries was immortalised by local writers, including D.H. Lawrence and Alan Sillitoe. Although we do not make bicycles in Radford now, the Saturday nights and Sunday mornings of Arthur Seaton are still familiar to the city. Thousands of visitors come to Nottingham every weekend for a great night out in our purple-flag city centre. That shows that it is not just the manufacturing industries that are important; there is knock-on for the other industries in the area.
In the 21st century, Nottingham faces both opportunities and challenges. Government policy has led to the loss of some 53,000 public sector jobs in the east midlands. With three in 10 people in Nottingham city employed in public service, we must diversify if we are to become more resilient and avoid the damage wrought by high unemployment and a lack of opportunities for our young and growing population.
“The Nottingham Growth Plan”, published in 2012, aims to reconnect the city with its proud history and create a manufacturing renaissance, rebuilding our international reputation as a place that designs and makes things. Some of the elements needed for that renaissance are already in place. We are fortunate to have two universities that produce world-class research and a highly educated work force, and we already have highly successful companies and emerging sectors in areas such as digital content, life sciences and clean technology, which can provide prosperity and sustainable employment if we give them the right support as set out in that plan.
One of the city’s new growth sectors is digital content—a far cry from the grease and noise of the Raleigh factory, perhaps, but it already employs 6,400 people. That sector offers huge opportunities for growth. The games developer, Crytek, located on Canal street in the heart of my city, employs almost 100 people in the lucrative video games market. Many smaller gaming industry companies are locating in the Lace Market area, now the centre of Nottingham’s creative quarter, backed by the city deal.
Crytek stood to gain from Labour’s tax break for video games developers, but the incoming Government scrapped it in 2010, only to reconfirm it two years later, by which time the UK’s advantage had been lost to competitors in other countries. It would help if the Minister said how we can avoid such a stop-start situation in future.
Also in Nottingham’s creative quarter is BioCity, the UK’s leading bioscience incubator, established 10 years ago as a joint initiative between Nottingham’s two universities and the regional development agency. BioCity builds on Nottingham’s long-standing expertise in biosciences. It is on the site where ibuprofen was discovered by Dr Stewart Adams in the 1960s, and provides lab accommodation, facilities, expertise and access to finance. It currently sustains more than 80 fast-growing businesses —biotech, pharmaceutical and health care start-ups—and is looking to expand further to meet demand. The Government’s decision to cut total science spending, including in research and development, is exactly the wrong decision for the future development and expansion of this sector.
On the role of Government and support for regeneration, the Smith Institute recently published a report that identified the low levels of public investment in the region. That was the subject of discussion by the all-party group on the east midlands. The report’s authors describe how they realised in 2012 that
“something was going seriously wrong in the allocation of central government investment in the East Midlands”.
In the first two rounds of the regional growth fund, the east midlands received just 4% of the total funding available, the lowest share of any region. In round 3, the east midlands again received the lowest share of funding; it was allocated just £14 million, compared to £105 million for the north-east and £88 million for the north-west. That put it in a worse position than before the scrapping of our regional development agency; we were allocated 8.9% of total regional funding in the RDA’s last three years—more than the south-east, the south-west, or the east of England. I hope the Minister will say what he can do to address that under-investment, which, as the Smith Institute report says,
“in terms of jobs and growth and in rebalancing the economy, makes no sense whatsoever”.
Finally, let me return to one of our most historic sectors—food and drink, and specifically brewing, which is dear to not only my heart, but the hearts of many thousands of my constituents. I am fortunate to have four breweries in my constituency, Castle Rock, Nottingham Brewery, Trent Navigation, and a little micro-brewery, Magpie. They are responsible manufacturers who have continued to grow despite the recession. They are being hit, however, by a combination of higher VAT and the beer duty escalator. The escalator was introduced in different economic times. Should not the Government review alcohol taxation to support those vital manufacturers and the pubs that serve their produce?
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing this debate, and on giving the east midlands a chance to shine and us a chance to put ourselves on the record about what a great place it is for manufacturing.
I represent the High Peak which, to many of my constituents, does not necessarily feel part of the east midlands. We are the most northerly constituency, and much of the High Peak looks to the north-west: we have north-west postcodes and north-west television, and many of my constituents travel to the north-west to work and shop and for their recreational needs. Another part of the High Peak faces east, and the Hope valley gravitates towards Sheffield, parts of it receiving their media from the Yorkshire region. Forgive the geography lesson, Mr Hollobone, but I want to get over that the High Peak, far from being remote and miles from anywhere, as people sometimes think we are, is not only in the east midlands but is very much the cockpit of the north of England. Ideally situated between the cities of Manchester and Sheffield—I live 24 miles from either city—we are in striking distance of many other cities, including Leeds, Doncaster, Barnsley and Liverpool. Consequently, a huge variety of manufacturing businesses have grown up in the High Peak over many years. I want to talk about one or two of them, to stress how the High Peak as part of the east midlands is ideally placed for manufacturing.
We have many household names. Many people watching the Formula 1 Grand Prix will have seen the name Ferodo, manufacturers of brake linings. Ferodo was founded in 1897 by Herbert Frood in Chapel-en-le-Frith, in my constituency. Those brake linings are still produced there, in the east midlands, to this very day. Some of the manufacturing was outsourced abroad, but it is now coming back into the High Peak because we are doing such a good job. Despite Ferodo being acquired a couple of times since the name came out, anyone coming off the roundabout and going towards the factory will see the name “Ferodo” still proudly emblazoned on the front of the factory. I should probably declare an interest at this point, because I supplied that illuminated sign in a previous life, when I had my own business. The sign, which has been there for many years, is still working, which is testament to the quality of the goods that I supplied in my heyday—I am not sure whether that is now or then.
We also have a company called Street Crane, which manufactures cranes and crane kits that go all over the world. A while ago, as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I went out to Afghanistan, and I was particularly proud when I walked into the maintenance warehouse in Camp Bastion and saw two huge overhead cranes with “Street Crane” on. It was a proud moment to be in Camp Bastion with High Peak-made cranes straddling the warehouse, showing that Street Crane is exporting all over the world and doing its bit for the country, batting for Britain in a worldwide market.
Another company is Otter Controls. We all use and see many of the goods manufactured in the High Peak, but we are not necessarily aware of them. This morning, many of us put our kettle on, and there is a good chance that the thermostat in it was manufactured by Otter Controls. The company was founded at the end of the war to manufacture snap action thermostats that—to get technical—are used in a three-legged bi-metal blade. Those who did science at school should remember the bi-metal strip and how it moves with heat. The concept behind the switch was developed when the founder of Otter’s experimented with the strips for heated suits for RAF pilots during the war, because the pilots got either very cold or very hot in their aircraft. Having come up with the idea of the thermostat in the suit, after the war he decided to roll it out into other areas. The company was all about making people a little ’otter—that is where the name Otter came from. This is a High Peak product that people use without realising it.
Valentine’s day is nearly upon us, and I am sure everyone has been out shopping frantically—I hope the gentlemen have, anyway—so I draw my colleagues’ attention to another product that many will see: the famous Love Hearts by Swizzels, as well as Drumstick lollies and Refreshers. Those of us who have offices in Norman Shaw North know that there is usually a supply in my office—I am a bit like the pied piper sometimes—and those sweets are made by Swizzels-Matlow in New Mills. Swizzels employs hundreds of people, most of them from within a 10-mile radius of the factory. It has made sweets for the royal family and received royal visits, and it is a great name known throughout the world, also manufacturing in the High Peak. Many years ago, on holiday abroad, sitting in a little wooden hut having a cup of coffee with a friend of mine with some children, the guy behind him brought out some sweets for them: he brought out some Love Hearts. We thought: “We have come all this way, and they are giving us sweets that we could have nipped down the road to New Mills to get.”
In a previous life, as I say, I had a small business and supplied many High Peak engineering companies with equipment. Since being elected, I have renewed my acquaintance with many of those businesses, such as the GJD group in Glossop, which makes engineered components for the aerospace industry and timber-frame buildings for the construction industry—that shows the breadth of business.
I have a particular fondness for micro-businesses, which I shall just touch on—I am conscious of the time. I recently went to see a Mr Philip Taylor, who is a cordwainer. You, Mr Hollobone, were talking about Loake shoes; Mr Taylor makes specialist footwear. He has made more than 1,500 pairs of shoes for people. When I visited him, he had a client in from Canada, because Mr Taylor was the person who can make shoes to deal with the client’s condition.
I could talk about many more companies in the High Peak, such as the quarries and the quarry-related products. My wife works for a company that makes linings for gutters—instead of changing our gutters, we could line them—and, given the amount of rain we get in this country, it is busy. Business is tough, however, and there are challenges. We want better transport links and, certainly, better broadband. I am proud that the Government are rolling out better broadband, and agree that they should—I describe broadband as the fourth utility. The High Peak, within the east midlands, is working hard and punching above its weight. We are making a wide range of products and selling them to the UK and throughout the world. For anyone who reads the debate, let me say this: I agree with what has been said—the east midlands is a fantastic place to bring business to and, in my view, the High Peak is the best place in the east midlands.
If I may, I shall take a second to touch on the regional growth fund. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the bids in the fourth round. We have a bid in from Buxton in my constituency. It is shovel-ready, it will create jobs, and I hope that it may be successful, as it has not been in previous rounds.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As an east midlands MP, I hope that you will later be eating a bag of Wotsits crisps made at the Leicester Walkers site.
I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) for his success in securing the debate. He spoke well, and I learned something about Calverton of which I was not aware, although I will of course be checking it out later with my father-in-law, who was his geography teacher at school in Calverton only a few years ago.
I want to repeat some of the points made about the importance of manufacturing to the east midlands economy. Manufacturing makes up a greater part of the economy in the east midlands than in any other English region. According to figures I have seen, manufacturing gross value added was around £12.5 billion, or 15.8% of total regional GVA output—a higher proportion than any other region—compared with an average of 10.3% for the UK as a whole. Manufacturing employment in the region amounted to 265,000 or more than 13% of total employment—again, the highest proportion of any region, and it compares with a UK average of about 8.5%. Our manufacturing firms score highly on productivity, with many of our sectors outperforming national averages. We have already heard not only about many of the big ones, such as Toyota, Rolls-Royce, Bombardier, Caterpillar and Walkers, but about the many smaller manufacturers that make up our huge manufacturing base.
The hon. Gentleman talked about food and drink. In Leicester and Leicestershire, more than 11,000 people are employed in food manufacturing, so it is important for our region. As he said, some of the reasons our region does well is that we are central, our development in the past has been driven by coal in the north and ironstone in the south, and we have concentrations of grade 1 agricultural land. We do not have any major, dominant economic centre. I would, of course, argue that Leicester is the premier city in the region, not least because we have a former king of England there.
Andy Sawford
On the point of manufacturing, it is a shame for those of us who feel that Fotheringhay, the birthplace of Richard III, should be his final resting place, that my hon. Friend is manufacturing a case for Leicester.
With regard to the food and drink industry, does he recognise that, while there is a fine tradition in all parts of the region, including my constituency, in many ways Government policy has helped to shape some of the opportunities for manufacturing? For example, in the 1980s the enterprise zone helped to bring lots of food and drink companies to Corby. Will he support my case that we ought to have an enterprise zone today in Corby in east Northamptonshire, where, as he knows, there are high levels of youth unemployment?
Jonathan Ashworth
I thank my hon. Friend for a point he puts well. However, we in Leicester have fought off York and will certainly fight off his constituency when it comes to Richard III.
On balance, the lack of a major dominant conurbation is a strength for our region and its development opportunities, even if it does sometimes mean that we tend to lack a regional identity. That brings us one or two disadvantages that I will touch on in a few moments.
Although the debate has been conducted in a good cross-party spirit, there are problems in our economy, in the cities and former coalfield areas. Unemployment rates remain too high, and are much higher than they were at the 2010 election, even if they have come down a little in recent months. Youth unemployment rates are still too high. Let us be clear: we are seeing a huge squeeze on incomes and many changes to benefits, such as the bedroom tax and the council tax benefit changes. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that debate, that will suck money out of the local economies of the east midlands. Household consumption will be depressed again.
In the past, Ministers have talked about wanting to rebalance the economy, and we would all agree with that. However, we would like more details about what that rebalancing means. I know that Ministers want to move away from an economy that is solely dependent on public investment and household consumption, towards one that is more in favour of export-led recovery.
Chris Williamson
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that, although the Prime Minister came with his whole Cabinet to Derby in March 2011 to make the point about the importance of rebalancing the economy towards manufacturing, three months later a decision was taken to appoint Siemens as a preferred bidder for the Thameslink rolling stock programme? Will he join me in calling on the Government and the Minister, even at this late stage, to think again about that decision? If they cannot reverse it, can they at least ensure that, whenever Government contracts are concerned, notwithstanding EU procurement rules and so on, they take appropriate steps to ensure that British manufacturing has a fair chance of winning them?
Jonathan Ashworth
I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. I want to pay tribute to the work that he has done on Bombardier. The Bombardier decision was tragic not only for Derby and Derbyshire, but for manufacturing in the east midlands. The whole supply chain was affected by it.
I agree that trade and increasing exports are an important part of the rebalancing of the economy that we want to see, and supporting our manufacturing base is vital to our exports. The regional growth fund is supposed to be part of driving that rebalancing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) mentioned, yet, consistently and sadly, the east midlands has lost out. In round 1, £450 million was allocated. The east midlands made up 13% of the bids and won just 4% of the successful awards. In round 2, £950 million was allocated. The east midlands made up 11% of the bids and was given just 8% of the awards. In round 3, over £1 billion was allocated to private sector projects. East midlands was allocated just £14 million, or 2%.
Frankly, that is not good enough. Given that manufacturing is so important to the east midlands region, and that it is the leading region in manufacturing, why are we not getting a fair deal on the regional growth fund bids? I would be grateful if the Minister said a word or two about that. It has been suggested in the media that the quality of our bids was not good enough. I do not accept that, given the strength of our manufacturing base. To be honest, it is a bit of an insult to our manufacturers.
Will the Minister outline some of the criteria by which those bids are judged? He will no doubt be aware of the National Audit Office report that has cast doubt on the objectivity of the criteria. The NAO argued that,
“a significant number of projects in the first two rounds performed relatively poorly on criteria such as the amount of additional employment supported and the ratio of economic benefits to public costs”.
Will the Minister shed some light on why the east midlands has done so badly? Some have suggested that the reason is that a lot of the bids have focused on the cities. The Department for Communities and Local Government has been keen to focus growth through the core cities initiative. For example, 47% of round 2 of the regional growth fund money went to core cities. Leicester, of course, went along with the great vision of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Prime Minister. We went for the directly elected mayor model; not many places did. Although we are now in discussions about a core city deal, we were left out in the first round, although parts of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire have been covered by a city deal. That has meant that the majority of the east midlands region has been left out. Perhaps that is another reason why we have not done so well at getting our fair share of regional growth fund money.
We no longer have a regional development agency, and I do not think that my party is arguing for its return. There may be such an argument, but everyone accepts that the development agencies have gone, and it is not our policy to argue for their return. Given that the east midlands region has 36 local authority districts, five county councils and four unitary authorities, that fragmentation leads to a lack of a consistent voice on such matters. I do not necessarily know the solution, but we should all be banging the drum as a group of east midlands MPs. We must think about what more we can do collectively to ensure that our region gets its fair share of bids.
I am conscious that I am taking a lot of time. I want to say a couple of things quickly about Leicester. It is a city with a strong manufacturing base and deep links, as everyone will know, with India, Bangladesh, east Africa and Pakistan. In Leicester, we have manufacturers exporting to those parts of the world. Asian food made in Leicester is exported to the middle east, Europe and India. When I meet exporters, they tell me of the difficulties of accessing export finance, especially for smaller volume exporters. When people raise UKTI issues with me, they talk about the fees involved in the overseas market introduction service. One matter is always being raised with me: given that cities such as Leicester have communities with deep cultural ties to parts of the world where we now want to export more, should the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills not be doing more to work with organisations such as Leicester’s Indo-British trade council and other groups to leverage the expertise of those communities?
Finally, I want to mention our higher education sector. De Montfort and Leicester universities do great work linking with local manufacturers. There are lots of great examples of how they are adding value to many firms and supporting our manufacturing base. Most of those projects, however, do not lead to any financial benefits to the universities. Given the importance of such projects to our economic future, will the Minister think about financial incentives to support the HE sector to link up more with manufacturers? I know that De Montfort university, having done a lot of projects in the past, is now thinking of scaling back, as such work is not in its financial interests.
Given that the HE sector is so important to our economy and exports—worth £15 billion nationally—will the Minister, who was brought in with great fanfare and was going to shake things up, deal with the crazy policy of the immigration cap on student numbers, which is doing huge damage to our economy? We need to support our HE sector at the moment.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing the debate. I very much enjoyed the evident passion and pride in his speech and his enthusiasm for manufacturing, quite rightly not only in his constituency but across the whole east midlands.
I had better declare an interest, Mr Hollobone. I am the non-executive chairman of a fresh food processing company based in my constituency. I founded the company 25 years ago with my younger brother with £1,000, and it thrives today, turning over in excess of £25 million and employing more than 200 people.
My constituency has a rich history in manufacturing, and that continues to this day. We have a diverse range of manufacturing output, from two of the leading brick manufacturers in the country to high-tech companies that are enjoying record rates of expansion. There is no doubt that the UK economy needs rebalancing, regionally and in terms of production, after the previous Government’s dependence on financial services and the public sector led to the record deficit that was bequeathed to the coalition Government.
Chris Williamson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a symbiotic relationship between the public and private sectors, and that many in the private sector—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—rely on public sector procurement? Does he agree that it is important that where local authorities and other public sector bodies are letting contracts, they look, wherever they can, to support SMEs in their local economy?
Andrew Bridgen
Absolutely. In North West Leicestershire we are a pioneering a buy local campaign whereby local companies can register, and not only will the local authority look to procure from local firms offering services, but that website facility is then open to other companies in the district, and it is hoped that they will join in. However, I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the point that we cannot have the situation we inherited, where 50% of the economy is public sector and 50% is private sector, and we are asking the latter to support itself and pay taxes to support the former. That is unsustainable. That is why we have a huge deficit and why we need to rebalance our economy.
Andy Sawford
The tone of the debate has been very constructive. It was set very well by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and it is to Members’ credit that political point scoring has been resisted. However, for the record, we cannot allow that point to stand. Was it the previous Labour Government who were selling sub-prime mortgages in America, for example? The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) is entirely wrong on that point.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I will not allow him or any other Labour Member to rewrite history. The fact is that under the previous Labour Government, manufacturing as a proportion of GDP in this country fell by 50%. It is not a record that I would be proud of if I were sitting on the Labour Benches. The hon. Gentleman should think on that. It is this Government who will address the need to grow manufacturing and rebalance our economy.
Lilian Greenwood
I simply want to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the public sector somehow riding on the back of the private sector. Those people who are employed in the public sector doing vital work in our schools, hospitals and universities also pay tax and make a hugely important contribution to our economy.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Public sector workers do vital work, but the answer is that all the wealth creation comes from the private sector. We cannot ask 50% of the economy to support itself and the other 50%. That is why we need to rebalance the economy. It is simple maths and it is why we have a deficit.
In the 1980s, following the closure of the coal mines, we needed to rebalance our economy in North West Leicestershire, and as a result of that successful rebalancing it is now in the top 20 districts for business-led growth in the whole of the UK, and in the top 15 for export-led growth. I would like to cite the success of two small-to-medium-sized companies to illustrate the huge contribution they are making to the local and national economy.
Norton Motorcycles, which is based in Castle Donington in the north of my constituency, was founded in 1898 but rejuvenated in 2008, when Stuart Garner bought the rights to the brand. Success and growth has followed, with the help of the Government underwriting a loan in 2011. The company has doubled production of motorcycles, from 500 to 1,000, and it has an order book going forward of some £25 million. Some 90% of its sales are for the export market and 83% of the motorcycle components are manufactured in the UK. It has also started a Norton academy with Stephenson college, based in my constituency at Coalville. The project is focused on youngsters and limbless ex-servicemen, whom we are already working with at BLESMA—the British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association—to give them a chance to get settled back into our society and employment post-injury. That illustrates the wider impact and community benefit of our thriving manufacturing success in North West Leicestershire.
Another firm that I have visited in my constituency is Zeeko, a technology company based in Coalville that produces ultra-precision polishing solutions for optics and other complex surfaces. It is growing at a significant rate, taking on more staff every year, and it is exporting all over the world. In 2011, it won a Queen’s award for innovation.
Those are only a couple of examples of how my constituency and the east midlands as a whole are exporting overseas, and are at the forefront of the Government’s mission to rebalance the British economy to ensure that we can pay our way in the world. Encouragingly, as other Members have mentioned, exports from the east midlands have recently reached another record high, sending some £13.5 billion-worth of goods overseas for the 12 months to the end of September 2012.
Another very encouraging signal for the sustainability and growth of east midlands manufacturing is the fact that the latest figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that non-EU exports now account for 57% of exports from the east midlands. Europe may have been the future once and it is still a very sizable chunk of the market, but with its heavy indebtedness, sclerotic economies and adverse demographics, it is a market that, while important, we will have to look beyond for the future of our manufacturing export growth.
My constituency also plays an important part in distributing manufactured goods, both in the UK and throughout the world. East Midlands airport, which is located in my constituency, is the largest dedicated cargo-handling airport in the UK, currently handling over 310,000 tonnes of flown cargo every year, with ample room to grow. The airport is another advantage for our exporting manufacturers. Together with the proposed strategic rail freight interchange, which will get more freight off the road and on to rail—if HS2 does not run straight through the middle of it—that again illustrates the advantages and opportunities for manufacturers in the east midlands. It is worth pointing out that the strategic rail freight interchange will involve £500 million of private sector investment in my constituency, creating in excess of 7,000 new jobs, hopefully by 2016.
To sum up, the east midlands is leading the way in manufacturing growth in the UK, and my constituency is playing a key role. In addition to the Government, we must all do what we can to provide the conditions for that growth to continue. Lower corporation tax, increased capital allowances, and many measures in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will help to ensure that growth is promoted not only in the east midlands, but across our country.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Three Members are seeking to speak. If we start the wind-ups at 10.40 am, and if you limit yourselves to no more than four minutes, including interventions, you will all just about get in. The order will be Jessica Lee, Chris Heaton-Harris, and Heather Wheeler.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I, too, would like to join hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) for securing this extremely important debate. One matter that will always unite us across the House is the pride we all take in the different industries and the range of products manufactured across the east midlands. We have heard about the magnificent range of manufacturing across the area. I will be doing my best this morning to convince everyone that Erewash is, in fact, the beating heart of the east midlands and of manufacturing in the area, ably supported and assisted—I would concede—by surrounding constituencies.
A valuable part of being a MP is visiting different businesses in our constituencies. We all learn so much, and we have probably all met so many inspirational people who have taken that risk and followed their ideas, made innovations and created businesses.
Just last week in Erewash—to deal with an historical matter for a moment—we unveiled a blue plaque with Derbyshire county council at the home of Frances Bush, a remarkable woman. She was a lace manufacturing entrepreneur and well known in the east midlands at the time for her vision and her successful business. Lace has been mentioned this morning. We also have Cluny Lace, the last remaining traditional lace factory in the country, which made part of the Duchess of Cambridge’s wedding dress—something that I always mention. It has a niche exporting market and is doing extremely well.
There have been other successes recently. Gill Manufacturing was awarded the Queen’s award for enterprise. It exports its clothing around the world. Other successes include up-and-coming businesses, such as Goodeseats. Mr and Mrs Goode won a national competition for their cushion seating. It is a fine example of the hard work and vision involved in bringing a product to the market.
The centre of upholstery and furniture making was Long Eaton for many years, and it continues to do well. If anything, there is a need to encourage more young people to consider the benefits and rewards of going into the furniture and upholstery industries. That links to the Government’s drive for apprenticeships and university technical colleges. In Erewash, we face the prospect of two schools merging in Ilkeston. In my view, to continue the site with an educational use, a UTC would be an ideal project. That project is in its infancy, but I will be doing all I can to encourage the site to become a UTC in the near future. With national apprenticeship week fast approaching, I think we are all spending time—I certainly am—visiting many businesses that take on apprenticeships in our manufacturing areas and do so much to support young people. That, too, needs to be encouraged.
Time is against me. I shall briefly mention just a couple of other points to allow other Members to make their contributions. The brewing industry has been mentioned. The county in the UK where brewing is growing most is of course Derbyshire, as Members will be pleased to know. I certainly spent a happy morning learning the art of brewing—trying not to get in the way, of course—at Muirhouse Brewery. That business, too, started at home but is now expanding and doing very well, and there are many more to follow.
Manufacturing in the east midlands involves a wide range of products and areas. It is diverse and forward looking and brings all the essences of entrepreneurship together. We can celebrate the increased number of women also involved and the range of businesses emerging. As I said, the east midlands is at the heart of our country, at the heart of manufacturing and is very much open for business in this area.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing the debate. I should follow the declaration made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) by saying that I used to buy his product when he wholesaled it, and I made more money out of it than he did.
I was very lucky to be the Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands for 10 years. One of the wonderful things that Members of the European Parliament get to do is travel widely and see in operation all the businesses that invite them. Not many hon. Members from Lincolnshire are here today, but there are fantastic manufacturers in Lincolnshire. Siemens in Lincoln is one of them, and it has just won a massive contract in Australia. In my constituency, I have the full range, as every other hon. Member does, of big, medium-sized and small manufacturers. There is Cummins, a big multinational. Power generation is its thing. It has produced diesel engines in the UK for more than 50 years. It is in the top 40 list of UK exporters, with 70% of its products exported, generally outside the European Union.
Mercedes-Benz has its Formula 1 precision engine plant in the village next to where I live, Brixworth, where it employs more than 600 people. It illustrates some of the issues that manufacturing faces in more rural areas, because it has problems with a consistent energy supply and had to put in, at huge cost to itself, a broadband supply, because it takes real-time readings from precision engines firing round Formula 1 circuits across the globe and can adjust things almost remotely from my constituency.
I have the fantastic shoe manufacturer Barker in my constituency—Barkers are just slightly better than Loakes. The Northamptonshire shoe industry is booming now, because it is a quality product that is being exported massively across the world.
Like other hon. Members, I have food manufacturing in my area. Butcher’s Pet Care has just invested £38 million. It produces food for the pet sector—and it knows what goes into its product. There is proper traceability and line of sight.
Hambleside Danelaw produces roofing and ventilation products, rooflights and cladding. That sounds boring, but it is a very big business. Its products are on all the big sheds that we see around the place. That is its business; that is what it does, and it manufactures in my constituency. There are also smaller companies. B and D Dyes produces little washers that go into very fast cars. It is amazing precision engineering.
These companies are doing fantastic things, and they are all served by the logistics base that the east midlands is so good at providing—we are proud of how we do logistics—and by a good education base, which is constantly improving. On my patch, I have Moulton college; a UTC will be opening in the next few months; and there are very good regional universities. What does that lead to? It means that I am very lucky in my constituency; I do know that. There are more jobs on offer at my local Jobcentre Plus—or there were at the end of last year—than there were people on jobseeker’s allowance across my constituency. Not many constituencies can say that.
There is more interesting news from the Northamptonshire chamber of commerce, whose latest report to MPs said that despite concerns about some things, which Government can do very little about—they include the cost of raw materials, competition and cash flow—Northamptonshire businesses, in both the manufacturing and services sectors, had reported an increase in confidence relating to both expected turnover and profitability in the coming 12 months. There is good news out there. Manufacturing in the east midlands is a sector that we should be very proud of and should nurture as best we can.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing this Westminster Hall debate. It is a pleasure to speak in it under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I personally have a special relationship with Toyota, as its factory in Burnaston is located in my constituency, and time after time I have been extremely impressed by what it is doing as a company. Toyota is not only one of the world’s leading car manufacturers; as a leader, it is committed to the environment and the economy. In fact, Toyota Motor Manufacturing UK was the first British car manufacturer to achieve zero waste going to landfill and has recently embraced solar energy at the plant, too. On top of that prodigious achievement, Toyota has provided employment and training opportunities for people throughout the region. On a recent visit to the factory in Burnaston, I was delighted to hear that Toyota is expanding its apprenticeship programme. Toyota also has a charitable trust. That funds the Lucy Prince award, which last time was awarded to Alfreton Park community school.
Apart from Rolls-Royce and Toyota, which respectively focus on jet engines and cars, Bombardier is a world-renowned manufacturer of rail vehicles. In fact, including Bombardier, there are 230 rail engineering companies around Derby alone. Bombardier is well known for the high-speed rail vehicles that have been installed in China and Italy. The hope is that, if all goes well, it will be contracted to design the vehicles for our own HS2.
Manufacturing companies in the region have truly proven that it is equally important to benefit the growth of the economy while creating opportunities for people. I cannot express the pride that I have in the manufacturing industry in the east midlands. From having the manufacturer that first powered the Boeing 787, the most widely used aeroplane, to a transportation company that has an installed base of more than 100,000 rail vehicles, to an international car company that exports back to Japan, our area has proved to be a manufacturing hub in the UK and an asset to the whole world.
Derbyshire exports more per person than any other place in England. Despite how impressive the large companies are, I find the local businesses to be equally important to the success of the manufacturing industry in the east midlands. In my constituency alone, there are multiple manufacturing companies that stimulate economic growth and provide global services.
One of the smaller firms in my area is Appleby Woodturnings. That specialist family business in south Derbyshire produces wood pellets to conceal screws and boltheads and, furthermore, it produced bespoke tapered wood pellets for the deck and hull of the Cutty Sark in London and the door frames in Portcullis House. Appleby Woodturnings is an excellent example of the ingenuity and skill that we have in south Derbyshire.
Another major manufacturer that has had national and global success is the JCB Power Systems factory, which is a purpose-built, multi-million-pound manufacturing plant and assembly line in Foston. JCB builds construction vehicles and recently needed to employ hundreds of extra skilled workers to cope with the increase in overseas demand for its equipment. Overseas demand for the UK-built products is coming from Brazil, Russia, Turkey and particularly India. In fact, JCB finalised a deal with the Brazilian Government to supply 1,000 machines to improve the nation’s infrastructure in time for the 2014 World cup and 2016 Olympic games, which Brazil will host.
The success of the manufacturing industry in the east midlands shows that it is vital that the Government continue to make manufacturing in the UK easier and continue to work with small businesses and manufacturers, so that the growth we have seen in the region can lead to growth in the national economy. Manufacturing in south Derbyshire is important. It is so successful that between May 2010 and December 2012 unemployment decreased by 18%—I can think of no better way to end my contribution.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under the chairmanship of a strong east midlands MP, Mr Hollobone? I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing this enjoyable debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Corby (Andy Sawford) and for Derby North (Chris Williamson), and the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), for Erewash (Jessica Lee) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for their important and significant contributions.
We started the debate by hearing from the hon. Member for Sherwood about Mr Lee, who invented the knitting machine that the hon. Gentleman claimed started the industrial revolution. For the avoidance of doubt, and at the risk of alienating you, Mr Hollobone, and much of the Chamber, I can confirm that the industrial revolution started in my region—north-east England.
It is clear from today’s debate that the east midlands is and should be a leading player in any UK industrial policy. The hon. Gentleman started by saying that the region has a great deal to offer, and the debate has shown that to be true. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South said, a greater proportion of the region’s economic output comes from manufacturing—more than 15% of regional gross value added—than it does in any other part of the UK.
The region is home to some truly world-class companies. No discussion about manufacturing in the east midlands would be complete without reference to one of the world’s greatest engineering companies: Rolls-Royce. The company employs something like 14,000 people in the east midlands, the majority at its plant in Derby, which I had the pleasure of visiting last year. It adds £2.4 billion of value to the regional economy, providing 33,000 jobs in indirect employment.
Mr Wright
Let me finish these statistics, because they are impressive.
One in every 165 people working in the east midlands is directly employed by Rolls-Royce, which rises to an astonishing one in 11 working people in the city of Derby. The company spent over £300 million on its supply chain in the east midlands.
Andrew Bridgen
Is the shadow Minister aware that more than 265,000 people in the east midlands are employed in manufacturing and that that is more than in any other region?
Mr Wright
I shall come on to that important characteristic of the east midlands economy. I mentioned the important success of Rolls-Royce, but it would be wrong to think of the east midlands as a one-company region. Every hon. Member who contributed today, including you, Mr Hollobone, highlighted successful manufacturing firms in their constituencies, and it is important to do so.
Andy Sawford
The largest employer in my constituency is RS Components. One of its great features, and I am sure a great feature of Rolls-Royce and the many other companies that have been mentioned, is the way that it contributes to the local community, adding additional value though fundraising, supporting schools and so on. Will my hon. Friend congratulate our industries across the east midlands on that?
Mr Wright
I certainly will. An important characteristic of a good and responsible company is that it realises that it is part of a community, not isolated from it, and contributes, not only directly by providing employment, but to social good.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire mentioned Toyota, an important manufacturer for not only the region, but the UK. I am looking forward to visiting the Toyota plant next Tuesday—I am giving her advance notice—to see the investment recently pumped into building the new Auris model. The investment in the new plant totals £100 million, and is creating an extra 1,500 jobs, with a further £85 million spent in the local supply chain.
The shape of the region’s economy is distinctive. It is particularly strong on mid-sized businesses that are crucial to the growing specialisation and increased productivity that manufacturing requires. The Mittelstand in Germany is often cited as a reason why the German economy is so successful, and if there is an equivalent in the UK, I suggest that it is in the east midlands. Mid-sized firms employ 290,000 people in the region. I agree with the conclusion in Grant Thornton’s report on the mid-sized business sector:
“MSBs—many of the East Midlands’ and UK’s most dynamic organisations—are integral to the recovery prospects and long-term health of the British and local economy.”
Within that, Government’s role is to provide a framework in which businesses can flourish, and to provide resources—whether by sector, by region, or nationally—so that businesses can realise their potential and enhance our competitiveness.
I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister. My first is on how Government procurement can help manufacturers and their supply chains. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North here, because he has been a strong champion of Bombardier. We are all aware of it, because it is probably the most vivid example of Government procurement policy failing British manufacturing. The Department for Transport looks specifically at price, rather than thinking about wider value to the supply chain; that illustrates that the Government do not seem to be joined up. What has the Minister learned from the Bombardier example? How can procurement back British manufacturing? I do not believe in protectionism at all, but we can have patriotism in procurement policy to create, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said, a level playing field for British companies. Other nations do it; we should too.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that in France there is a social element to the procurement of big projects—something that we do not have. If it is legal for the French to take that approach, surely it must be legal for us to do so.
Mr Wright
I absolutely agree. We should use economic values. If Bombardier or any other company fails to win a contract, we should consider the wider economic consequences, in terms of lost taxes, the money that could have been pumped into the local economy and the losses in the supply chain. Those important factors should be part of procurement decisions.
The second point I want to mention relates to a particularly distinctive strength of the east midlands economy and its manufacturing firms: the supply chain. I am interested in it, because it is an important part of improving competitiveness. In November last year, the Minister announced the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative—we are now on round 2. Despite the importance of mid-sized firms in the east midlands and their potential, will he confirm that no east midlands firm was successful in the bids? What will he do about that to help to realise the potential in the supply chain?
Thirdly, the whole House will agree on the importance of an export-led economic recovery. As we heard today, there is potential for that in the region, but the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce’s latest quarterly survey says:
“Export sales are at their lowest levels since December 2009”.
It goes on to say:
“Net manufacturing export sales balances remain significantly lower than the national averages.”
As an interested outsider, it is clear to me that the region is not reaching its potential for an export-led recovery. What can the Minister do in conjunction with UK Trade & Investment and others to ensure that that potential is realised?
Andrew Bingham
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that exports from the east midlands in the first three quarters of 2012 were £13.5 billion, which is up £500 million on the same period in the previous year?
Mr Wright
That is welcome, but we should not be complacent in any region. In my region of the north-east, the economy has an important export-led component, but we cannot be complacent in what is a fierce race, as the Prime Minister has said. We should be resolute in ensuring that the potential for exports is fulfilled as far as is possible, so that we can have an export-led recovery.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; I will be very quick. Does he agree that when senior Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, go to India and Turkey on trade missions, they should take representatives from some of the small and medium-sized manufacturers, and business people from cities such as Leicester, rather than the great and the good?
Mr Wright
I hope the Minister will respond to that excellent idea.
I also want to mention access to finance, which manufacturers tell me is still a problem across the country. I again quote the latest Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce quarterly survey:
“There was a net 3% increase in the firms reporting deteriorating cash flow. The lack of access to working capital continues to be a problem for firms. DNCC welcomes the creation of a state-backed business bank but is concerned that this will take too long to be formed and must have the ability to provide loans directly to growing businesses”.
Will the Minister say what is happening with regard to that British business bank?
Finally, several hon. Members mentioned the regional growth fund, and the fact that the east midlands region is not reaching its potential in that regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South said that the east midlands secured only 4% of all projects in rounds 1 and 2, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South said that in round 3, firms in the region gained moneys for only five projects, totalling just £14 million—the lowest amount of any region in England. Will the Minister explain why? Does he think that manufacturing firms in the east midlands do not warrant such support? What will he do to redress the balance?
This debate has been important and positive. Manufacturing is important to the UK, and it is certainly important to the east midlands. We must ensure that it realises its potential, and I hope that the Minister will explain how we can do that.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I repeat what hon. Members have said in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing this debate. As he said, the east midlands has a long, proud and—as we have learned—historical tradition of manufacturing, which is vital not just for UK manufacturing but for growth in the wider economy. Its location at the geographical heart of the UK, an abundance of natural resources, and a spirit of invention put the east midlands at the centre of the industrial revolution. As we have heard, inventions that have come out of the region include the jet engine, ibuprofen, DNA fingerprinting and the MRI scanner. My hon. Friend’s constituency has a long history of mining, and it has been home to Rolls-Royce since the 1940s. The food and drink industry is a major employer there, and it has a strong record of productivity.
Nobody in this debate has been under any illusions about the scale of the wider economic challenges we face as a country. The continuing sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone is affecting the real economy and depressing demand, which has caused uncertainty for British businesses and damaged some of our manufacturing output. That damage was already pronounced under the previous Government, which presided over the fastest ever decline in manufacturing as a share of the economy: manufacturing fell by nearly 10% as a share of gross domestic product, and almost 1.7 million jobs were lost in the sector. Under this Government, manufacturing’s share of GDP is growing again and our manufacturing capability is increasing in quality—nowhere more so than in the east midlands.
Michael Fallon
I will not.
I had the pleasure of visiting Toyota’s factory at Burnaston near Derby last week, and I saw for myself how a world-class work force in a cutting-edge facility can produce workmanship that is second to none. Earlier last week, I also met Rolls-Royce to hear its plans for the future. To kick-start the recovery, the first thing we had to do was to tackle the deficit, but we have not focused only on that. We have taken a wholly proactive approach to unlocking growth, reducing the red tape that holds back business and creating a competitive tax system so that businesses choose to locate and grow here.
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced multiple measures to encourage greater investment in manufacturing. There will be a significant temporary increase in the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £250,000. An additional £210 million will be added to the £2.4 billion regional growth fund until March 2015. There will also be an extra £120 million for the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative. Let me reassure colleagues that the Government have never been clearer in our commitment to manufacturing, which we see as an essential building block of a more resilient, innovative economy.
A greater proportion of the east midland’s economic output comes from manufacturing than in any other English region or part of the UK. Some 12.3% of the work force are employed in manufacturing, compared with 8% across the UK. The region has a positive balance of trade in manufactured goods, and the latest figures are expected to show that it achieved its highest annual level of exports in 2012, worth some £18 billion. The iconic names that are at the heart of the region’s manufacturing base—Rolls-Royce, Siemens, JCB and Toyota, to name just a few—employ thousands of people directly, and are at the centre of the network of hundreds of smaller businesses that make up their supply chains across the region. As we have heard, the region has a thriving sector of small and medium-sized enterprises working in the advanced manufacturing supply chain, and in the automotive and aerospace supply chains in particular.
Last week, I met the private sector chairs of the region’s local enterprise partnerships and some council leaders from the east midlands. I was impressed by the common sense of purpose across the public and private sectors, across political divides and even across traditional geographic rivalries. I saw for myself the determination to ensure a strong recovery for all parts of the east midlands and to tackle some of the barriers and bottlenecks that they have identified.
Mr Spencer
Will the Minister commit to coming to Sherwood to see some of those small and medium-sized enterprises, so that he can stand on the factory floors and hear the concerns at first hand?
Michael Fallon
I will certainly try to work that into my diary, and I look forward to such a visit.
Let me turn to a couple of points mentioned. The regional growth fund is distributed not by ministerial allocation, but by competition. It is a competitive fund, as indeed is the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative. The fund is already helping to rebalance the economy, particularly by assisting areas that have been over-dependent on the public sector, and it is already unlocking private sector investment in the local economy.
The east midlands has had some strong successes under the fund. Derby city council’s £40 million business support scheme, which has been approved, will provide funds to support the growth of enterprises in Derby, creating nearly 1,000 direct jobs by 2015, to fund a global technology cluster and to enable redevelopment of the Derby railway technical centre. The Northamptonshire, Leicester, Leicestershire and D2N2 LEPs and Nottingham city council have all had conditional offers of support for programmes that will address local needs under the regional growth fund.
On the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, we need strong manufacturing supply chains if we are to have more major manufacturers investing in the east midlands. We have invested in that initiative to bolster supply chain capacity, and the scheme has attracted bids involving major companies from across the country, including the east midlands. There was high demand in rounds 1 and 2; there were more than 70 bids with a total funding ask in excess of £300 million. That is why we announced, in the autumn statement, additional funding of £120 million for a further two rounds of the initiative. That further investment in advanced manufacturing supply chains underscores our ongoing efforts to create the right conditions for UK suppliers to grow and remain competitive on the world stage. It will be based around a single national funding pot that will be open to supply chain companies from across manufacturing sectors, including in the east midlands.
The Government have announced other recent investments to support economic growth in the east midlands, including £500 million to electrify the midlands main line north of Bedford; £160 million to dual the A453 in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire, a key route between Nottingham and the M1, which businesses told us could simply not cope as a single-track road; and £22 million towards the work, which is now well under way, to provide a new dual carriageway linking Kettering and Corby. We have increased the numbers of apprentices, which have grown from 21,000 in 2009-10 to 39,610 in the east midlands, a rise of almost 90%. Significantly, apprenticeship starts in the engineering and manufacturing sectors have grown by 156% over the same period.
In conclusion, the Government are working hard to encourage and support British manufacturers, and to create the environment in which they can thrive and compete in a global marketplace. We want manufacturers in the east midlands to be our partners in achieving that economic transformation and in fulfilling a strategy that places world-class manufacturing at the heart of a healthy and rebalanced economy across the United Kingdom.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
From Wotsits to widgets, we have just about covered it all.
Alexandra Hospital, Redditch
(11 years, 10 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 Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
It is not compulsory, when a Member has a debate on their local hospital, for them to attend on crutches, but I am delighted that the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) has arrived.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for being here to listen and, I hope, to answer some of my questions about the Alexandra hospital. I pay tribute to the staff who work at the Alex. As you mentioned and as you can see, Mr Hollobone, I visited the accident and emergency department at the Alexandra hospital during the past couple of weeks. I had a good experience and was looked after well, and I did not spend too much time there. I want my constituents to receive what I received, and I hope to outline the need for a vibrant hospital in Redditch that serves not only my constituents but those in surrounding areas such as Bromsgrove, Mid Worcestershire, Stratford-on-Avon and Kidderminster.
A quick history of the hospital is vital to understand the context in which I speak, because, sadly, we have been here several times before. I will be brief, but it is important to understand how many times this hospital has been under threat, and how unsettling that is for patients and staff alike. Three attempts have been made during the past 15 years to downgrade the accident and emergency ward and the maternity wards at the Alex. On each occasion, the argument has been made that the downgrades were crucial for sustaining a high-quality, properly staffed service, and that it would better for residents if some services were concentrated in Worcester. At each attempt, the people of Redditch have fought to save their hospital, and once again they have joined together in a cross-party campaign to do so.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, which affects my constituents as well as hers. She will be aware that a number of years ago, the same fear was in prospect for my constituents when the A and E department at Kidderminster hospital was closed. The outcome was truly tremendous, with an enormous campaign to save the hospital and the election of an MP dedicated to trying to do so. Sadly, he did not succeed, but those events reinforce the point that people feel very strongly about their local services and should be listened to.
Karen Lumley
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will return to. I want to be here after the next election, however; I do not want to be replaced by an MP dedicated to looking after the Alexandra hospital.
I pay tribute to Neal Stote, the chairman of the “save the Alex” campaign, Ian Dipple, the editor of the Redditch Standard, and the leaders of my local councils, Bill Hartnett, Roger Hollingworth and Chris Saint, who have all worked tirelessly together with me to save the Alex. The Minister will remember his visit from members of the “save the Alex” campaign before Christmas, when he listened to the justification for retaining services at our hospital. A petition to save the hospital has received more than 50,000 signatures and there was a major rally in Redditch town centre, all of which goes to show that the residents of Redditch are united in trying to secure services at our hospital.
I want to look now at the current and historical financial position of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. In 2002, the trust posted large deficits, which rose to more than £14 million in 2003-04. The trust came back into surplus, however, and since then it has posted alternate deficits and surpluses, including in each of the past three years. The trust had a cumulative legacy debt of £18.4 million from 2000 to 2007. The Government provided a £12 million emergency loan in December 2012 to deal with the problem, but it is obvious that the situation cannot continue. For too long, the easiest course of action has been to kick the can further down the road without addressing the root causes. The current situation is a ticking time bomb. A £1.9 million deficit has to be met by April of this year. Many operations are being cancelled because of the terrible norovirus in our wards, and times will be tough for the trust.
Part of the problem is that we have an expensive private finance initiative hospital that was built in the wrong place fully to service all of the residents of Worcestershire. The Worcestershire royal hospital opened in March 2002 under a PFI deal that costs the trust £13.6 million a year at the best estimate. Indeed, Patricia Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, described the PFI deal as a disaster in 2006. The deal will, however, run until 2032, by which time it will have cost the taxpayer more than £700 million. The Alexandra hospital is not a PFI hospital; it is owned by the NHS.
I understand that the trust needs to save money, and that certain services in our country must be centralised to provide centres of excellence. I also understand the difficulties of recruiting specialist consultants, and I realise that as a result of an ageing population and changing lifestyles, patients have more complex needs. We must recognise, however, that the trust employs more than 5,600 staff across the county and has approximately 940 beds with 140,000 A and E attendances —of which I was one—and about 500,000 out-patient appointments. The people of Redditch deserve a sustainable future for their health service. They are realistic, but they need to know what is going to happen. One of the reasons for the difficulty I have just mentioned of recruiting specialist consultants, which is a major problem facing the trust, is that the hospital cannot provide the job security that specialist consultants need because it is constantly under threat.
As I have said, this is the third time we have been in this situation, and if we do not find a solution, I have no doubt that in a few years we will be here again. Repeatedly experiencing such circumstances is damaging to the public, staff and patients, and we need a lasting solution. I welcome our Government’s introduction of clinical commissioning groups. I recognise that without them we would be in a very different place and I certainly would not be standing here asking the Minister to look at the future of my hospital. I have been working closely with the local commissioning group for Redditch and Bromsgrove, and would like to place on record its hard work on the future of the Alex, especially its support on the joint services review; it has continually stood up for Redditch in circumstances that have often been difficult.
Last week, I listened to the Prime Minister talking about the terrible situation at Stafford hospital, and especially the roles of Members of Parliament. He said:
“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.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 286.]
I took that to heart, as I know many of my colleagues did. I know that the NHS must change and we cannot always have everything we want where we want it. I hope I am being realistic about what we can provide for the people of Redditch.
That brings me to some good news about innovative thinking that is going on in our town. Redditch is situated in the north of our county and the majority of my constituents look to Birmingham rather than Worcester. The Minister cannot be expected to know about transport links in our county, but the links between Redditch and Worcester are fairly dreadful. If someone has to go to Worcester by train, they get on a train to Birmingham, get off at the university stop—where the university hospital of Birmingham is—and double back to Worcester. Buses are also a nightmare and often involve two or three changes. I was delighted to meet Dame Julie Moore, the chief executive of the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, before Christmas to talk about the trust providing some services at the Alex. I look forward to meeting her again next week, and to meeting Penny Venables, the chief executive of the Worcestershire trust.
Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the manner in which she is conducting it. I wish her well in the campaign she is conducting on behalf of her constituents, whom she serves remarkably well. Does she understand that as we look at the options for the future of the hospital services in Worcestershire, particularly for the Alex, we must be certain that no decisions that are taken in relation to the Alex have the unintentional consequence of reducing the critical mass of the health economy in the wider county and, therefore, damaging the service provided to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)? Any loss of service provision might have serious consequences for the rest of the county. We must take the matter forward together with a single voice, because we all share the conviction that we can achieve a win-win situation for all our constituents.
Karen Lumley
Those who know the Worcestershire MPs know that we generally hunt as a pack; we are renowned within different Departments for doing so. I share my hon. Friend’s concerns, but obviously at the end of the day I am the MP for Redditch, my hospital is the one under threat and I must do what is best for my constituents.
There are several questions I want to ask the Minister today. First, who owns the Alexandra hospital? Secondly, if the local commissioning group wants to commission services with University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, will his Department help to make that happen? Thirdly, does he agree that this uncertainty has gone on long enough, and will he encourage the Worcestershire acute trust to co-operate with the UHB trust in Birmingham? Fourthly, will he reassure staff and my constituents that he and his Department are working as hard as they can to ensure the best outcome for them?
I have probably said enough now, but I will finish by saying that we are grateful to the Minister for his attention to our hospital in Redditch. We look forward to welcoming him in April to see for himself what a fantastic hospital we have—a hospital that we must not forget belongs to the residents of Redditch. We are realistic about what has to happen, but I want to put on the record today that there are two options on the table, and it is only fair to my constituents that both be looked at in a fair and open way. That is all we are asking for, and I hope that he and his Department will ensure that it happens.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
In this debate, we have not only an out-patient but a doctor. I call Dr Daniel Poulter, the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to respond to the debate. It is a great pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents and local patients, and indeed for paying tribute herself to the hard-working staff at her local hospital. As she rightly points out, the future of the Redditch hospital has been discussed for far too long and I hope that, during the next few months, we can come to a conclusion that will not only be of benefit to local patients but bring higher-quality care to people in Redditch and the whole of Worcestershire. Any redesign of services must be led by local commissioners and—crucially—must also consider the best interests of local patients; those redesigning services must listen to the voices of local patients.
My hon. Friend rightly outlined in her speech the fact that no hospital or trust operates within a vacuum in the NHS, and she is also right to say that private finance initiative deals in the local area have been problematic and have left a very damaging legacy; that has happened not only in her part of the world but throughout the NHS. We must learn lessons from that in the future. It is distressing and regrettable that bad PFI deals sometimes have an impact on neighbouring hospitals, and it is a position that we, as a Government, have inherited. We will continue to do what we can, by working with trusts with difficult PFI deals, to try to mitigate those difficulties.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the fact that decisions about her local trust have an impact on the wider health economy in Worcestershire, and that that broader impact needs to be taken into account by those making decisions about the Alex hospital. When my hon. Friend and I met my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) was unable to attend that meeting—the point was made clearly that many hospitals in the wider health economy of Worcestershire have natural links with Birmingham. That must be taken into account when services are redesigned for the benefit of patients.
Increasingly, clinical evidence is stacking up that some specialist clinical services need to be run from specialist centres, because those centres produce much better outcomes for patients, so the link to the major population centre for the surrounding counties should be taken into account. As I say, we need specialist centres of excellence for the benefit of patients.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch made the point that the Alex hospital has a historical legacy of difficulties, with big, intermittent deficits at the local trust. There have been commendable attempts to deal with those difficulties, but there has been a difficult situation for a number of years. Clearly, we want to see long-term stability for Redditch, for the local trust more broadly and for the local health care economy. Key to achieving those things is having high-quality medical personnel working in the hospital, and the ability to retain and recruit high-quality consultants.
Peter Luff
To be clear, for the majority of Worcestershire residents Birmingham and its services are a very long way away and very inaccessible.
Dr Poulter
With regard to “bread and butter” day-to-day medical services, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that. My point was that for some services—for example, trauma or stroke—having specialist centres brings better results for patients, and there is good clinical evidence to back that up. However, day-to-day, higher-quality “bread and butter” services for patients—such as heart care or children’s services—are often best provided locally, and he is absolutely right to make that point.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) on securing this very important debate.
The Minister mentioned the issue of recruitment of clinical staff. One thing that the NHS in Worcestershire has worked very hard on is a cancer strategy to keep cancer care within the county and to make the Worcestershire Royal hospital a centre of excellence for cancer care. We are looking to secure a radiotherapy unit in the near future. I urge the Minister, in taking whatever decisions are necessary to ensure that the county has the strongest, most sustainable NHS, to pay attention to that work and to the importance of having a cancer service for the county.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise the high-quality work done in Worcester to look after cancer patients. It is exactly the point that I was making in response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff): the high-quality day-to-day services that patients need must be delivered locally, but more specialist operations—such as for head and neck cancer—might be carried out at a specialist site that is geared up for such operations. Day-to-day oncology care, however, is often best carried out locally, particularly when people are unwell with cancer and receiving sometimes very intensive treatment. In those situations, they need to be looked after locally.
It does not benefit patients, for medical and many other reasons, to have very long distances to travel. However, when surgical outcomes might benefit from operations being carried out at specialist centres, we must differentiate day-to-day treatment from the more specialist care that may be required as a one-off surgical intervention. We should do that when the evidence stacks up that specialist centres for such surgical interventions often deliver better results and better care for patients. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to his local trust for the work that it does on cancer care in Worcester, which I know is very important to him personally.
I will now respond specifically to some of the points that have been made in the debate, and consider how we go forward from where we are now. Hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch, have made us well aware, through their articulate contributions, of the challenges that are faced by the local health care economy. Such ongoing uncertainty about the future of local health care services is wrong and completely undesirable. When local commissioners bring forward proposals for the two options that are likely to be considered later in the month, I urge them to move forward as promptly as possible to bring certainty to the situation. That will allow consideration of important issues, such as the need to have high-quality professionals working in hospitals. When there is uncertainty about the future of a trust or a particular site within a trust, it can be difficult, as my hon. Friend rightly outlined, to recruit high-quality staff to work in that trust. That is not in patients’ best interests, so the sooner we can have certainty, the better. I know my hon. Friend will join me in urging local commissioners to bring things forward as expediently and quickly as possible.
As we know, the trust is committed to providing the best-quality care for patients. That is essentially about finding the best solution for the people of Worcestershire so that they receive the best care in the future. As my hon. Friend outlined, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and the West Mercia cluster have jointly commissioned a strategic review of services in the area. The review is essential to secure the clinical and financial sustainability of high-quality services for local people. That is about looking not just at getting through the next couple of years, but at what will be right for the local health economy in five or 10 years’ time.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern that there have been delays with the review, and I once again urge local commissioners to take things forward as expediently and quickly as possible. The Worcestershire joint services review started in January 2012, and it was expected to be completed by November 2012. I hope my hon. Friend is somewhat reassured that we will move forward more quickly, notwithstanding a patchy history on resolving local health care issues. There is a need for certainty locally, and we must make sure that the time line is met and that we have a firm conclusion.
Importantly, the review involves clinicians and commissioners across the area and the NHS. It engaged with local people last summer to inform the development of proposals. As we know, developing proposals for the future of local services is about clinical leadership and about clinicians saying what is important and in patients’ best interests, but it is also about local involvement and engagement. When I met my hon. Friend before Christmas, we discussed that. The local newspaper has played a tremendous role in promoting local patients’ needs. My hon. Friend and the local population should be proud of the cross-party consensus on the importance of Redditch’s future.
Through the review, local people will have made, and will continue to make, their voices and views clear. That is important for the Government and for our four tests for reconfiguration. It is also important that local health care providers, the local trust and the trust’s board listen to local people and local health commissioners to make sure that their views are informed by what local patients want and need and by what local clinicians say is in patients’ best interests.
The joint services review steering group met on 12 September 2012 and, unfortunately, decided to delay the process again until it could explore all options to allow it to maximise service provision at the Alexandra hospital, including investigating the potential to work with other NHS providers—Birmingham being a case in point.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Redditch and Bromsgrove clinical commissioning group has started initial discussions with three NHS providers in Birmingham to explore the feasibility of providing services from the Alexandra hospital: the University Hospitals of Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust and Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Those discussions are still in their early stages. However, my hon. Friend is right that when proposals are brought forward—hopefully, by the end of this month—we should move things forward quickly for the benefit of local patients.
No decisions have been made, and the discussions are only about the Alexandra hospital—that needs to be clearly set on the record. The Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust would continue to provide all other services. Given the concerns my hon. Friends have raised, it is important to note that, although the services the trust provides need to be seen holistically, the ongoing discussions are about the specific future of Alex’s site in Redditch. That is an important distinction, and I hope it gives my hon. Friends some reassurance that any proposals are unlikely to disrupt local services to the patients they care about.
Ultimately, the decision is for local determination, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the discussions in further detail until we have firm proposals. We will continue to meet regularly. I am visiting Redditch in the near future, and will take a keen interest to make sure I can do all I can to support the right result for local patients.
Mark Garnier
The Minister will no doubt know what is coming: will he visit Kidderminster when he is next in Redditch?
Dr Poulter
I would be delighted to visit Kidderminster hospital. It might not be on the same day I visit Redditch, but I will make sure I put it on my list of priorities to visit. I would be delighted to see the excellent work done at Kidderminster hospital and, indeed, at Worcester, at some point in the near future. In addition to the bit of clinical work I still do, I prioritise going out on a Thursday as regularly as I can to see the NHS on the ground and to see what is going on. I would be delighted to visit other local trusts, when I can fit them into the diary, later in the year.
What are the next steps? If agreement is reached on a clinically and financially sustainable solution in the interests of local people, a robust process needs to follow. The Worcestershire joint services review steering committee will meet on 26 February to set out options for consultation. We are then likely to have two options regarding the way forward. One is likely to involve Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust continuing to operate services from the Alexandra hospital. The other is likely to involve exploring the feasibility of the Birmingham foundation trust operating services at Alexandra hospital, if that is in local people’s best interests.
The final proposals will require the support of the NHS in Worcestershire. However, the local NHS has assured me that it will continue to engage with people while proposals are finalised. Of course, I would expect any proposals to meet the four tests for service change that we have clearly outlined—principally, that any changes are clinically led and have strong patient and public engagement. The local NHS expects final proposals to be ready for public consultation later in the summer. However, it is vital, as we have stressed throughout the debate, that we hold those involved firmly to their task and reach a conclusion for the sake of staff and patient certainty and for the benefit of the local NHS.
Karen Lumley
One of my questions was: who actually owns the Alexandra hospital?
Dr Poulter
As my hon. Friend will know, the local hospital is designated as part of a trust. It is a non-foundation trust, so there is direct regard to the Secretary of State in some matters relating to the trust. I hope that gives her some reassurance. Of course, the NHS is owned by all of us, which is why it was so important when we set out our four tests for reconfiguration that we made sure they were about strong clinical leadership in the best interests of patients, as well as strong patient and public engagement, so that patients and the public can clearly see that any changes to local services are in their best interests and so that they can properly engage in the process. There has been strong local feeling and opinion on this issue, and I am sure it will be listened to carefully when decisions are taken about the future.
In conclusion, I encourage my hon. Friends and local people to participate in the consultation process to ensure their views are fully taken into account. I will maintain a keen interest. I am looking forward to visiting each site in the trust in due course. I am always available to talk through matters if Members have concerns.
Food Banks (Wales)
(11 years, 10 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
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship this afternoon, Mrs Riordan. I am delighted and dismayed in equal measure to open this debate on food banks in Wales. I never thought, when I entered public life as a Cardiff councillor a long time ago, in 1991, that this topic would become a priority for discussion. I never thought I would see, in my time in public life, the rapid expansion of centres to hand out food to the people of Wales, on a scale unprecedented since the 1930s.
Of course, we from Wales have particularly strong and often bitter memories of the 1930s and of poverty. It was often said of my grandmother, Gwenllian Evans, a miner’s wife from Nantyglo, that she could spread an egg over Cardiff Arms park, such were her culinary skills of making a little go a long way. My mother, who is still alive today and living in Cwmbrân, often told me of the poverty that she grew up in, in the 1930s, in Nantyglo and the times when it was a struggle to feed the family.
Kevin Brennan
I will in a moment. I am just warming up; once I have got into my stride, I will let the hon. Gentleman have a go.
It is for those reasons that I believe the provision of social security is such a strong theme in the history of Welsh politics, and that the rapid increase in food banks in Wales is particularly hard for us in Wales to take.
David T. C. Davies
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the history lesson as to what life was like under Ramsay MacDonald in the 1930s. Returning to the present, given the hon. Gentleman’s interest in food banks, why did no Labour Member of Parliament ask any questions about them during the entire period of the previous Labour Government?
Kevin Brennan
It is because food banks were such a minuscule feature on the scene compared with what we see today, despite the Prime Minister’s erroneous use of statistics recently at Prime Minister’s Question Time, in an attempt to sidestep his failure to take note of the rise of food banks over a long period.
It is particularly apt to talk about the 1930s because we are reliving that period of austerity economics. The failures of, and false theories behind, austerity economics are being repeated. We might expect that from the Conservatives, but it is staggering that it is being repeated in the coalition by the party of John Maynard Keynes through its approach to the economy.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that income inequality grew under previous Labour Governments, as it did under previous Conservative Governments?
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the powerful world economic forces that have been at work in the past 20 years. It has almost been like King Canute all over again, trying to hold back the forces of international capitalism over the past 20 years and trying to keep income inequality down. The previous Labour Government did possibly more than any other Labour Government in attempting to alleviate that. For example, they introduced the national minimum wage, which made a massive contribution to trying to alleviate the impact of income inequality, which, in a globalised capitalist system, is difficult to resist.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Last year, in Wrexham, the first food bank was set up since I first came to Parliament in 2001. This April, the richest people in Britain will get a tax cut because of this coalition Government’s policies. That is the type of ethical approach taken by this Government.
Kevin Brennan
Indeed. I am sure that other hon. Members will want to point out that, while this crisis is going on, the Government saw it as their priority to lower the income tax of the richest.
Kevin Brennan
I will get a bit further into my stride before I let the hon. Gentleman have another go.
It is no coincidence that the three giants behind the creation of what became known as the welfare state came from Wales: David Lloyd George, Jim Griffiths and Aneurin Bevan. It is particularly ironic that the Government presiding over a policy that is helping to trigger the rapid expansion of food poverty and food charity for the poor are a Government who include members of the successor party to Lloyd George’s Liberals.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman calls into question whether the Lib Dems are the successor party. That is another debate for another day. Perhaps Lib Dem members of this Government should recall the words of David Lloyd George as we debate food banks and poverty. In presenting his “people’s Budget” 104 years ago, in 1909, he said:
“This…is a war Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty...I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 548.]
I am afraid that under this Government, the wolves of poverty are back, along with the sharks who prey on the financial misfortunes of the poor with their high-rate loans.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend comment on a particular feature of the Neath food bank? Some 1,400 people in the Neath area are dependent on the food bank. Around half of those are in work. It is not solely people on benefits who are dependent on food banks; people in work are, too. The Wales Office website has still not taken down the Secretary of State’s commitment that people in work will always be better off than they would be on benefits. Those people are dependent on food banks in my constituency.
Kevin Brennan
Indeed. In a recent debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) mentioned that he had collected food for FareShare in Penarth. Many of the people being helped by the food bank were not the people one might expect, but people in work who were struggling to get by. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) has been keen to intervene; I note that a new food bank has opened up in Chepstow. I am sure that he will pay it a visit shortly, if he has not already done so.
In Wales, the rapid expansion of food banks is a subject that resonates and rankles. It is symptomatic of an approach by the Government that represents a shift away from the British belief in the importance of social security, founded by the three great Welsh pioneers and symbolised by the old-age pension, national insurance and the national health service, and its replacement with the alien American concept of welfare stigmatism—the demonisation of the poor and the replacement of the state’s responsibility with the vagaries of the charitable handout. The good society has been gazumped by the ill-named “big society”, in which well-meaning individuals try to patch the gaping holes created by austerity economics.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Would it be too much to ask, on such a serious issue, that we steer away from the notion that all this started in May 2010? A food bank in west Wales, of which I am a patron, started in 2000 under the Labour Government. It is keen to stress that the argument that the hon. Gentleman is pushing is misleading.
Kevin Brennan
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not accusing me of misleading the House, because you, Mrs Riordan, would have stamped on him if he had done so. My argument is not that food banks are bad things, or that their work is bad—it is not; it is good. What is wrong is the scale of the work that they have to do because of austerity economics and the rise in the cost of living, which are direct results of this Government’s policies. The Government made the ideological choice to follow an austerity economics policy—
Kevin Brennan
I am still speaking.
The Government are following an austerity economics policy, rather than making the economic choice, as they could have done, to deal with the deficit in a way that would not have led to such poor growth and its consequences.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman may know that nine of the 23 food banks in Wales opened in the past 12 months.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. That is what is so unfortunate about the Prime Minister’s attempt to use statistical shenanigans to disguise the fact that the real issue is the sheer number of people who now have to go to food banks. I compare that with the charitable aid that was on offer under the previous Government, and that will always be present in our society, one way or another, which is to be welcomed. It is the scale of what is being done, not what is being done, that is most important.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In Swansea, tonnes and tonnes of food are being gathered every month for the food bank, and thousands of people are affected. My hon. Friend will be aware that some 30,000 people now rely on food banks in Wales. What is his projection for after April, when 40,000 people will be affected by the second-bedroom tax? Does he agree that the least well-off will be worse off and relying on food banks?
Kevin Brennan
I will not make a projection, but I am sure the Minister will want to do so, because, of course, he should be very concerned about the impact of the Government’s changes. No doubt he has done a considerable amount of work on the issue raised by my hon. Friend, and he will perhaps say something about it when he winds up the debate.
Simon Hart
This is my second and last intervention. Will the hon. Gentleman express a view on a comment made by the 17-year-old food bank in west Wales?
“Statistics are misleading because it takes time to build up referrals and to be known about. The huge increase in recent years should not be taken as being the same thing as a huge increase in need.”
Those are not my comments; they are the comments of a food bank. Will the hon. Gentleman include them in the context of his argument?
Kevin Brennan
Obviously other people assess the need, and not the food bank itself—the vouchers are brought along to the food bank. I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman’s local food bank, of which I am sure he has a better knowledge than I do; I can comment on my local food bank, however. I have heard stories from other hon. Members, and I have seen evidence from across the country. He is burying his head in the sand if he does not think that the vast expansion of food banks is happening because of the impact of austerity economics, welfare benefit changes and the cost of living.
We called this debate to set the record straight on the growing use of food banks in Wales and to highlight the cost of living crisis facing hundreds of thousands of Welsh families.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I am here to listen to the debate because I have constituents who work in Wales, and there are people from Wales who come to work in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) highlighted, the issue is as much about people in work as about people out of work. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) share my concern about the explosion of the issue? We have heard about the growth in the number of food banks in Wales, but nationally, a couple of hundred food banks have opened across the UK. By the end of April, 250,000 people in our country will have accessed emergency food aid. Does he not think that is a terrible indictment in 2013 in the seventh most industrialised nation in the world?
Kevin Brennan
I do, and I apologise in advance if I repeat some of those statistics later. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in Liverpool, which is sometimes wrongly referred to as the capital of north Wales, although it certainly has a strong Welsh influence. I recommend to Government Members the YouTube video that she made showing the impact of food banks and of the Government’s policies on the people in her constituency. The video is worth viewing.
The number of people relying on food banks in Wales has trebled over the past year, rising from just over 10,000 to just under 30,000. The issue is the sheer scale of numbers, not the percentage increase. The number, as hon. Members have said, is forecast to rise to 40,000 a year over the next 12 months. The growth of food bank usage in Wales is twice the UK average, which the Minister should think about.
The Government, however, will not acknowledge that the growth in food bank usage is a problem. A Downing street source recently said that food banks are for people who
“feel they need a bit of extra food”.
Let us pause for a moment to consider the casual callousness of that comment, because, like many MPs, I find myself reluctantly handing out food vouchers to my constituents from my constituency office and surgeries, and I never thought I would when I entered public life. I assure Downing street and the Prime Minister that not one of those vouchers has been issued to, nor have I ever been approached by, constituents who
“feel they need a bit of extra food”.
Constituents approach me because they are desperate and do not know how they are going to feed their children this weekend. In short, they are in a crisis and the state is not there to provide immediate assistance.
Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)
Like me, I am sure my hon. Friend finds that, when he hands out food vouchers, not everyone who comes to him is a malingerer or a scrounger. There are people who have delayed benefit payments and are being denied the money they need to help keep their family in food and heating.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, in many cases, the reason why people are unable to feed their family that weekend is that there is no benefit. They have fallen upon a crisis in their life and there is no immediate assistance available. They have been told they will have to wait for some considerable time, and they are unable to access a crisis loan of any kind, which is why they come to us. We are handing out vouchers so they can get some food for the weekend. That is the reality. It is not a lifestyle choice, though the tone of the comments from No. 10 Downing street suggests it is. They do not want a free box of tinned or dried food to top up their adequately stocked pantries; they are using food banks because of the cost of living crisis that is facing families across the UK.
Luciana Berger
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way, and I will not seek to intervene on him any further. We know from questions asked just before Christmas that neither the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor nor Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have visited a food bank. Does my hon. Friend agree that had any of those Ministers, including the Prime Minister, been to a food bank, we would not have heard those comments from No. 10?
Kevin Brennan
Yes, I suspect my hon. Friend is right. I am sure the Minister has visited a food bank and will say what impression it made on him. What were his feelings on visiting the food bank?
Government policies such as the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, the VAT hike and the bedroom tax are making the crisis worse. I hope the Minister will distance himself from the comments we have heard from Downing street and acknowledge that Government policies are making things worse, not better, for hundreds of thousands of families across Wales.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
There is no VAT on food, so the VAT change did not affect the price of food, which is important to remember.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am aware of that fact, but he will find that families spend their money on things that do attract VAT, which has a direct impact on their disposable income and, therefore, on their ability to buy food.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Visitors to food banks in my constituency tell me that, because they are paying VAT on other things, particularly on peripheral items such as fuel, they have less money to spend on food. That is the reason why they come into food banks for the first time. Those people are in work and often work long hours.
Kevin Brennan
Yes, indeed. That is a continuing process. The consumer prices index figures were released today. CPI is 2.7%, which is 1.2 percentage points above rises in income for people in work. There is an impact on everyone, including people in work. As we know, as VAT is a regressive tax, it has the greatest impact on those on the lowest incomes. Also, because their marginal propensity to consume is much higher than that of people on higher incomes, VAT is a particularly hard tax on them.
Some 90% of the food in food banks is donated, mainly by the public via supermarkets, Churches, community centres, schools and other organisations. I pay tribute to the efforts of food banks, many of which are run by the Trussell Trust, including the one in Ely in my constituency, which I have visited. They are intended as a crisis intervention for families in need. As I said in response to an intervention, the problem is not what food banks do but the scale on which they must now do it.
Food goes to distribution centres, where food bank volunteers gather, weigh, account for and issue the food. Food is issued only to recipients with vouchers, and vouchers are issued by front-line service officers trained in the assessment of need. Issuing organisations include, among others, citizens advice bureaux, Jobcentre Plus, GP surgeries, social services, housing officers and now, as I said earlier, Members of Parliament and, I suspect, Welsh Assembly Members, too.
A voucher gives just over three days’ worth of food, and vouchers are typically issued in batches of three. As we heard, the trust operates 23 food banks across Wales, nine of which opened in the last year, and four more are expected to open in Wales by Easter this year. There are now more than 270 food banks across the UK. In 2011, some 7,173 adults and 4,038 children in Wales used a food bank, and in 2012, the numbers rose to 18,721 adults and 10,328 children. The trust forecasts that the number of people relying on food banks in Wales will rise to 40,000 next year.
The trust collates information about the people using food banks. The consistent main reason cited for using a food bank, accounting for between 40% and 45% of usage, is benefit changes and delays in benefit payments. About one quarter of usage is accounted for by low-income families, and about one tenth by debt. As we have heard, food bank usage has exploded over the past two to three years. It is sad but typical that the Prime Minister recently tried to suggest that food banks expanded by a greater amount under the last Government than under this one; that abuse of statistics was skewered by Channel 4’s feature, “FactCheck”, which I recommend to hon. Members.
The trust forecasts that this year, 250,000 people across the UK will use a food bank. Hundreds of thousands of Welsh families face a cost of living crisis worsened by the Government’s policies, including welfare changes that are likely to make the crisis even worse. The Welfare Up-rating Bill alone will hit 400,000 low and middle-income households in Wales, including 170,000 families in Wales who currently receive working tax credits. It is estimated that 140,000 people in Wales will be worse off under the Government’s change to universal credit and 40,000 will be hit by the bedroom tax; I know that hon. Members are already getting a lot of traffic in their surgeries about that issue.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that between 2010 and 2013, inflation will have risen by 16%, whereas average earnings will have risen by just half that, or 8%. The TUC estimates that four-year wage stagnation will cost the average worker £6,000. Wales has some of the highest energy bills in the UK, and more families are having to choose between heating and eating. As I said, the VAT hike alone added £450 a year to average household bills. Low economic growth has created fewer opportunities, and unemployment is forecast to rise in the next two years. Public sector job losses are forecast to reach 1 million by 2017. Meanwhile, in April, the Government will give more than 8,000 millionaires an average tax cut of £107,000, and the top 4,000 earners in Wales will benefit from a cut in the additional rate of income tax.
I have a few questions that I hope the Minister will answer in his response. What does he think best explains the explosion in food bank use in Wales? Is it the cost of living crisis facing Welsh families, or the notion that more people have suddenly decided that they want a bit of extra food, to quote No. 10? On the “Politics Show” this weekend, the Welsh Office Minister in the House of Lords, Baroness Randerson, said that the Government are reducing the deficit in the fairest possible way. What exactly is fair about the bedroom tax, which will hit 40,000 people in Wales while taxes are cut for millionaires? What impact does the Minister think the Welfare Up-rating Bill will have on the number of people in Wales relying on food banks? Has he made any estimate of that?
Does the Minister agree that the growing number of food banks in Wales is a symptom of the cost of living crisis facing Welsh families? Does he accept that the Government’s failure to get the economy moving is likely to have led more people to rely on food banks? What does he think the expansion of food bank usage in Wales and across the UK tells us about the success or otherwise of the Government’s policies? Does he think that the number of people in Wales who rely on food banks is likely to rise or fall over the next two years? I hope that he has made some estimate in preparation for this debate.
We never thought to see the return of the charity handout as a mass means of feeding the poor in Wales. Is the Minister proud of his Government’s big society, or ashamed of its small-minded demonisation of the poor?
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on securing this important debate and on his compelling contribution, in which he painted a stark picture. As he said, the Government’s response to the increasing despair among Opposition Members about the growth of food banks has been to say that food banks grew under the last Labour Government, that they are a sign of the big society, that they are somewhere for people to go if, as the Downing street source said,
“they need a bit of extra food”,
and that we should thank them for the work that they do. I certainly agree with the last part. I thank Raven House Trust and King’s Church in Newport, which do a superb job with the little resource that they have. They are hugely dedicated, and I thank the volunteers in local churches who collect on their behalf. I am not sure that I know what a big society is, but I can certainly recognise examples of the good society operating in Newport.
As my hon. Friend said, we must all agree that the huge growth in food banks is sobering and a terrible reflection on how bad things have become. Raven House Trust, based in my constituency, became a charity in 1994, helping Newport’s homeless with furniture and food. In December, it gave out 850 food parcels, and this week it told me that in the last six months of last year, it had seen a marked increase in demand due to welfare changes, and that it is bracing itself for a dramatic increase from April. That trend is confirmed by the Trussell Trust, which is based in Newport and operates food banks elsewhere. It says, as my hon. Friend said, that 40% to 45% of those who ask for help do so because of changes to benefits and delays in benefit payments, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, many working families on low pay are also in need.
Everyone who needs a food parcel will have a different story, but it is true to say that those in desperate need and asking for help have often been the homeless, those with drug and alcohol problems and, in my area, asylum seekers. That is absolutely awful, but Raven House says that, increasingly, families with children are relying on food banks to survive. Changes to the benefit system—which often leave people with reduced payments while claims are processed—low pay and rising fuel and energy bills are causing the cost of living to rise the fastest for the poorest households.
Geraint Davies
On that issue, does my hon. Friend agree that the online delivery of universal credit will mean that many families, who are vulnerable and often dysfunctional—some people have mental illnesses, and many do not have access to computers—will have no benefits, leading to a massive escalation in poverty, hunger and reliance on food banks?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is right. Yesterday, as he will know, we heard evidence from charities working with people with mental health issues in Wales. They said that for their clients, not being able to do things online was a huge problem, as many clients had difficulties opening the letters. That is a big issue.
Recently, food banks in my constituency have seen a marked change and desperate need. Let us remember that families must be referred by an agency or an advocate, such as a citizens advice bureau, social services, Newport City Homes, Women’s Aid, and others. However, help is not unlimited. People are expected to use the parcels to tide them over and get back on their feet.
The picture is much the same at King’s Church, which collects food to donate back out to agencies. When it set up it did not feel best placed to assess the need, and did not want to interrupt the established process between, say, a social worker and their client. It collects the food to pass on to agencies, which decide who to give it to. King’s Church opened in 2009 and at that stage gave out 50 food hampers a month. It has expanded the areas it covers across south Wales and now gives out in excess of 1,200 a month.
In 2012, King’s Church gave out 12,500 hampers. It expects to deliver 18,000 in 2013 and forecasts a need for 24,000 in 2014. It is important to remember that in the King’s Church model the official agencies identify the need. Demand is going up. King’s Church feels that it is just scratching the surface. Both King’s Church and Raven House are gearing up for the benefits changes, and we can see why. A study by Bron Afon housing association into those affected by the bedroom tax in Torfaen quotes tenants—it visited every one of them—saying that they would rather go without meals to find the money to stay in their home. Teachers report seeing hungry pupils each day and food banks are working with schools.
Providers in my constituency know that things will get worse. The trend has been a steep rise in demand, even before the Government’s austerity measures really hit. When FareShare Cymru, which is based in Cardiff and does an excellent job, is reporting that charities are finding it hard to pay the membership fee to join its organisation, and that it is finding it difficult to maintain the service, the Government need to open their eyes to see how their policies are hurting. They should not just make flippant remarks about people getting an extra bit of food.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
First, I should like to deal with comments made to me directly by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). I received an invitation to visit a food bank in Chepstow, but it was during the parliamentary week and I made it clear that I was unable to take a day off from here. I am more than happy to visit it at any time, however, and I hope that that will be arranged.
Of course there is poverty. There is poverty in Monmouthshire and in the whole of Wales. I spent many years in the Welsh Assembly making the point that there is a great deal of poverty in Monmouthshire, although that usually fell on deaf ears among Labour Members of the Welsh Assembly, who assured me, practically, that the place was full of millionaires, although it never has been and it certainly is not at the moment. There is a great deal of poverty in rural areas. I hope that matter will be addressed.
One of the most important things that can be done to address this matter is dealing with the completely unfair local government funding formula, brought about by the Welsh Assembly in about 2000, which has caused a catastrophic loss in income for local authorities, particularly those in rural areas. As the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware, the local government funding formula for Wales, introduced by a Labour Welsh Assembly Government in about 2000, does not take proper account of the costs of dealing with rurality or the extra costs involved when trying to deliver goods and services in rural areas, and it does not take proper account of the age of the population. Sadly, those who live longer are much more likely to incur costs on the local authority than those of us who are younger and in better health. If those two issues were addressed in the local government funding formula, it would go a long way towards stamping out poverty in parts of Wales, particularly in the rural areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman joins me in campaigning against that disgraceful, unfair local government funding formula, which did so much to remove cash from rural areas of Wales.
Albert Owen
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will mention food banks in a moment. He has dealt with the local authorities, but will he not accept that those are under strain now because of the cuts that the Westminster Government have made to revenue and capital grants to local authorities?
David T. C. Davies
I will certainly come to it. I am jumping in rather quickly by not mentioning the 1930s and the Ramsay MacDonald Government, during which time my family were miners, but I wanted to start from 2000. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) knows that local authorities in Wales are funded by the Welsh Assembly, and its funding has remained in line with inflation.
David T. C. Davies
Well, one problem is that the Welsh Assembly has found it easy to raise money—taxation through the back door—by reducing the amount of money, proportionately, that it gives to local authorities throughout Wales and expecting them to raise the difference in council tax. The hon. Gentleman will know how the gearing effect works: a small cut in the amount given to the local authority by the Welsh Assembly will result in a much larger increase, proportionately, in council tax to make up the difference.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned the 50% tax cut for millionaires, a great line that he repeated a number of times. Of course, this came about because Governments of left and right since the 1980s, across the whole world, have accepted—
Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)
Order. I should like to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the topic of the debate, which is food banks.
Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)
Order. The correct way to address the Chair is by their name, so Mrs Riordan is in order.
David T. C. Davies
Mrs Riordan, my apologies.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 50% tax cut for millionaires several times. That was introduced to increase the amount of revenue that the Government have, and it was certainly not put in place during the previous Government.
The reality is that there is poverty in the whole United Kingdom; there always has been and I assume that there probably always will be. The Government have an enormous problem dealing with the economy at the moment, as a result of the deficit and debt that they inherited when they took over in 2010.
Geraint Davies
The hon. Gentleman loosely referred to the relationship between local government and food banks. Does he accept that the Welsh Government, by paying for the 20% cut that will be imposed in England on council tax, which would cost the average person on housing benefit in Wales some £5, have done a lot to try to stem the flow of people having to go to food banks, and have put money back into the pockets of the poorest at a time when his Government are taking money out of their pockets?
David T. C. Davies
The Government are not taking money out of the pockets of anyone that they do not have to. The people whose pockets have been picked most under this Government are those in the very wealthy bracket, who are now paying more, proportionately, of total tax revenue than they were under the previous Government. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman’s question.
I have already said that there is a huge problem with council tax in Wales. In Monmouthshire, where we have a food bank, council tax has risen more than anywhere in the whole of Wales. It has risen by more than virtually anywhere else in the entire country. Monmouthshire receives less funding per head than any other local authority in Wales, by quite a long way.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned the economy, which of course is crucial in this regard. He talked about the forces of global capitalism. I was struck by the fact that the economic problems of the previous Government were always said to be the fault of the invisible hand of global capitalism, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not support, although I thought that most members of his party these days did. Yet the economic problems that we now face are apparently nothing to do with the previous Government and nothing to do with global capitalism, but all down to the policies being followed at the moment. That is incorrect.
The problems that we have are simple. We owe £1 trillion on the books and probably the same amount again in figures that are kept off the books—public sector pensions, private finance initiatives, and so on—and we have to find a way of paying it back. Instead of paying it back at the moment, we are borrowing £120 billion a year from the banks.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman talk passionately about poverty, and we had more crocodile tears than in the Limpopo valley of South Africa, where 24,000 crocodiles escaped from a farm last week, according to the press. We did not hear the hon. Gentleman mention one single thing that he wanted to do about any of this—not one solution.
The solution is simple. We need to create the conditions that will allow growth, prosperity and jobs to be created in this country. We will not do it by borrowing money, levying higher taxes on people or printing money. We will do it by getting the deficit under control and starting to pay back some of the enormous national debt, which was created by Labour Members. That is how we will create growth in this country. That is what the Government are doing, and they have my 100% support.
Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for securing the debate.
In Swansea East, we have a food bank that started off covering one area of Swansea, but then had to stretch its services right across the city because of the increase in people who needed its help. I have worked closely with the food bank from day one, and I have come to know the volunteers and have seen the dedication and effort they put into their work. They are very clear about why they have to do that work: they have to fill a gap the Government have created. There are pressures on our communities and on family incomes. It is not just the unemployed we are talking about; hard-pressed, hard-working families also need help.
I give out vouchers every day, and it is frightening how many more I now have to allocate. In the beginning, my staff and I kept a stock of perhaps five bags of dried goods on hand in our storeroom, and we would hand them out if a hardship case came in. In the run-up to Christmas, however, we were going to our local food bank at Gorseinon every day, and we were bringing back bagfuls of food for people who really needed help.
When I intervened on my hon. Friend, I talked about why people come to us for help. They do not come because they fancy a change in their menu or some of the nice extras that might be in the bag, but because they have nothing left in the cupboard. That is not because they are poor copers or have not managed their income properly, but because something has happened that means they need immediate help. That is where the food bank comes in.
We have heard a lot of facts, figures and statistics about food banks in Wales and across the UK. Every week, when my staff and I sit down and talk about what happened in the preceding week, we think, “Thank goodness we can turn to the food bank.” We are not being romantic about it; going to the food bank is just a fact for many people.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Did she see the Salvation Army briefing for the debate? It said the development of the food bank movement
“may lead to a level of dependency which small community projects are simply unable to meet. This concern comes from the experience of churches in North America who find that food banks have become part of the welfare system.”
Is the point not that we are danger of going down the American route of using charity, rather than social security, which is the British way?
Mrs James
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree entirely. It is a worry that there is this alternative to the benefits system. We understand all the stresses and strains in the economy, and we know that there are huge pressures and increasing demands on income, but we just cannot let people fall behind. A measure of any good society or state is how it looks after its weakest, poorest and most vulnerable. I am ashamed to say that we are not doing a good job with some of the hard-pressed people I meet.
In Swansea, the demand on food banks has increased, and not just over Christmas. In September and October, they distributed two tonnes of food, which I am sure equates to many dozens of bags. It is hard even to grasp the idea of weighing out two tonnes of food on to pallets. Thank goodness the Churches and schools were having their harvest festivals; it meant we met the demand. However, we were really concerned about Christmas. I was so concerned, and the issues raised with me were so concerning, that I went to local employers and shopkeepers and asked, “Will you donate food?” The response was magnificent, and we got the additional food. Through a concerted effort with other organisations in Swansea, we managed to help people over the Christmas period.
It is no fun if someone has not had their benefit payment, and if paying bills has taken the food out of their mouths. That is the reality: people are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Will they heat the house? Will they put food in their children’s mouths? I am worried—I hope the Minister will respond to this point—about the one in 10 people in Wales who tell us they have skipped a meal to feed other members of their family. They are not making that up, and that is a serious issue.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that when the law is changed, and tenants, not landlords, receive housing benefit under universal credit, there is a real danger, under conditions of increasing pressure in which people do not have enough food to feed the family, that people will end up being evicted, because they feel they have to feed their children? There is now greater reliance on food banks, but we are building a time bomb of problems in terms of hunger, homelessness and devastation in many of our communities.
Mrs James
I agree. It is a ticking time bomb. It is not wrong to use terms such as “explosion” or “huge growth”. I do not know where this will end. When constituents are sitting in front of me, and we are wading through the complex new rules and regulations, we solve one problem, but we are left with a raft of other problems. I often have to tell people, “Hold on now. I do not have the answer yet.” That is the biggest issue in my postbag. There are many fearful people out there; they are really worried about what is happening to them and about the changes we have heard about—the bedroom tax, the changes under universal credit and the changes to the designation of who can receive disability living allowance—but I do not have all the answers. However, I do know that there will be more and more problems, and I meet more and more fearful people.
Food is not a luxury, but an essential of life. We all like to have a good diet, and we all enjoy certain foods. People are not receiving luxury items, but the staples and the basics of life. Their circumstances are putting huge pressure on their daily incomes.
We already have particular problems in Wales, and we all know about the problems we have had historically and geographically. We have lower incomes. The Office for National Statistics says that pay has fallen by £80 per month on average. That puts pressure on people. There are more cuts and changes to be implemented. As I said, I meet people who are very fearful. They are worried about this poverty explosion.
The number of people using food banks is a good indicator of what we need to do. We need a solid plan from the Government to get us out of this mess. We do not want false promises or denials of what is happening in our constituencies. The situation will not improve unless we have direct Government intervention. That means that we must take responsibility for people on benefits. We should not see them as an easy and quick way of saving money. We must think not necessarily of inflating people’s quality of life and standard of living, but about ensuring that people receive a decent basic wage and decent basic income.
Every day I hear about constituents losing their jobs, or about benefits that have been delayed or crisis loans failing to appear. As I have said, the changes to the welfare system are huge and will have far-reaching effects. We have a maze of new rules and regulations to go through. I am working at the moment with other bodies—the local authority, charities and Citizens Advice. We are all picking our way through and trying to come up with something practical for our constituents. No sooner do we get to the bottom of things than more changes are made.
I echo a question that has already been put: is that what we want in modern Britain? I do not want to be melodramatic and talk about Victorian soup kitchens and going back to handouts–
Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Minister and the shadow Minister at 20 minutes to 4, and there are three more hon. Members who want to speak. If remarks are kept brief, all three will get in.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is ironic that we are debating this subject on pancake Tuesday. I am reminded of a song that we used to sing when we were kids, which my grandmother taught my mother. If hon. Members will forgive the Welsh, it went like this:
“Mae mam rhy dlawd i brynu blawd
A’m tad rhy wael i weithio”.
It translates as “My mother is too poor to buy the flour and my father is too ill to work.” Considering the dependence on food banks and the ravages that Atos is wreaking on our constituencies, those are chilling words. I will not say anything melodramatic, either, about Victorian values, but as I was on my way here it occurred to me that the words of that song had a message for us.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on securing the debate. As he said, there are 23 food banks in Wales, and four of them are in north Wales. They operate in disadvantaged areas, although I am sometimes at a loss to decide which areas of Wales are disadvantaged and which are not, given that disadvantage is so widespread. As I said in an intervention, nine food banks were opened in the past 12 months, and I understand that there are a further four in development. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of adults and children who have at some point been dependent on food banks. The significant fact is that in 2011 there were 11,000 people in that position, and in 2012 there were 29,000; 2,500 families a month were referred in 2011, and in December 2012 that figure was nearly 5,000. There is a trend there.
The main reasons why people go to food banks, as we know, are that they have benefit problems: either their benefits are not paid, or they are paid late. That accounts for almost half the people who go to food banks. Others go because of debt or because they are homeless. Significantly, about 20% of those who go to food banks are working poor people. As someone else said, these are not the scroungers of the popular newspapers. The growth of food banks in Wales is a symptom of a much more fundamental problem: the growing inequality that I mentioned earlier, and a failure of wages and incomes to match the ever-increasing cost of living. There is a fundamental mismatch between people’s wages and what they need to pay for such basics as shelter, warmth, food, and clothing.
Food banks currently provide a vital short-term service and are not a long-term solution, even for the individual who goes to them. That must be borne in mind, if we think that there will be more dependence on food banks. However, they can be a life-saving service. I was glad to open the food bank in my constituency last year, and to meet the good people who give their time and effort to make the place work in the service of their fellow citizens. Their aims and the outcomes that they achieve are entirely laudable, but this is a matter on which the Government should lead. Food banks, if we have them at all, should supplement public provision; they should be a marginal support. It is astonishing, and a disgrace, that in the second decade of the 21st century, when we produce more food than we consume, and after all the advances that have been made in science and technology, we cannot make sure that people get sufficient food.
Food banks, obviously, are a marker of inequality. As I have said, benefits and tax credits have not risen in line with real inflation. However, in Wales there has also been a consistent decline in economic performance and in people’s ability to buy the food they need. The figures are quite stark: Wales’s gross value added per head compared to the UK average in 1997 was 78.1%, and in 2011 it was 75.2%—a decline of about 3%. For west Wales and the valleys—the poorest areas as defined by the European Union—the figure was 67.2% in 1997. It is now 65% and it is, alas, on the way down. Recent analysis by the Resolution Foundation has shown that between 1975 and 2010, the average annual year-on-year change for the bottom 10% was only 0.2%; for the top 1% there was a 2.4% year-on-year increase. Thus there is local decline, and also a decline in relation to class and income sector. As I have said, inequality grew, and has been growing since the 1970s. Some of that was perhaps partly affected by Mrs Thatcher’s policies, but that growth has been consistent.
Unfortunately, average household income in Wales is 12% lower than in the country as a whole. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills has forecast that Welsh economic growth will continue to lag 0.5% behind that of the UK as a whole; so there is a substantial historical problem that is growing. Food banks are not the answer to all that. The remedies are fairly easy to list: we need better economic growth and income distribution, particularly in the poorest areas. We in Plaid support the living wage, as we supported the minimum wage. We need to take steps to end fuel and food poverty.
I will not ask the Minister a long list of questions that he would find it difficult to answer, or demand that he fleece the rich and distribute the largesse to the poor, which he is clearly not in a position to do. I want to ask him for a tiny little step. Let us see whether as a matter of good will he can reply for the Government. It is about something that my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir) and I have been pursuing recently: a small step in relation to winter fuel payments. In response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), the hon. Member for Cardiff West talked about the importance of disposable income. If people could spend a bit less on fuel they would have a bit more to spend on food, so I ask the Government for a commitment to pay winter fuel payments a bit earlier. Then older people and people with disabilities would get their money to spend earlier in the year, and could get a better deal on coal or a tank of gas or oil. It is not a huge thing, and it would not cost a lot. Will the Minister give a positive answer to that question, as a measure of good will?
A last, brief point—but an important one—is that Wales is not a unique case in the UK or the European Union. We must look beyond our borders and Europe’s borders, and fight to provide food security for people all over the world.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on securing an important debate.
Sometimes in debates about food banks, or poverty—urban or rural—I get the feeling that Government Members think we make things up or exaggerate them.
Chris Evans
The hon. Gentleman has summed up my absolute frustration with the House since I came into this place. All those on the Government Benches seem to want to do is look into the past and blame the Labour Government for everything. I simply ask him to put himself in this position: if tonight someone cannot afford to feed his family, because he finds that he has no food and that his children are screaming for food, will they care whose fault it is? What they care about is where their next meal is coming from. Often in this House, we look more interested in trying to win cheap political points than in bringing about real political change for people who are suffering.
David T. C. Davies
Instead of emotion, I am looking forward to something I have not heard so far, which is someone telling us what exactly Labour policy would be. How much extra would a Labour Government borrow? How much extra money would they print? What would they add to the national debt to spend money and resolve the problem?
Chris Evans
Were the hon. Gentleman to let me carry on with my speech, rather than intervening in my first couple of minutes, I might have been able to develop that argument. Surely it is a damning indictment of any Government when food banks increase threefold; 22,000 meals were provided by food banks in Gwent in the past year. That is equivalent to a third of the people living in my constituency. Food banks are a damning indictment of Government policies, but they are only a symptom of Government policies.
I had a briefing recently from Caerphilly borough council’s housing department, in which we talked about the effect of the bedroom tax. Single parents whose child is not living with them will not be able to have the child stay over with them. Disabled people will have to leave their homes, even though they have made adjustments, because they have an extra bedroom; otherwise, it will cost them £91 extra, which will have an effect on what they can spend on utilities and food. They are being driven to food banks.
I remember the Welfare Reform Bill going through; everyone was labelled a scrounger just because they were claiming benefits, even though six in 10 people in work are claiming benefits. That is happening an awful lot. We are not talking about the people we might traditionally think of—the ones talked about by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), such as drug addicts or alcoholics who need food. We are talking about people in work, and that is a damning indictment. Unless there is some change, we are writing off another generation.
I grew up in the ’80s; my father left home when I was 11 and my mother brought me up as a single parent. I could list the things my mother would do with a tin of corned beef to feed us throughout the week; we had corned beef fritters, corned beef stew, and corned beef pie. She even made bread-and-butter pudding out of sandwiches that we had not eaten. Yet she was not faced with the problems that people face now. It is all very well to quote statistics, and it is easy to do that, but what does it mean for children going to school hungry? They are being written off before they even start. They do not have the tools intellectually, because they are too hungry to do school work.
We need to think about radical solutions. Rather than pigeonholing people as benefit scroungers, let us talk about individual need. If I find myself out of work, I have different needs from someone who has not worked for a long time. It is no good the Government saying, “We need to make cuts.” The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) thinks that we need to make more cuts and that the Government are on the right path— he is nodding away—but if we cut someone’s job, we increase the welfare bill. If we cut the welfare bill through welfare reform, we are putting pressure on charities and others who are helping with handouts. Sooner or later, whether the Government like it or not, someone will have to pick up the bill when the charity has gone under or when the volunteer cannot do the work any more. It will be left to the Government to pick it up.
I would like to have developed the argument further, but someone else wants to speak, so I will give them the last five minutes.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for being so gracious as to allow me five minutes to contribute to the debate.
First, importantly, the work done by food banks is appreciated by all Members of the House. The political reasons behind the creation of food banks might be debated passionately, but their work is most welcome. I do not have a food bank in my constituency, but my children have contributed to and collected for the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). We applaud food banks, because they show a community coming together to support the most vulnerable.
What is missing from the debate, however, is any attempt by the Labour party in Wales to provide a context. It has been a self-indulgent debate in many ways, in which attacks on Government welfare policies have been made completely out of context. We heard no comments whatever on the fact that in April 2007 there was one food bank in Wales, but by May 2010 there were 10; now there are 24 to 26, depending on which statistics are accepted, but the reasons are much more complicated than changes to benefits. If we look at benefits payments in Wales, my understanding is that when the Labour party came to government in 1997, the average employment and support allowance payment for a benefits recipient was 20% of the Welsh average income. By 2010, when the Labour party left power, that proportion was down to 17.2%, and it has since increased to 17.6%. Last year, benefits went up by 5.5%, the highest for some time.
We have to provide the context for why household budgets are being challenged. They are being challenged by forces beyond the control of any Government. Food prices have gone up 27% between 2007 and 2012; that is beyond the control of the Government. When I was in Washington last year, a crisis was hitting corn prices because of drought in the mid-west, but that type of thing is not in the control of our Government. Look at electricity and fuel prices. Prices are subject to VAT at 5%, just as they were throughout the entire period of the Labour Administration, yet electricity prices have doubled and gas prices have tripled since 2000. No Government can deal with that type of effect on people’s household incomes. No Government can respond in a sufficient manner to that type of price increase, which is beyond the control of any Government.
All we have heard from the Labour party have been accusations that all the difficulties were caused by Government changes. Time and again it is Government changes, even when those changes have not yet been implemented. We heard a lot about the so-called bedroom tax that will affect people’s incomes; it has not yet been implemented. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about the effect of universal credit; it has not yet been implemented. Blatantly political views have been expressed about people in desperate situations in Wales in order to score party political points. I find that most disappointing.
Even worse, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who is no longer in his place, stated that the coalition was responsible for cutting taxes to the wealthiest in society while punishing the poorest. That came from a Member who, I gather, voted to get rid of the 10% tax rate for the lowest paid in society and who was quite happy for capital gains tax to be paid at 18% by the wealthiest City financiers while their cleaners paid 22% tax. Those are the realities of what happened under Labour, but not a single comment has been made in the debate about that atrocious track record.
The worst thing that came out of the debate was the comment by an Opposition Member that we were creating a dependency culture. Labour Members are from a party that has been in government in Wales more or less since the end of the first world war, whether locally or nationally, and from a party that has failed Wales time and again, creating ghettoes of inequality within Wales. I cannot comprehend how they can with a straight face make the accusation that the coalition Government have, in two years, created a dependency culture. I find that staggering and unacceptable.
My final point is that this Government have presided over the creation of more than 1 million jobs in the private sector. Last week, a constituent on £71 jobseeker’s allowance visited me. That is no way to live—I am the first to acknowledge it, and I think every single Member in the Chamber would acknowledge that they could not and would not want to live on £71 a week. That is why it is so important for the Work programme and the support offered by the Government to get people back into employment. That is the real way to deal with the issue—not by point scoring about changes to this benefit or that benefit, but by acknowledging that a life on benefits is not something we should aspire to as a country. It is not something I aspire to for the people of Wales.
Time and again, we have heard from the Opposition party that everything would be okay if there were a Labour level of spending on benefits and welfare. The Government have much more ambition for the people of Wales. We want them to have the opportunity to work and take themselves out of poverty, not through dependence on the state but through their own efforts, and that is what we are creating.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
We have had a wide-ranging debate in which many extremely important points were made. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on securing the debate. He reminded us of the strong tradition in Wales of translating our concern for the well-being of each and every member of our communities into reforms in society that enshrine the dignity of the individual by organising our collective wealth for the good of all, whether through the pension reforms of Lloyd George, the creation of the NHS by Aneurin Bevan or the far-reaching reforms of my predecessor, Jim Griffiths. Those things were done precisely so that people would not have to rely on handouts such as those given by food banks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) paid tribute to FareShare Cymru and to the King’s church in her constituency, and made the point that food banks are well run, with proper systems of referral for those in genuine need. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) spoke of her personal experience helping people who are in distressing circumstances. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) raised the issue of rural poverty and the widespread nature of deprivation. He contrasted the wealth of food produced with the abject failure to distribute wealth and food equitably.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) focused on the formula used to distribute money—the rate support grant—to local councils in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) emphasised the dire need that many people find themselves in, and the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) did not come up with a solution to the question of how to eliminate the need for people to rely on food banks. That is a matter I would like to return to later.
The dire statistic is that the number of people relying on food banks in Wales has trebled over the past year, rising from just over 10,000 to just under 30,000, with forecasts of 40,000 next year. Across the UK, food bank usage has doubled in the past year from around 125,000 to around 250,000. The growth of food bank usage in Wales is therefore twice that of the UK average.
The Trussell Trust operates 23 food banks across Wales, nine of which have opened in the past year. Four more food banks will open in Wales by Easter this year. In 2011, a total of 11,000 people—7,000 adults and 4,000 children—used a food bank, but in 2012 it was 18,000 adults and 10,000 children. That is a very grim message indeed.
I would like to pay tribute to the excellent work of volunteers who run food banks up and down Wales. Nothing I say in my remarks is intended to criticise their immediate response to a growing need. In my constituency, the Antioch centre and the Elim Church do amazing work. I was with them a couple of weeks before Christmas at the entrance to the Tesco superstore in my constituency, and the response from the public was tremendous from people of all walks of life. The members of Elim Church had lists of items that were suitable for people to purchase for the food bank and to include in their shopping. As they came out the store, people willingly gave the food they had purchased especially for the food bank.
We have to ask why we are seeing this increase in the number of families in need and what the Government can do about it. I want to see us tackle the causes of poverty and hunger, to look at what is wrong with the structure of our society. When it comes to giving aid to developing countries, we have long since learned that it is no good just giving people handouts. That is the whole point of the Fairtrade movement: the customer pays a fair price for goods so that the people who grow or make those goods can receive a wage that enables them to make ends meet, so that they do not have to rely on charity. How much better to have the dignity of being in charge of their own lives and budgets, not having to beg.
The same is true for people in the UK. I want to see the Government take measures that will tackle the causes of poverty. Why has there been an increase in the number of people turning to food banks? Quite simply it is because more and more people are suffering financial hardship. Let us see what can be done about that. We need policies that determine income distribution in this country, and those are very much a matter for the UK Government. While the Welsh Government can try to provide services to mitigate the effects of lack of income, they do not have control over some of the main factors that affect income.
As specialists in the House of Commons Library have pointed out, there has never been an absolute correlation between the amount of money that someone can receive on a benefit and their actual needs. It has always been a bit of a compromise—a bit of political expediency as to what was acceptable. What they are clear about is that there has never been a time when those benefits have not been uprated in line with inflation, whatever the colour of the Government in office. It is has been a tremendous sadness this year that the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill will effectively bring real cuts in people’s income. That is on top of the many additional costs that they have already had to face. We have already discussed the fact that while benefit increases have been limited, there has been rampant inflation, particularly on essential food items, ranging from 17% to 36%, depending on which food items are considered, over the past five years.
There has also been the increase in VAT. VAT is charged on a range of items, including toilet paper and bathroom products that are not luxuries but items that every family needs. While VAT is not put on food, it is on many essential items. That was a valid comment made by colleagues.
People often face the difficulty of delays in receiving benefit, or have it cut off. We have unfortunately seen some disastrous behaviour by Atos and the problems that has caused. When 40% of its decisions go to appeal, there is something very wrong. I ask the Minister to pass on to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions our very real concerns about that. Benefit changes are one of the key reasons why people end up at a food bank; they account for 40% of the people who go there.
The other major concern is low income. Many people on low incomes are claiming working tax credit. There have been horrendous changes to the working tax credit by the Government, which have left people with much less money. The point of those credits was to top people up so that work would pay. I was shocked to hear the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), say not only that people could do a few hours’ extra work, when we know how difficult it is to find extra work, but that he thought that would compensate for the changes in housing benefit. He did not realise, of course, that for every extra pound earned, a person would lose 65p in entitlement. It is not a matter of equating three hours’ work at the minimum wage to £15 extra in housing benefit. I again ask the Minister for Wales to speak with his DWP colleagues about the worrying effects that those changes in housing benefit will have on many of our constituents.
We have already seen the cutting of the pension credit and the savings credit, cuts in the health in pregnancy grant, and the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. We are asking the Minister to prevail on his colleagues to not simply accept the situation as it is, but look at ways of putting it right. For example, they should rethink the welfare benefits uprating legislation to restore the link between benefits and inflation. As I have said, the bedroom tax and the cuts planned to the working tax credit are both areas we would like him to look into.
We would also like the Government to get a grip on energy companies. We understand that some energy price rises are due to the worldwide energy market. We also know that there are a number of measures that could be taken. There could be a lot of tightening up with the regulator, and the Minister could look at what can be done about energy prices for low-income households. What we want from the Minister now is not simply, “Oh well, it cannot be changed. Nothing else can be done. That is how society is. Prices just go up.” We want an interventionist Government who can devise a redistribution plan that will ensure that we do not have an increase in the number of people going to food banks. In fact, we want a fall in the number doing so in Wales. The Government could then be proud of bringing about a situation in which there was no need for any more food banks in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I not only thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for securing the debate, but congratulate him on doing so, because I understand that he was the successful one of a number of Labour MPs who were encouraged to put in for it. What the debate represents, as has been highlighted by some of my hon. Friends, is the latest stage in a political campaign by the Labour party to use the food bank movement as a vehicle for its political attack on some of the changes and challenges that we are facing as a coalition Government. The hon. Gentleman did exactly in his speech what my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) encouraged him not to do, which was reduce it to a party political rant, treat 2010 as year zero, and remove the whole debate from its context.
The game was rather given away this morning when a number of us Welsh Members of Parliament were in a Committee. On the way out, I overheard a Labour Member say, slightly flippantly—I would not put it any higher than that—that they were going to have some fun with this debate today. That is the context for this afternoon; the Labour party is using this as part of a highly politicised campaign.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mrs Riordan. Is it in order for the Minister to cast aspersions on the motives of Members of this House without being willing to name them in the Chamber during the course of the debate?
Stephen Crabb
Thank you, Mrs Riordan. In preparation for this afternoon’s debate, I did a bit of research.
Stephen Crabb
That is exactly what it is about. I did some research before the debate this afternoon and looked at the parliamentary record, because I wanted to know what kinds of questions and issues were being raised on food banks by Members of different parties—not only from Wales, but from right across the UK. It might not surprise my hon. Friends to know that I could not find a single reference by a Labour Member of Parliament, before 2010, to food banks.
Stephen Crabb
No, I will not. I may not have been doing my research as fully as I should, but I could not find a single Labour MP who raised food banks as an issue on the Floor of the House of Commons before the coalition Government came into office. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West says from a sedentary position that it was not an issue. Well, questions were being asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), as well as a certain individual called Dai Davies, representing the south Wales seat of Blaenau Gwent. He asked a question about food banks during the previous Government, and some Labour Members will recall how viciously that individual was treated by members of the Welsh Labour party in recent years.
Food banks were very much an issue under the previous Government. However, the conspiracy of silence that existed around food banks extended beyond this place to Jobcentre Plus, because one thing that Labour Ministers refused to do was allow Jobcentre Plus advisers to signpost people facing particular financial need to use food banks. That is something that we changed. In 2011, we altered the guidance to allow Jobcentre Plus advisers to refer people and advertise the services of food banks. Among the underlying causes and reasons for the expansion in the use of food banks in recent years, one reason is that, in contrast to the previous Labour Government, we see them, up front and unashamedly, as a good thing, and we encourage people who are facing points of financial crisis in their lives to use them.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned a “cost of living crisis”. He used that phrase several times, and it was picked up by other hon. Members as the reason for the expansion in the use of food banks. Of course, that is true. People use food banks because they face a financial crisis at that time. I have met people who use them for a whole variety of reasons: some are young, homeless people; some are struggling with addictions, and they are spending money as a result of addictive behaviours that they are seeking to address; and some are victims of domestic violence who find that they have to flee their family home—they are fleeing an abusive relationship and need that extra support. People use the resources for a variety of different reasons.
I do not want to spend too much time picking holes in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, but he did say, slightly patronisingly, that he suspected that the Minister would stand up and say that he has visited a food bank. Well, I have actually. In fact, I served as a trustee on a charity that ran food banks. The charity set up its food bank in 2008, and its services have expanded. It now provides not only food but a basic bank of clothing, because as hon. Members have rightly said, people face a whole range of financial needs. As well as that, it runs an annual toy appeal to ensure that the poorest families in Pembrokeshire, in my constituency, are able to have a Christmas for their children.
The charity was founded by some of the Churches, and I know that the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), among others, have mentioned different Churches and faith-based organisations that are behind the creation of food banks in their constituencies. I would like to pay my own tribute on the record to the volunteers and people who work in those organisations, because they are doing a fantastic job. When I speak to them, the last thing they want is to be dragged into a party political football match. This issue is bigger and more important than that. We could have had a sensible debate this afternoon about the social needs in Wales, and the role that charities and third sector organisations can play. It is really disappointing that the debate was reduced to a party political argument, when it could have been so different.
David T. C. Davies
I am grateful for the way that the Minister is putting his points across. Does he agree that many volunteers across Wales will be utterly horrified by the way in which they have been portrayed and politicised by the tone of the debate? Instead of trying to use food banks as a reason for having a go at Government policies that are widely supported, we should all be supporting those volunteers who have been there for many years, and will be there long after this and other Governments have finished.
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend expresses himself extremely well, as ever.
Let us look at the context for Wales. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned the underlying economic context for Wales. It is true that Wales has suffered from low wages, but it is not true that wages continue to decline relative to the rest of the UK. If we look at the most recent wage data for Wales, the increase is sharper than for the UK average. That is only a small set of data, but it gives us reason for optimism that we can, over time, close the wage gap and see more families in Wales taking home more real-terms pay from their jobs.
Nia Griffith
Will the Minister explain how his policies will raise incomes in Wales? What will he do to ensure that the poorest people in Wales have better job opportunities and better pay for what they do?
Stephen Crabb
Every single day of the week at the Wales Office, we focus on the economic challenges facing Wales. Every week in the Wales Office we are thinking about how we work with the Welsh Government to bring in new investment in infrastructure and new inward investors, and see better, higher-quality jobs created in Wales that will provide higher real-terms wages.
Household debt was only mentioned briefly in the debate, but it is one of the key reasons why, in recent years, the number of people using food banks has increased. Over the past 10 years, and perhaps going back even further than that, there was an explosion of personal indebtedness, fuelled by the consumer credit boom, which was encouraged—egged on—by the policies of previous Labour Governments. Household indebtedness has started to fall in the past two years, but there is still a long way to go to see people with sustainable debt levels in their lives. That is one reason why some of the organisations that are at the forefront of setting up food banks are also at the forefront of tackling the debt culture. Some of the same organisations run debt advice counselling services alongside their food banks. The Government take seriously the challenge of payday loans and doorstep lenders, and we are taking real action to change the regulatory framework in which such people operate.
Fuel poverty has been mentioned by more than one colleague as a real challenge for Wales, and I absolutely recognise that point. We continue to support people in Wales through the winter fuel payments. The hon. Member for Arfon asked me to follow up on a specific request to see whether there is a way of facilitating, earlier in the season, cold weather and winter fuel payments, because that is when people have the opportunity to buy fuel at a cheaper rate. I shall certainly follow that up with my hon. Friends in the relevant Department.
To close the debate, I am sure that we will come back to this issue as MPs in Wales, and I hope, on that occasion, that we can have a more rounded, more thorough debate on some of the real issues affecting society in Wales.
UK Fashion Industry
(11 years, 10 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
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. At the end of this week, London fashion week will dominate the media with news of the latest trends on the catwalk, but if we look beyond the perfect seams of the catwalk shows, there lies the beating heart of an industry. It is an industry that contributes £21 billion to the UK economy and supports 816,000 jobs, making it the largest employer of all the creative industries, so it is definitely an industry worth talking about.
For all that significant contribution to the economy, there is also huge potential to grow, to flourish, to be better and to create more jobs. Excellent foundations are in place. Our fashion colleges are exceptional, and London has a worldwide reputation as the creative launch pad for the industry. My constituency, Hackney South and Shoreditch, has had a long love affair with the industry. It is embedded in both the history and the culture of the borough. From the arrival of the silk weaver Huguenots in the late 17th century to the present day, generations of aspiring designers have settled and set up their businesses in the east end. It is the natural hub of an industry, its beating heart, which today provides 1,500 jobs in design and manufacturing.
Meg Hillier
Before I was interrupted, I was saying that my constituency is the natural hub of an industry that today provides 1,500 jobs in design and manufacturing. Hackney is home to about 150 design, manufacturing and design consultancy businesses.
London fashion week alone generates £30 million for the city’s economy, showcasing about 250 designers to a global audience and generating £130 million-worth of media coverage. London and the UK benefit from fashion tourism too, which is estimated to have accounted for 0.5% of tourism spending in 2009. However, the debate is not just about Hackney and London; in 2009, the fashion industry directly provided more than 800,000 jobs across the UK, and indirectly accounted for 4.5% of total employment. Today, I want to talk about how we can sustain and build on that success in the future, in both London and the rest of the UK.
Sustaining the industry and securing its future starts with education, so we must ensure that that is working well. I am incredibly proud of the fashion colleges and institutions across the country and in my constituency. They have an international reputation for excellence and year-on-year produce many talented graduates from around the globe. The London College of Fashion, which has a campus in my constituency, is a shining example of that. It has been running for over 100 years and has produced incredible talent, including: Linda Bennett from L. K. Bennett; Emma Hope; Jane Brown; and Jimmy Choo, the famous shoe designer, who also had his first studio in Hackney.
Who are the success stories of the future? How do we make sure that the graduates of today have the support to succeed? Along with other higher education establishments, our fashion colleges face squeezed budgets, so we cannot assume that they can continue to do as well as they have been despite the cuts. Other countries understand that and are pouring money into their own fashion colleges. We face increased competition and cannot fall behind. Education is the foundation of the industry; it is where talent is moulded, encouraged and allowed to flourish. We must ensure that our young people continue to be able to study at world-class institutions here in the UK.
The Government’s plans for the EBacc, although now abandoned, reflect a mindset that downgrades the importance of creative skills. I hope that the Minister will disabuse me of that notion and say that that is not the case in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but we have certainly seen that attitude from other parts of Government. We need a clear path laid out from secondary school onwards, so that young people can see the career opportunities before them. We also need to see the end of unpaid internships. I am pleased that both the British Fashion Council and the UK Fashion and Textile Association are putting their weight behind proper training, apprenticeships and real jobs. Unpaid internships cannot be justified in an industry that generates so much money for the UK.
I move on from education to the skills needed; there is a skills deficit in business and manufacturing. Fashion, first and foremost, is a business, so however talented a designer, he or she needs business skills, but too often the creatives do not have such skills. I have met some amazing people in my constituency from companies in which there is a good relationship between a creative and someone with a business head. Many people do not have such a relationship automatically, so they need support. Like those in any small company, they cannot do everything in the business. Creative businesses start at a disadvantage, because they find it harder to get funding. Financial institutions are much less likely to lend money to creative businesses, which are more likely to have new, innovative business models and younger owners, and are therefore seen as more risky.
To give an example, Not Just a Label is an innovative and exciting new business in my constituency. Based in a small office in Shoreditch, it searches out fresh new designer talent, and promotes and sells their products on an online platform. When it started, it was given no funding from banks or investors. Now, as it tries to expand, banks will still not lend to it, despite its success, saying that online businesses are too risky. Such businesses are not necessarily looking for a grant or a subsidy, but simply for a loan—sometimes just an overdraft facility—to help them start up or expand.
With all those barriers, how do new designers get off the ground? Happily, some support is available from the British Fashion Council and the Centre for Fashion Enterprise, which is based in Hackney. The Centre for Fashion Enterprise—its director, Wendy Malem, used to be a designer—and NewGen, a programme run by the British Fashion Council, both offer the business support that is so needed by designers. NewGen is currently sponsored by Topshop, and last year it celebrated its 10th anniversary. Without that programme, we would never have heard of Alexander McQueen, who started his business in Hackney and whose legacy gave Kate her wedding dress.
However, both schemes are vastly oversubscribed. From speaking to those in the industry, I know that there is an appetite to expand such partnerships, but no funding for it. Incidentally, Not Just a Label provides a platform for new designers. It is a business that has recognised not only a gap in the market and been a success, but the importance of fuelling new designers and showcasing and supporting new talent to grow businesses as a whole. Its business has helped many designers grow substantially, which shows what can be achieved when talent is given the right tools.
When designers get the support and funding they need, they face another hurdle: where to manufacture? There is a real desire to manufacture more in Britain. Volume manufacturing may have gone, probably irrevocably, abroad. However, I am not talking about grubby, backstreet sweatshops, but high-end manufacturing—the top end, which is the true craft that involves artisanship, local production and traditional techniques. Throughout the country from London to Scotland, there are established and specialised manufacturers producing exactly such top-quality products. In the east midlands alone, about 10,000 to 15,000 jobs are provided by fashion manufacturing.
Many manufacturers set up in the UK to create those high-quality products, but they are struggling to expand and grow because of a lack of skilled machinists. Currently, the industry needs 150 more skilled machinists a year just to sustain itself, and companies can barely afford to take on and train new apprentices, because the cost of mistakes in high-end manufacturing is too great to be worth the risk. The Government have a programme to support apprenticeships, and it would be good to hear from the Minister how that might be better applied to the fashion industry.
Instead, manufacturing businesses are forced to work around the clock with a skeleton staff in the build-up to London fashion week, and they often close their doors for months afterwards. It is no wonder that there is a temptation to use unpaid interns. British designers want to make their samples and garments here, but there is not currently the capacity to do so. The UK Fashion and Textile Association has recently secured £2.7 million for the Textile Centre of Excellence in Huddersfield to support skills training throughout the UK. The industry is therefore giving much support, but a bit of focus on how the Government might support it better would be welcome.
The Designer-Manufacturer Innovation Support Centre—also known as DISC—was launched last year with European regional development fund money. Its goal is to create links with designers and manufacturers, and to offer support and advice to manufacturing businesses. DISC has proposed the creation of a machinist school that would train 25 machinists a year and provide the manufacturing industry with a new, young generation of highly skilled professionals with relevant skills. It is here that we hit one of the challenges of how to fit fashion into the models that the Government are promoting. To be a good machinist, someone needs not a short apprenticeship but lots of practice, which means a longer training course than some of the apprenticeships now being funded by the Government.
The establishment of such a school, which we are keen to host in Hackney, would sustain the industry, but there are other opportunities to expand. When the elements of excellent education, design support and the ability to manufacture come together, the industry will have an opportunity to flourish and grow further. In New York, fashion zones or clusters have been created to encourage industry growth by offering cheaper rents and loans. Encouraging growth in those areas of the fashion industry might produce massive economic benefits locally and nationally.
The British film industry has often been the focus of tax breaks or investment vehicles, so why not look imaginatively at what might be done to support jobs and growth in fashion? It is an exciting time for the industry, and one that is filled with opportunities. Across the world, there is huge demand for British-made products, because they are the hallmark of quality and good design. To give just one example, men’s footwear brands are enjoying international success in the far east and the US, and factories are currently working flat out to keep up with demand.
Organisations such as DISC and the Centre for Fashion Enterprise are laying the foundations for the fashion industry’s future, yet they are funded not by the Government but by the European regional development fund—I was present when the European Commissioner launched it in my constituency—and that funding will not last for ever. DISC’s funding will run out in 2014, which is only next year. Will the Government step up and support British industry as well, or will they leave it to someone else? If the industry is important enough for Europe to fund, I hope that the British Government will similarly support it.
We can be very proud of the fashion industry, which provides substantial benefits to the whole country. We have a wealth of creative talent, and we have educational institutions, which are the best in the world, that are making the most of it. However, we cannot let it end there: the fashion industry is not letting it end there, and we could be doing a lot more. The Government should invest in a machinist school as part of their general support for manufacturing. Will they partner with the British Fashion Council, which will launch a British manufacturing and textiles mapping report this week to underline the potential of what we already have? With a modicum of Government support, the industry could grow and create the jobs that the Prime Minister is so keen to see.
Across the Atlantic ocean, in New York, a £3 million fund has just been created to protect the garment district, through supporting skills training and investment in new machinery. London and the UK must not be left behind: we should be leading, not following, in what is one of our leading-edge industries. Business schools in the USA partner with the fashion industry to marry the best business and fashion brains. We, too, could follow their lead with a little support, and set up a fund to lend to new creative businesses and to support our fashion colleges.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the Prime Minister’s personal support, which he pledged at the London men’s fashion event at Downing street recently. He cited fashion as one of the key industries that is critical to the future of the British economy. The industry is stepping up to the mark to develop its own solutions, but the Government could help. In particular, will the Minister back the move from unpaid interns to apprenticeships—including, crucially, graduate apprenticeships—with a programme of support and information, and a focus on the gap in technical skills that is opening up and might, if not quickly plugged, leave the UK fashion industry behind the curve? Will she agree to work with the British Fashion Council to map manufacturing business and support development and growth at the high end, which does much to entice international designers to come to the UK and to entice graduates to stay?
I hope that the Minister will agree to work with employers. They know what skills they need and, with co-ordination, they can develop skills programmes to train people in those skills, particularly in the seven eighths of the iceberg that we do not see—not the catwalk end, but all the skills that support the manufacturing and retail industry. I have previously raised with the Treasury the issue of small business support and innovative finance models, which are often not regulated by the Financial Services Authority. They need to be available to the small businesses that make up so much of the fashion industry, because those businesses struggle to raise money in other ways.
I am sure that the Minister’s Department is already in intense discussions with the Home Office about the graduate work visa programme, which is restricting opportunities for some of the best international graduates of our fashion colleges from setting up their fledgling businesses in the UK. Over the years, some of those graduates have stayed, because they could, and have grown their small businesses into bigger businesses, creating jobs and wealth in the UK. I do not mind who creates jobs and wealth, but I want that to happen here. With the current visa regime, the danger is that those people will have better opportunities to travel to and be poached by countries that see the advantage of doing so. We have already seen adverts in Australian newspapers for people to travel there—not particularly in relation to fashion, but I am sure that that will follow.
As I said earlier, the British film industry has been the focus of tax breaks and investment vehicles, so we should look imaginatively at how to support fashion. I hope that the Government will react not simply with words of support to echo what the Prime Minister has said, but with action. In these difficult economic times, the Government should support the fashion industry and recognise its value and importance to the UK economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
I welcome the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan, and congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on securing this debate, the topic of which is both important and timely, as London fashion week starts this Friday.
Textiles and fashion have a long history in the UK, and their importance has been felt even in these august premises, in the Houses of Parliament. Back in the 14th century, the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords sat on a Woolsack to demonstrate the importance of the wool trade to the nation. In the 18th century, textiles were the single biggest economic interest after grain. Throughout our history, from the Stuarts to the sixties, fashion has added definition to our society. Today, the UK is home to some of the most inspiring fashion designers in the world, some of whom were mentioned by the hon. Lady. Hackney is right to be proud of its strong fashion heritage. With strong mayoral support for the creative industries, the fashion business has a great deal to offer London and indeed the rest of the UK.
Fashion remains an important part of the economy. Its wider contribution is estimated at more than £37 billion —the hon. Lady mentioned £21 billion as the direct figure for fashion—and more than 800,000 jobs are supported more widely throughout the industry. As the hon. Lady rightly says, this is an industry that is worth talking about and that perhaps does not always get the profile that it deserves in this place.
Today, the country is home to leading designers of menswear, womenswear, childrenswear and babywear who export their products worldwide. We are also a leading centre for the manufacture of clothing and high-quality fabrics, as well as a truly global hub for fashion retailing.
Many UK companies are thriving by supplying top-end, exclusive products. British designers such as Stella McCartney, Paul Smith and Vivienne Westwood continue to lead in global markets. The UK’s economic success is due in large part to our ability to participate in global trade and investment. We should be proud of our heritage and our reputation for quality and excellence, which forms the foundation of our international success.
From a Government perspective, we want to ensure that this sector continues to grow. Sustainable growth hinges on ensuring that we have manufacturing capacity, a skilled work force, and support for the many small businesses emerging in the sector. Those key challenges were all outlined in the hon. Lady’s speech.
Manufacturing is crucial to economic recovery. Working with business, we are taking steps to strengthen UK manufacturing capability. We want to create a better business environment that will address barriers to growth; encourage innovation and technology commercialisation; increase exports and business investment; improve skills; and build UK supply chains. Last October, as part of the Government’s “Make it in Great Britain” initiative, my Department hosted the UK fashion and textile manufacturing showcase. It was designed to dispel the myth that the UK does not make anything any more.
We are encouraging manufacturers and retailers to work more closely together to identify opportunities to bring business back to the UK. Already we have seen some retailers sourcing products from the UK, where they have opportunities to benefit from shorter lead times. Debenhams, for example, recently pledged to increase its use of UK manufacturers as it launches a new “Made by Great Britons” range.
Lord Alliance from the other place has recently commissioned work to look at the feasibility of bringing back textile manufacturing to the UK, and the early signs are positive. Manchester, with its key history in textiles and manufacturing, is leading that strategic programme. It is working in collaboration with key bodies including the London College of Fashion.
UK Trade & Investment is also helping to boost economic growth by promoting UK products and services to customers abroad and encouraging foreign companies to invest in the UK through the GREAT campaign, which focuses on exactly why the British fashion industry has been considered No. 1 on the world stage, with its well-established tailors of Savile row and its exciting young start-up designers. Learn their names now and who knows whose wedding dresses they will be designing in the future.
The hon. Lady was right to say that skills are essential to support the UK fashion industry, and that apprenticeships, in turn, are at the heart of our skills ambition. Just last week, Creative Skillset, which is the sector skills council for the creative industries, launched its first higher-level apprenticeship in fashion and textiles to meet skills needs in advertising, creative and digital media, and fashion and textiles. Working with the industry, including with companies such as Burberry, Creative Skillset is planning to deliver 500 apprenticeships. The hon. Lady was right to say that employers are best placed to know the skills that they need, which is why apprenticeship funding is demand-led. Companies and employers in that sector need to come forward and commit to employing and training an apprentice; then they can access the funding.
I am also pleased to note that the UK Commission for Employment and Skills has provided nearly £7 million to Creative Skillset to develop targeted skills interventions. That will bring greater collaboration between the industry and higher education to overcome structural barriers to new skills acquisition, tailor products and services for the sector, and benchmark the very best training that is available.
The Government are giving business access to a significant skills funding opportunity through the “employer ownership of skills” pilot programme, the first round of which saw more than £2 million awarded to the Textile Centre of Excellence. Round 2 of the pilot is now open, and we welcome and encourage bids from companies in the fashion sector that are seeking to identify innovative solutions to their, or the wider sector’s, skills challenges. The deadline for bids is Thursday 28 March 2013.
Higher education also plays a vital role, with our internationally recognised universities offering a wide range of fashion courses. Figures for 2011 show that there were almost 18,000 students registered on fashion and textile courses. Of course London is seen as a global centre of fashion, with our universities, including the campus in the hon. Lady’s constituency, attracting students from around the world. Higher education is also leading the way on supporting positive body image. The Edinburgh college of art’s centre of diversity project, which is a collaboration of fashion colleges from up and down the country, is working with All Walks Beyond the Catwalk to develop innovative educational methods and to promote a positive attitude to body diversity within fashion education. They are teaching student fashion designers how to cut to a wide variety of body shapes, sizes and styles. Given my campaigning on this issue, the scheme has particular resonance for me.
Fashion has the power to inspire and define whole generations. The images that are created are iconic, and if we harness that power, we can achieve great things. I pay tribute to All Walks Beyond the Catwalk, and to Debra Bourne and Caryn Franklin, who set it up. Of course Caryn rightly and deservedly received an MBE for services to diversity in the fashion industry in the new year’s honours list.
Exploitation is an important issue to address within the fashion industry.
Meg Hillier
I hope that the Minister will address the issue of visas later in her speech. If she is not planning to do so, it would be good if she could address that point before she moves on from higher education.
Jo Swinson
I am happy to address the matter of visas. The hon. Lady is right to say that talented individuals come here to study. We want to ensure that we can use that talent in the British economy. Of course discussions are ongoing between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Home Office on those issues, as with all issues to do with business and the visa system, to make sure that we have a proportionate and fair regime that enables people to contribute to the economy in a way that helps overall UK growth.
On the issue of unpaid interns, it is absolutely the case that there is, unfortunately, exploitation of young people in the fashion industry, and this Government are clear that anyone who is entitled to the minimum wage should receive it. We expect employers to play by the rules and pay their interns at least the minimum wage, as long as there is no exemption, as there is for volunteers. Anyone who finds themselves in the kind of situation that we are talking about should know about the pay and work rights helpline, which is 0800 917 2368. There is now a fast-track system in place for any calls from individuals who appear to be in an unpaid internship that is in fact a job. Any such call is dealt with promptly, and it is also important to highlight that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can enforce arrears of pay going back six years. I recognise that there is an issue with individuals who are at the very early stages of their career and who may feel that it is more difficult for them to speak out. However, if this is something that has happened to them—even up to six years ago—they can still come forward and make this point.
Of course, HMRC is also working to try to ensure greater awareness of the issue, so we are working alongside Intern Aware and key stakeholders such as the British Fashion Council to inform and educate interns and employers about when someone should be paid the minimum wage. In the spring, we will be delivering a campaign to support this work, aimed particularly at educating university students about these matters. Recently, there has been a particular focus from HMRC on interns in the fashion industry, and we are expecting a report back from HMRC on that activity shortly.
There is one other element of exploitation that happens in the fashion industry that is worth discussing. It is very positive that London fashion week has now committed to featuring only models who are over the age of 16, and Vogue magazine has pledged to do the same. Unfortunately, however, that positive step has not been replicated across the fashion industry as a whole. Away from the spotlight of London fashion week, there are still concerns, as has been highlighted in a number of documentaries, about dangerous situations that vulnerable young people—many of them still children—can find themselves in, particularly when there are trends for models who are in their early teens. It is important that the welfare of people working in the fashion industry is taken very seriously. I pay tribute to the excellent work done by Erin O’Connor, who has championed this issue within the industry by setting up her “model sanctuary” to give models somewhere that they can receive advice and support, and a place to be themselves, during London fashion week. That has been so successful that it has now been taken on by the British Fashion Council as part of the model lounge, which is part of London fashion week itself.
I will turn to the potential for growth in the fashion industry, because it is of course vital that we nurture the entrepreneurship that is so important to the fashion industry. The hon. Lady was right to point out that people who have the fantastic creative skills to be world-class designers may not automatically have the business acumen to go alongside those skills. We also need to recognise some of the challenges that small businesses face in accessing finance. That is why we are continuing to make a priority of improving access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises. We have put in place a package of measures to improve the supply of affordable credit to SMEs, including the funding for lending scheme and the £1.2 billion business finance partnership, to stimulate the development of alternatives to bank finance.
Meg Hillier
On that point, businesses in my constituency tell me that it is often still difficult for them to get money. We know that funding for lending is actually fuelling a lot of buy-to-let landlords, which is a different issue altogether. However, there is also a real need for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to look at licensing alternative forms of funding, such as crowd funding, which are popular for some of these small businesses. If the Minister cannot answer me now, perhaps she could write to me about her Department’s attitude to that issue and what it will be doing.
Jo Swinson
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She is right to say that we need to be innovative in considering a range of different ways to free up finance. There is already a range of different ways in which the Government are doing it, but I am more than happy to take on board her suggestion and consider whether there are further steps to be taken along those lines.
Of course, we are also taking the first steps towards the creation of a Government-backed business bank, which will receive £1 billion of new Government funding, with £300 million being invested by the Government alongside private investors during the next two years to provide diverse sources of funding for SMEs. The bank will address long-standing structural gaps in the supply of finance to businesses. We also have the Get Mentoring project—getmentoring.org—which has recruited and trained 15,000 business mentors from the small business community. I encourage any young designer setting up a business to make use of that support.
In conclusion, the UK fashion industry is an important part of our heritage, and our unique and innovative designers are among the most recognised in the world. We are working hard to ensure that the climate is right for growth, to support UK manufacturing, and to ensure that future designers have the skills they need and that fledgling businesses have the support they require to grow. We are doing all that we can to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of fashion and design, and we are confident that we can build on our world-class reputation.
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this issue to the attention of the House today. It has been a positive debate and I will happily get back to her on those additional points that she has raised.
Cancer Care (England and Wales)
(11 years, 10 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
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Riordan, for calling me to speak and for chairing this debate. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship.
The subject under discussion is cancer care in England and Wales. Naturally, I understand that the Minister who is here is only responsible for treatment and care in England, and that health is a devolved matter, with responsibility for it in Wales falling to the Welsh Government. However, the different approaches will allow each nation to share best practice and compare outcomes, with the objective of raising the standard of cancer care wherever we live.
I do not want this debate to be party political; this issue is far too important for that. I want to compare the facts and to recognise success, wherever that may be found. The starting point for the debate must be mortality rates or, to put it another way, the success of any medical intervention. Overall, life expectancy among men in Wales is 77.6 years, and in England it is 78.6 years. Among women, life expectancy is 81.8 years in Wales and 82.6 years in England. I am sorry to say that the figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are worse than the figures for either England or Wales.
However, focusing purely on life expectancy is too broad an approach, and we need to consider the influences on life expectancy. There may be historical and social reasons for the differences in life expectancy, but it is fair to say that cancer survival rates are a significant factor, which brings me to my key points. The most commonly diagnosed cancers are breast cancer among women and prostate cancer among men.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the “Hear me now” report by Rose Thompson, the chief executive of BME Cancer Communities, which was launched here in Parliament yesterday? It revealed that the death rate from prostate cancer is 30% higher among black men than among their white counterparts. Does he agree that such inequalities in cancer outcomes must be addressed?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making an extremely valid point. The collection of data is exceptionally important, to identify which groups are potentially more vulnerable or which groups are not seeking the right sorts of treatment. Comparison between the home nations is important, but so is comparison between groups within the home nations, in order to bring the data together. It is exceptionally important if we are to reach the right conclusions.
I will focus on breast cancer to begin with. As I have already said, the mortality rate from breast cancer in England is 24.3 per 100,000 people, and in Wales it is 25.8 per 100,000 people. Clearly, those are worrying data, and it is worth considering the different approaches to treatment in the two nations.
In England, a patient concerned about the possibility of breast cancer can expect to see a consultant within 10 working days of the GP referral. In Wales, there is a different approach, which means that a GP differentiates between urgent and non-urgent cases. In cases that are deemed urgent, 95% of patients should expect treatment to start within 62 days, and in cases deemed non-urgent, the patient should expect treatment to start within 26 weeks. I want to underline this situation: a woman in England who is concerned about the risk of breast cancer will be reassured, or have her case elevated to the next level, within 10 days. In Wales, however, a patient has no such guarantee of consultant expertise until much, much later in the process.
We need to recognise that these are different measures and approaches. Breakthrough Breast Cancer has a helpful quote. It says that waiting for a referral is like being “left in the dark”.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The issue of waiting time for treatment and diagnosis is important to me. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an absolute focus on awareness, particularly regarding colon and rectal cancer, from which the chance of recovery is far greater if diagnosed early? There has to be a focus on early diagnosis, because it greatly increases the chances of recovery.
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about screening and awareness. Today I want to focus on treatment, but awareness and screening are exceptionally important and no doubt warrant another debate.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend has in some respects taken the words out of my mouth. To what extent does he attribute some of the differences between England and Wales to a problem of education and diet, as well as to the problems of treatment and early diagnosis?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend raises an important point about diet. There are historical and social issues. Diets and issues like that are relevant and also need wider consideration, perhaps in another debate that my hon. Friend may choose to nominate.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that however good the cancer care in hospitals is—it is excellent in many places—it often leaves a gap in psychological, emotional and social support? Excellent work is being done by Maggie’s centres in that respect. There is one in Swansea, and I believe one is due to open in Cardiff. There are also many centres in England and Scotland, including in my constituency. Will he endorse the value of their work?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s valid point. I absolutely endorse the role that independent and charitable organisations can play; I quoted Breakthrough Breast Cancer. Emotional support is exceptionally important, and that relates to my point about delays in receiving treatment. A consultant can reassure people on many occasions, give a realistic assessment of the condition and provide the wider support available from some of the charitable organisations that have been mentioned.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of care in the recovery of cancer patients? Statistics from Macmillan Cancer Support reveal that 19% of 18,000 newly diagnosed cancer patients in Wales were deemed to lack that kind of support, not just during diagnosis or treatment but, critically, in aftercare.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing those data. In interventions, hon. Members have talked not only about pre-screening, awareness, social issues and treatment, which I will focus on, but the aftercare that is needed, the emotional support that is provided, and the need for and responsibility and role of a whole host of agencies, including those in the charitable sector.
Returning to the point about treatment, I had been comparing the different approaches to breast cancer in England and Wales. The wait before seeing a consultant in England is 10 days. It is interesting to note that the Welsh Government removed 10-day monitoring in 2006. Although data are recorded locally, they are not published nationally. In the interests of transparency, it would be helpful if those data were published to allow fair and just comparisons. Waiting time targets improve survival outcomes, reduce emotional distress and improve the quality of life for people with cancer and those who turn out not to have cancer.
There are similarly alarming figures for prostate cancer. Five-year survival rates can be higher than 80%. There are no figures comparing the rates of the home nations, but the side-effects of the sort of treatment one receives for prostate cancer can be significant and can have a huge impact on future lifestyle. Again, there is a different approach to prostate cancer care in the two nations.
I want to draw attention to the availability of treatment. There was significant attention some years ago to access to brachytherapy. Even when it was finally approved by the Welsh authorities, after having been widely available in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the threshold for intervention was much higher in Wales. As far as I know, that remains the case.
Currently an identical debate is focused on robotic surgery. A constituent who suffers from prostate cancer, who is qualified medically and who consulted widely before making the decision with his clinicians on the most suitable form of treatment for himself, wrote to the Welsh Health Minister. He shared a copy of the letter with me, in which he said:
“I was both surprised and disappointed to find that this option is not available to Welsh men in Wales and that a significant number of Welsh men are opting to go to England, where this technology is established and available throughout the country.”
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend accept that if that kind of treatment—be it robotic or radio surgery—was available perhaps in a location such as Bristol, it would be accessible for patients in south Wales, along the M4 corridor and elsewhere, and those who go down the M5, right the way through to Cornwall?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the need for joint working and better co-ordination between the health services. Devolution can provide valid comparisons to establish the success of various treatments, but on many occasions there is a need for joint working where capital investment is needed, allowing patients to benefit from a different sort of intervention, but with shared responsibility between the two organisations.
I was talking about my constituent who had wanted robotic treatment for prostate cancer. He was later forced, in his stressful situation, to raise the £13,000 necessary to receive the form of treatment that he thought best suited him. I am pleased to report that the outcome of the treatment was positive.
The Wales Minister argued that if local heath boards do not provide treatment routinely, people could follow a process for individual patient funding requests. The panel meets monthly, which hardly reflects the urgency of some cases. I am not aware that any case of robotic treatment has been successfully applied for.
That leads me on to the cancer drugs fund, which is available in England but not in Wales. The fund allows clinicians and patients to prescribe and receive the latest drugs. Again, that is not available in Wales, where there is a cumbersome process to seek such a prescription.
The Rarer Cancers Foundation reported that 24 cancer treatments that are not routinely available in Wales may be available in England through the cancer drugs fund. It concludes that people in Wales are five times less likely than people in England to gain access to a cancer drug that is not routinely available. It also states that if the same approval rate occurred in Wales as it does in England, 159 cancer patients in Wales would gain access to life-extending treatment, instead of the 31 recorded. I raised the issue with the Welsh Health Minister, and she reported that establishing such a fund would reduce the money available for treating other serious conditions, as in England. I find that worrying, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point in her response.
That deficiency applies to other cancers, too. Selective internal radiation therapy is an innovative treatment for inoperable liver tumours. Although the University hospital of Wales in Cardiff is part of the UK-wide phase 3 clinical trial, not one patient from Wales has been funded for treatment. The patients under trial have been financed by the cancer drugs fund, yet the hospital is in Wales and demonstrates the expertise that exists in Wales in the field.
Survival rates for pancreatic cancer also differ significantly, and I could go on at length about those. When it comes to five-year survival rates for pancreatic cancer, Wales scores better than England. Unfortunately, that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. Those differences are worrying, and had I referred to Scotland and Northern Ireland selectively, I would have been able to paint a more alarming picture, but that is not the point; it is not about the politics of the issue, but about sharing best practice and getting the right treatment for the right people.
The motivation for the debate came from individual cases in my surgery. Having researched the data, I was forced to bring the matter to the House’s attention. I hope the Minister and Members present will be able to use their influence on colleagues here and elsewhere to raise standards, allay fears and improve survival rates for cancer patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on securing this debate. He makes the important point that it is not acceptable for cancer, of all the conditions that touch the lives of so many families, to be a party political issue. He is right, however, to bring to this place his concerns about the treatment of people in Wales who are suffering from cancer so that a comparison may be made with England and lessons might be learned by both countries. As he said, I am unable to respond to the detail of his concerns because Health Ministers in England are not accountable for health services in Wales, which are matters for the Welsh Assembly. I am sure the Assembly will read the account of this debate in Hansard and make particular note of some of my remarks on what seems to have been put about in the Principality.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
In my constituency of Aberconwy in north Wales, and also in other parts of Wales, we are dependent on the health service in England to provide specialist services unavailable in Wales. We have been told time and again that patients from Wales often have to wait longer for treatment in hospitals in England. As a Health Minister in England, will my hon. Friend provide any guidance to Welsh Members on whether that is true?
Anna Soubry
As ever, my hon. Friend asks a particularly pertinent question, and, to be frank, I cannot immediately give him the answer. I can and will ensure that he receives a full response in a letter. He may also talk to any of my officials at the conclusion of this debate.
In England, the Government have committed to improve survival rates, reduce mortality rates and put patients at the heart of the service. In January 2011, we published a four-year cancer outcomes strategy that set out a range of actions for improving early diagnosis, screening, access to treatment and drugs and providing support to people living with and beyond cancer. That strategy is backed by more than £750 million for implementation, including more than £450 million for early diagnosis.
To improve early diagnosis, we must encourage people to recognise the symptoms and signs of cancer and to seek advice from their GP as soon as possible. Of course, we also need GPs to recognise cancer symptoms and, if appropriate, refer people urgently for specialist care.
Since 2010-11, the Department has been funding and delivering local, regional and national “Be Clear on Cancer” campaigns to raise awareness of cancer symptoms. We are currently running a regional pilot campaign for kidney and bladder cancers that is rather charmingly know as “blood in pee”; a regional breast cancer campaign aimed at women over 70; and a local pilot campaign for ovarian cancer.
I had the great pleasure of attending the all-party group on ovarian cancer, chaired with great ability, compassion and campaigning skill on behalf of ovarian cancer sufferers and their families by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). That is an example of a cross-party initiative on cancer, which is as it should be.
As part of the pilots and schemes to raise awareness, there is a more general campaign on cancer symptoms called “Know 4 Sure”, which lists four key symptoms: unexplained blood not from an obvious injury; an unexplained lump; unexplained weight loss; and unexplained pain that does not go away. If someone has one or more of those symptoms, the message is clear: “Go and see your GP.” There is information on GP attendance, and urgent referrals for suspected cancer and diagnostic tests will be analysed to assess the impact of the campaigns. We will study the campaigns to see how effective they have been. If we need to roll them out across England, we will do so. I hope the Welsh Assembly will look at the success or otherwise of those campaigns and learn accordingly.
Support for GPs is important, and a range of support is available to help them assess when it is appropriate to refer patients for suspected cancer, but we know we can do more. As part of the preparation for all the campaigns, we commissioned Cancer Research UK to produce briefing materials for GPs within the relevant networks. We are promoting GP direct access to four key diagnostic tests to support early diagnosis of bowel, brain, lung and ovarian cancers. We have provided GPs with best practice guidance on using those tests, and we are publishing data on their usage. We are also working on providing electronic and desk-based cancer decision support tools to help GPs assess and identify patients with possible cancer more effectively.
We know how valuable screening is, and we are working to deliver age extensions for bowel and breast screening programmes. We will continue to support the roll-out of evidence-based screening programmes. For example, we are introducing bowel scope screening to the existing national bowel screening programme. We are aiming for 60% roll-out by March 2015. Experts estimate that the bowel scope programme will prevent some 3,000 cancers every year and save thousands of lives.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is no longer in her place, rightly mentioned some of the difficulties we face with some men, notably in the black community, who are more at risk of prostate cancer. I will provide her with details on the Department’s various initiatives to ensure that we pay particular attention to those parts of our community that need such information to ensure they go along to have the screening and to see their GP if they have any concern about that aspect of their health.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan explained, once cancer is diagnosed it is important for patients to have access to appropriate treatment delivered to a high standard.
The latest cancer waiting times show that 95.4% of patients in England—or 291,974 patients out of 306,011—were seen by a specialist within two weeks of an urgent GP referral for suspected cancer. We set high levels of expected performance, which in that case is 93%, so I am pleased that we have exceeded our own high standards. Some 87.3% of people treated began their first definitive treatment within 62 days of being urgently referred for suspected cancer by their GP, and 98.4% of people treated began first definitive treatment within one month of receiving their cancer diagnosis. We should celebrate those figures, but, of course, we can always do better.
We are expanding radiotherapy capacity by investing more than £173 million over four years and ensuring that all high-priority patients with a need for proton beam therapy get access to it abroad. That includes £23 million for the radiotherapy innovation fund, which is designed to ensure that, from April 2013, radiotherapy centres are ready to deliver advanced radiotherapy techniques to all patients who need it. From April, cancer treatments will be planned and paid for nationally by the NHS Commissioning Board, which means that, for the first time, cancer patients will be considered for the most appropriate radiotherapy treatment regardless of where they live.
My hon. Friend mentioned the cancer drugs fund. Between 1 October 2010 and December 2012, the fund stood at £650 million and helped more than 26,500 cancer patients in England to access the additional cancer drugs their clinicians recommended.
When I was first elected to this place, I received letters from constituents who were rightly upset and concerned that they spent so much of their own money to access certain drugs, and I do not think I have had one such letter or e-mail for at least 18 months. That is a mark of achievement.
To be absolutely clear about the funding of the cancer drugs fund, it is not true that any reduction has been made in any service. It is not true to suggest that money has been taken from the NHS budget. If anybody says such a thing, I am afraid they are either deliberately not telling the truth or just plain ignorant. I am happy to explain how the coalition Government have funded the cancer drugs fund in England. Raising the threshold for national insurance effectively saved the NHS £200 million. That £200 million was not secreted away or given to the Treasury or anybody else; it was the start and has been the continuation of the cancer drugs fund. I hope that that is clear. I know that it will be recorded in Hansard, and no doubt my hon. Friend and others will be able to publicise it widely in Wales and set the record absolutely straight.
In the last minutes available to me, I will explain cancer networks. The NHS Commissioning Board has set out its plans to establish a small number of national networks from 1 April to improve health services for specific patient groups or conditions such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. The cancer networks have existed for some time, and they have worked extremely effectively. It seems a bit odd, but those involved in the delivery of care and treatment for people suffering from cancer, for example, were not always the best at communicating among themselves, so the networks were set up, with great success. We are building on that success.
We have increased the amount of money going into the new strategic clinical networks, and we are confident that they will continue to work closely with providers and commissioners in the new health system and to play an important role in improving cancer care. I understand that transition arrangements, which concerned a number of people, are now well developed, and good progress is being made, with appointments in key positions in the clinical networks.
We are committed, however, to improving the experience of cancer patients. It is not all about early diagnosis, screening and treatment; it is also about cancer patients’ experience. The 2011-12 national cancer patient experience survey found that 88% of cancer patients in England rated their care as excellent or very good; of course, we aim to increase that figure. The results are helping trusts to identify areas in cancer care that need improvement locally and to raise standards across the service.
A 2012-13 survey will commence later this month. I am not sure how a 2012 survey can begin later this month; it looks like a bit of a typing error. That will get me into trouble with my officials. Such a survey is about to commence. It is an important piece of work, because it will enable us to identify and build on progress already made. From April, responsibility for such surveys will move to the NHS Commissioning Board, but hon. Members can be assured that this Minister will keep a close eye on it. The clinical commissioning group outcomes indicator set is the responsibility of the NHS Commissioning Board, but again, it drives improvements across the piste, as we say.
I add my profound support for Maggie’s cancer caring centres, whose praises the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) rightly sang. I visited the one in Nottingham the other week and saw there the excellent support that it gives, not just to cancer patients but to their families. Even if there has been a bereavement, the care and loving support continues. It is a remarkable organisation, and I hope that it will grow and become available to even more people.
In partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support, we are working on the national cancer survivorship initiative to implement improved care and support for cancer survivors. We want health services that are responsive to individual needs and that ensure access to specialist care when needed. We will shortly publish a document setting out the evidence base for future services to support people living with and beyond cancer in England. I hope that the Welsh Assembly Government will look to the experience in England and learn from it; I am sure that there are elements that we can learn from them as well. It is to be hoped that the outcomes in Wales will meet the success of the outcomes in England.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 12 February 2013. We expect the following items to be on the agenda and discussed:
Current legislative proposals
The presidency intends to give an update on: single supervisory mechanism (SSM); the fourth capital requirements directive (CRD IV); bank recovery and resolution; market abuse directive (MAD)/market abuse regulation (MAR); and revised rules for markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID).
Discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for 2011
As part of the annual discharge process, Ministers will conclude recommendations to the European Parliament on whether to discharge the Commission from its responsibility for implementing the 2011 EU budget, based on an annual report from the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
Council guidelines for the budget for 2014
As part of the annual EU budget process, Council will agree a set of Council conclusions on guidelines for the 2014 budget of the EU, which will serve as its overall reference for the subsequent budgetary procedure.
Preparation of G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and governors (Moscow, Russia, 15 to 16 February 2013)
Council will be asked to endorse the EU terms of reference for the G20 Finance Ministers and governors meeting. This will be the first G20 Finance Ministers and governors meeting of the Russian presidency.
Annual growth survey 2013
Ministers will agree a set of Council conclusions on the Commission’s annual growth survey 2013.
Alert mechanism report 2013
Ministers will agree a set of Council conclusions on the Commission’s alert mechanism report 2013.
Fiscal sustainability report 2012
Ministers will agree a set of Council conclusions on the fiscal sustainability report 2012.
Afghanistan (Roulement)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
The next roulement of UK forces in Afghanistan is due to take place in April 2013. Around half of these units will form Taskforce Helmand under command of 1 Mechanised Brigade. The remainder will deploy within Helmand and also to other locations in Afghanistan—particularly Kandahar and Kabul—as part of the UK’s overall contribution. The forces deploying include1:
1 Mechanised Brigade Headquarters and Signal Squadron (215) |
847 Naval Air Squadron |
857 Naval Air Squadron |
Household Cavalry Regiment |
1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery |
2nd Royal Tank Regiment |
Elements of 5th Regiment Royal Artillery |
Elements of 16th Regiment Royal Artillery |
Elements of 32nd Regiment Royal Artillery |
Elements of 39th Regiment Royal Artillery |
Elements of 47th Regiment Royal Artillery |
22 Engineer Regiment |
Elements of 23 Engineer Regiment (Air Assault) |
Elements of 33 Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) |
Elements of 36 Engineer Regiment (Search) |
Elements of 42 Engineer Regiment (Geographic) |
Elements of 170 (Infrastructure Support) Engineer Group |
Elements of 3rd (United Kingdom) Division Headquarters and Signal Regiment |
Elements of 10th Signal Regiment |
Elements of 14th Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare) |
Elements of 15th Signal Regiment (Information Support) |
Elements of 21st Signal Regiment (Air Support) |
Elements of 1st Battalion Irish Guards |
The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland |
2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire and Border) |
1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers |
4th Battalion The Rifles |
Elements of 1 Regiment Army Air Corps |
Elements of 3 Regiment Army Air Corps |
Elements of 9 Regiment Army Air Corps |
Elements of Joint Helicopter Support Squadron |
3 Logistic Support Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps |
9 Theatre Logistic Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps |
Elements of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps |
Elements of 17 Port and Maritime Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps |
Elements of 23 Pioneer Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps |
Elements of 24 Postal Courier and Movement Control Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps |
Elements of 29 Postal Courier and Movement Control Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps |
5 Medical Regiment |
33 Field Hospital |
6 Close Support Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers |
Elements of 7 Air Assault Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers |
Elements of 104 Force Support Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers |
158 Provost Company Royal Military Police |
Elements of 156 Provost Company Royal Military Police |
Elements of Special Investigations Branch (United Kingdom) Royal Military Police |
Elements of Military Provost Staff Corps |
Elements of 1st Military Working Dog Regiment |
Elements of 2 Military Intelligence (Exploitation) Battalion |
Elements of 4 Military Intelligence Battalion |
Elements of The Military Stabilisation Support Group |
Elements of 15 (United Kingdom) Psychological Operations Group |
Elements of The Defence Cultural Specialist Unit |
Elements of The Royal Yeomanry |
Elements of 104th Regiment Royal Artillery (Volunteers) |
Elements of 106th (Yeomanry) Regiment Royal Artillery (Volunteers) |
Elements of 72 (Tyne Electrical Engineers) Engineer Regiment (Volunteers) |
Elements of 71st (City of London) Yeomanry Signal Regiment (Volunteers) |
Elements of 51st Highland, 7th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland |
Elements of 4th Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire and Border) |
Elements of 5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers |
Elements of 4th Battalion The Parachute Regiment |
Elements of 7th Battalion The Rifles |
Elements of The Scottish Transport Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps (Volunteers) |
Elements of The Welsh Transport Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps (Volunteers) |
Elements of 88 Postal and Courier Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps (Volunteers) |
Elements of 159 Supply Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps (Volunteers) |
Elements of 148 Expeditionary Force Institute Squadron, The Royal Logistic Corps (Volunteers) |
Elements of 103 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (Volunteers) |
Elements of 3 Military Intelligence Battalion (Volunteers) |
Elements of 5 Military Intelligence Battalion (Volunteers) |
31 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
12 (Bomber) Squadron, Royal Air Force |
2 Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment |
3 Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment |
Number 3 Royal Air Force Force Protection Wing Headquarters |
Number 2 Tactical Police Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 47 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 30 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 5 (Army Co-operation) Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 32 (The Royal) Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 28 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 216 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 39 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 13 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 27 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 18 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 51 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 99 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 78 Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 33 (Engineering) Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 90 Signals Unit, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 1 Air Control Centre, Royal Air Force |
Elements of Tactical Supply Wing, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 1 Air Mobility Wing, Royal Air Force |
Elements of Tactical Medical Wing, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 2 (Mechanical Transport) Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of 93 (Expeditionary Armaments) Squadron, Royal Air Force |
Elements of Engineering and Logistics Wing, Royal Air Force Odiham |
In addition to the list of formed units, individual augmentees from each of the services will continue to deploy as part of this integrated force package. In total we expect around 910 individual augmentees to deploy on operations. This will comprise 146 Royal Navy personnel; approximately 4002 Army personnel and 364 Royal Air Force personnel. The Royal Air Force will provide the command element of Headquarters Joint Force Support (Afghanistan),with the wider headquarters manned by individual augmentees from all three services.
Volunteer and ex-regular members of the reserve forces will continue to deploy to Afghanistan as part of this integrated force package, and we expect to issue around 550 call-out notices. On completion of their mobilisation procedures, the reservists will undertake a period of training and, where applicable, integration with their respective receiving units. The majority will serve on operations for around six months although a small proportion of any force which is stood down due to force level reductions is likely to be reservist.
As the Prime Minister announced in December 2012, the UK’s conventional force levels in Afghanistan will draw down from 9,000 at the end of 2012 to around 5,200 by the end of 2013.
I shall make a further statement on 1 Mechanised Brigade’s planned replacement formation, 7 Armoured Brigade, nearer the time of their deployment.
1Where the contribution is 10 personnel or more.
2Although we expect this to rise to approximately 450 when the UK deploys personnel to the Afghan National Army Officers’ Academy during the Operation Herrick 18 period.
European Defence Agency Membership Review
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am announcing today that following a review of our membership of the European Defence Agency (EDA), the UK will at the present time remain a member of the agency.
In 2010 the UK reviewed its membership of the EDA following the strategic defence and security review. Subsequently, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), recommended that the UK should remain a member of the EDA with a stocktake after two years.
In consultation across Government, my Department has reassessed the benefits of remaining in the EDA and reviewed progress made by the agency since 2010 against identified shortfalls.
The EDA has made progress in some areas requiring reform, but there is more to be done to improve its operational effectiveness and so the case for continued membership remains finely balanced. Overall, I have concluded that for now the UK should remain a member of the EDA with our continuing membership to be reviewed again in late 2013 in light of progress made during the year.
Military Low Flying (2011-12)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
I have today placed in the Library of the House a document providing detailed statistics of the low-flying training that has taken place in the UK low-flying system for the training year 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. This statistical appendix may be read in conjunction with the master document “Military Low Flying in the United Kingdom” that is already available in the Library of the House.
The amount of low-flying training carried out in the UK low-flying system (UKLFS) during the training year 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012 was the minimum required for aircrew to reach and maintain their ability to fly at low level. A total of 48,270 hours of low-flying training were conducted across all low-flying areas. In comparative terms, there was a decrease of 881 hours, or approximately 1.8% on the previous training year due to the operational deployment of fixed wing aircraft in Afghanistan and Libya. The amount of operational low flying (between 250 feet and 100 feet) by fixed wing aircraft was 134 hours, accounting for 0.3% of all low- flying activity.
International Criminal Court (Victims Fund)
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I can announce today that the UK will contribute an additional £500,000 to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Trust Fund for Victims. This is in addition to two previous donations I announced in April 2011 and July 2012, amounting to £1 million. This brings the total UK support to the ICC Trust Fund for Victims since 2011 to £1.5 million. We believe the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) is doing excellent work in supporting victims of sexual and gender-based violence during conflict. The TFV was established by the states parties of the ICC in 2002 to benefit the victims of crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. It is entirely funded by voluntary donations. The focus of its work so far has been in northern Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where its project work provides assistance to the victims of the most serious crimes, including torture and sexual violence. It is making an important difference in helping the victims of serious crimes rebuild their lives. The Government are calling upon G8 countries for similar support to initiatives such as the TFV to help alleviate the significant suffering caused by these horrific acts of violence and take action to prevent these crimes from occurring.
London 2012 Games Security
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) and G4S have today announced that they have reached a settlement following G4S’s failure to deliver in full the Olympic and Paralympic venue security contract.
LOCOG’s negotiating parameters were set out before the Home Affairs Committee in September by my Noble Friend, Lord Deighton, then LOCOG chief executive:
The public purse should not be adversely impacted by G4S’s failure to deliver on its contractual obligation;
The step in costs of using the military and police in place of G4S should be met by G4S;
LOCOG will not pay for any services not delivered.
All these objectives have been achieved.
The settlement, which has full Government approval, imposes a total reduction of £85 million in the payment due to G4S. This is to meet the step-in costs and to reflect their very serious failure to deliver. The settlement also recognises that G4S did provide around 80% of its contracted workforce hours over the course of the pre-games, games-time and post-games periods.
The Government contribution to the LOCOG venue security budget was set at £553 million in December 2011. The settlement today brings the total savings on that budget to £102 million, £39 million of which was announced in October 2012.
DCMS will provide a further update on the overall public sector funding package position (including venue security) at the end of June 2013.
The Damages Act 1996: The Discount Rate
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Ministry of Justice, the Scottish Government and the Department of Justice, Northern Ireland have today jointly published a consultation paper “Damages Act 1996: The Discount Rate—Review of the Legal Framework” (CP 3/2013).
The paper seeks views on two issues: first, whether the legal parameters governing the way in which the discount rate prescribed under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 is currently calculated should be changed; and, secondly, whether there is a case for encouraging the use of periodical payments in cases where the discount rate would otherwise apply.
The consultation period is 12 weeks from 12 February. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is also available online at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk.
Judgment in Wilson/Reilly Case
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Court of Appeal has today ruled that the Government’s back to work schemes do not breach article 4 of the European convention on human rights.
While the judgment supports the principle and policy of our employment schemes, and acknowledges the care and resources we have dedicated to implementing them, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise) Regulations 2011 (“the ESE regulations”) do not describe the employment schemes to which they apply, as is required by the primary legislation. The Court of Appeal has therefore held the ESE regulations to be ultra vires and quashed them.
We are seeking permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment and, if permission is granted, we will take our case to the Supreme Court. As we are currently seeking permission to appeal, claimants who have already served a sanction will not be able to appeal on the basis of the Court’s decision until our appeal is heard. We are considering a range of options to ensure we do not have to repay these sanctions.
Today we intend to lay new regulations, which will come into force immediately and enable us to continue to refer jobseekers allowance claimants to our employment schemes and to provide the best chance for people to find employment.
House of Lords
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Retail: Business Rates
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of trading conditions in 2012-13, particularly for independent retailers, they will modify the automatic increases in business rates.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should mention that a member of my family works in the retail trade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, our commitment to hold business rate rises to the annual retail prices index cap means that there has been no real-terms increase in business rates since 1990. We have provided and are continuing to provide considerable support on business rates, including temporarily doubling the level of small business rate relief for another year. We have also postponed the revaluation of business premises from 2015 to 2017.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, that is a half encouraging answer from my noble friend, but is she fully aware that over 3 million people are employed in the retail trade, and that, equally importantly, at least 1 million of them are young people aged under 25? The situation on the high street in the past 12 to 14 months has been dire. Against that background, surely the time has come for Her Majesty’s Government to review the business rates, as it affects retailers and, frankly, for just one year to freeze those business rates?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the Government are committed to doing all they can to support the high street and other businesses. As the noble Lord made clear, the employment opportunities there are dire at the moment and we want to boost them as much as we can. The high street is facing challenges such as the rise of internet shopping. That is why the Government are offering practical support such as the Portas-plus package, and, as I said, why they have doubled the small business rate relief. We have also given authorities powers to grant their own discounts, which can be used to support local businesses, including shops.
Lord Peston
My Lords, is not the reason why the high street is in such a mess the catastrophic failure of the Government’s economic policy? What is required for the high street to get going is what is required for the whole British economy to get going: first, that the Government stop blaming their predecessor—the economy was certainly in a better state then than it is now—and, secondly, that they engage in an expansionary rather than a contractionary fiscal policy.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the Government are dealing with the deficit left by the previous Government. I do not think the noble Lord would expect me not to get that crack in one way or another. Whoever and whatever, we have realised that the economic situation is not helping. The Question is about small businesses. We are doing all that we can to help small businesses and to encourage the development of shops and other businesses. We are also very well aware of the essential nature of boosting employment, and we are trying to do that by a number of means.
Lord Cotter
What are the Government doing about the situation, which has long applied, whereby small shops proportionately pay a large amount more than supermarkets do in business rates? In proportion, they pay an enormous amount more.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, business rates are set on the basis of value. That is carried out by the valuation office. We are helping small businesses in every way that we can. I am sure that noble Lords would not discount the fact that many small businesses now are not paying any rates because they have 100% relief. They can also appeal to their local authorities for a further discount.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, what is very striking about any small town in France is that there are a number of small businesses in the high street. Of course, the supermarkets are grouped outside. Has the Minister considered what lessons we might learn from the French experience?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, business generates itself, and I agree very much with what the noble Lord has said about small individual businesses. In fact, a number of those are being generated at the moment. In all high streets, there are people who are setting off in entrepreneurial ways. I do not think that is something that the Government want to deal with, but we want to ensure that, where we can, we encourage small entrepreneurs to develop their own businesses.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned the competition with the high street from internet shopping. Would she accept that the most successful firms in the high street also have internet sales operations?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the internet shopping people do in fact contribute to the rates, as they have to pay for the premises they use to store their goods and where they have their offices. As for internet shopping, well, there it is; many people take advantage of it. I am not sure that the Government can do anything about that, or would want to.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, given the importance of London to the nation’s economy as a driver of economic growth, will the Government address the situation in which more than £2 billion that London businesses pay in business rates is redistributed across the rest of the country, rather than ploughed back into economic development in London?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have a feeling of déjà vu about this question, which was asked when we were in opposition for exactly the same reasons. The noble Lord probably answered it. The distribution and the way the rates are set are not entirely a matter for the Government. I know that the mayor is making the representations that the noble Lord has made and which have been made for a number of years in both directions.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Does my noble friend the Minister agree with the very many who say that the greatest problem of our day is in fact the steady breakdown of community life? Does she accept that in that regard independent retailers and service providers in towns contribute a huge amount to the fabric and cohesion of their communities, which the socking great supermarkets do absolutely nothing for?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not going to deny that supermarkets have a major role to play, but I accept, as I did in response to a previous question, that small entrepreneurs and small businesses in the high streets add value not only to the community but to the economy. We do not need shops that are boarded up and shut; we want small businesses to move in. There are plenty of examples of that happening both in London and in the countryside. I think I am right in saying that over 90% of the country’s economy lies on the back of small businesses.
First World War: Commemoration
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with their plans to commemorate the centenary of the First World War.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there has been significant progress in this £53 million programme of funded activity. Remembrance, youth and education will feature prominently in national events to mark the war’s first day, the Battle of the Somme and Armistice Day. Gallipoli, Jutland and Passchendaele will also be commemorated. The Government are actively developing plans with more than 20 Commonwealth and other Governments on both sides of the war for participation in their events. Community activity across the UK is also being strongly encouraged.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I compliment the Government on the manner in which they are “celebrating” this commemoration, but is the Minister aware that there are still people who say that this should be purely a celebration and not the agreed commemoration? Will he give the House an assurance today that the Government will not stray from the line of commemoration? Will there be sufficient resources for the activities that, as the Minister acknowledges, will take place in towns and villages up and down our land? Has the Heritage Lottery Fund allocated any extra finance to make those initiatives possible?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, in the extensive briefing that I have had, the word “celebration” has never featured at all. This is a moment for our nation and other nations to commemorate gallant men and women, and that is the whole focus of what the Government are seeking to lead on. On the noble Lord’s point about community projects, yes, there will be at least £6 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund for community-based projects. In addition, £9 million has already been committed to World War I-related projects across the land and there will be activities overseas as well.
Lord Elton
My Lords, the engagements that my noble friend listed in his substantive Answer are all well remembered. However, I ask him to put before those who are arranging this event the less well remembered but almost more tragic campaign in Mesopotamia during the First World War. I declare an interest, if that is the right way of putting it, as the son of one of the small minority of survivors from the besieged garrison who survived both that campaign and the horrific treatment they received on the 1,000-mile march afterwards. Can that be put on record as a commemoration as well?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there will be discussions with the Turkish authorities on matters such as the Mesopotamian expeditionary force and the work undertaken by men and women from India as well as from our country. If I may say so, my late father-in-law served in the Poona Horse in Mesopotamia in the second war, so I am aware of the bravery of men and women in that sector, too.
Lord Empey
My Lords, given that HMS “Caroline”, which is currently moored in Belfast, is the last surviving commissioned light cruiser that participated in the battle of Jutland, what plans do the Government have for the future of that vessel?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the interesting part about HMS “Caroline”, which will be restored with a £1 million National Heritage Memorial Fund award, is that it is the last surviving warship of the Battle of Jutland. It has been berthed in Belfast since 1924, and I very much hope that it will be an important part of Northern Ireland’s, and indeed Ireland’s, commemoration of the many gallant men and women who served in that war.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, given that approximately 1.6 million women joined the workforce between 1914 and 1918 in a wide range of roles, including 950 women who were employed in munitions factories by Armistice Day, will the Minister confirm that the hugely important role that women played during the First World War will be recognised in the commemoration that he has outlined?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the role of women will be very much part of the commemoration. It is, indeed, an integral part of the Imperial War Museum’s new First World War galleries, which will be opened next summer. The Government will mark the service and sacrifice of Edith Cavell as a symbol of the contribution made by women.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Government’s World War One centenary advisory board and as chair of the All-Party War Heritage Group. What progress has the Minister’s colleague Dr Andy Murrison made with his imaginative plans to recreate the Christmas Day truce football match between English and German troops that took place in 1914?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there is clearly a totemic significance to the Christmas truce, and it should be commemorated. Discussions are ongoing with the Football Association and the National Children’s Football Alliance.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, may I support the Minister’s word “commemoration” and suggest that, in due course, some thought should be given to celebrating the Armistice in 1918?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The day falls on a Sunday, and will clearly be part of the ongoing discussions. Yes, the word is “commemoration”—of all that happened in those four years of a dreadful war.
Baroness Sharples
Is my noble friend aware that the Imperial War Museum has received letters written by those who served in the war? I had two uncles who were killed in 1916 and 1917 and who wrote wonderful letters. The Imperial War Museum has made copies of them. I hope everybody will read them.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Imperial War Museum is in the lead. I have mentioned the £35 million that will be spent on the new galleries, but it will also be very much involved in a digital platform on the lives of those who served in the First World War and is leading an 800-organisation centenary partnership. It is doing tremendous work already.
Food: Waste
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage a reduction in domestic food waste.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)
My Lords, the waste review sets food waste as a priority, outlining the Government’s commitment to tackle it by focusing on waste prevention. The Government are working through agreements with food retailers, manufacturers and the hospitality sector to reduce food waste. We are helping households waste less and save money through WRAP’s “Love Food, Hate Waste” campaign.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
I thank my noble friend for that reply and welcome the improvement in the figure, but the fact is that food waste costs the average household £640 a year, which is a total of £12 billion to the country, and shows that there is much more to be done to help the consumer prevent this waste. Does my noble friend agree that supermarkets have a significant role to play in this area? While, for example, Asda’s promotion of WRAP’s “Love food, Hate Waste” campaign and the recent announcement by Sainsbury’s that its guidance to customers will move from “freeze on day of purchase” to “freeze up to the use-by date” are also to be welcomed, there is very much more they could be doing to support and encourage consumers in this area.
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend is quite right that food waste is costing households a substantial amount of money. She is also right that there is more to be done to help people, and I agree that supermarkets have a significant role to play in this area. The major food retailers have been taking action to reduce food waste through the Courtauld commitment and have helped consumers to save money and waste less through innovations such as resealable salad bags, recipe ideas for leftovers and smaller loaves of bread. WRAP has also been working with food businesses to help them make informed decisions about date labelling, which will help reduce food waste.
Baroness Parminter
Does my noble friend agree that we should place greater value on the food we eat? Will the Government’s Green Food project promote eating less, but better, meat, which could improve consumer health and animal welfare, cut carbon emissions and reduce domestic food waste?
Lord De Mauley
I thank my noble friend for that important and interesting suggestion. I will take it back.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there might well be a current spike in food waste that could be addressed by more of the waste being taken away by horse and cart?
Lord De Mauley
Very droll, my Lords. I can assure the noble Lord that when products such as those that I think he is referring to are tested, or are part of an ongoing investigation, they will be held securely and when ready to be released the products will be disposed of appropriately. Of course, if it is safe and appropriate for a product to go to anaerobic digestion rather than incineration or landfill, I hope it will. Needless to say, products that are not fit to be sold will not find their way back into the food chain.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Vision 20:20, which is concerned to do something about this. Is it not time that we banned this material from landfill? It is seriously dangerous to create methane. Banning it would enable us to insist upon much wider recycling of that which is wasted.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, we have committed to reviewing the case for restrictions on sending particular materials to landfill over the course of this Parliament, including looking specifically at textiles and biodegradable waste. We are focusing on collecting the evidence. Our experience from working on wood has shown us that a good understanding of the data, waste streams, markets and other issues are vital to making informed decisions. Before making proposals on restricting any particular materials, the Government will need to be content that that is the best-value way of moving material up the waste hierarchy and that the costs to businesses—and, indeed, to the public sector—are affordable.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, does the Minister accept that how we use the earth’s resources appropriately, exploit its potential and treat fellow humans are moral as well as financial issues? Does he accept that extravagant or unnecessary waste of food should challenge us to think, “Who is my neighbour?”, and to answer that question with integrity?
Lord De Mauley
Absolutely, my Lords. The right reverend Prelate is 100% right.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the supermarkets, the “best before” label apparently means that they are not allowed to sell it after that date. Yet there is quite a period when that food remains good, and this is a great source of waste. Many large establishments give all of that food away to homeless charities and people who come to collect. Are the Government or any of the private enterprises looking into spreading that practice so that people are not wasting food which is still good for some days?
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend raises an important point. “Use by” and “best before” dates help consumers to know what is safe to eat. They are required by law. The “sell by” and “display until” dates, however, are not intended for customers and can confuse them. We have encouraged retailers to remove these from goods or to render them invisible to the human eye. Encouragingly, the WRAP retailer survey 2011 found that new labelling being rolled out by retailers including Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s makes it clear that consumers do not have to freeze goods on the day of purchase, but can do so any time up to the “use by” date. A number of supermarkets have also introduced new, larger, single-date label stamps on to products to help consumers make the best use of the food.
Banking: LIBOR and EURIBOR
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the working of the Financial Services Authority’s executive settlement procedures in the light of discounts applied to fines levied as a result of misconduct in relation to the setting of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR).
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton)
My Lords, the Financial Services Authority awards discounts for early settlement of cases involving financial penalties, as it considers early settlement to be in the public interest. The Government take the manipulation of LIBOR and EURIBOR very seriously. We accepted the weekly review recommendations on LIBOR, and are implementing them in full. Furthermore, we are ensuring that the money raised from these fines will go to specific causes which demonstrate the best of British values.
Lord Bates
I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree with me that the manipulation of these rates by some banks was a deeply cynical fraud against borrowers in times when they could least afford it, and that while the fines levied by the FSA on those responsible may be at record levels they were a small fraction of the profits made by those institutions? The fines were substantially less than those imposed by the US regulator. Due to the FSA’s executive settlement procedures, those responsible received over £100 million in discounts on the fines levied so far. Would it not be more in keeping with the way in which banks treat their own customers if the FSA was now to scrap early-settlement discounts and replace them with a system of late-settlement penalties?
Lord Deighton
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point about the seriousness with which we are addressing this attempted manipulation of LIBOR rates. On the specific question of the penalties, the Financial Services Authority is the independent regulator. It is mandated to set all the rules on regulatory matters. That includes decisions about using early-settlement discounts as a way of managing the process. It considers it in the public interest to settle matters in cases involving financial penalties as early as possible and to provide incentives. There are many advantages in early settlement. It helps consumers to get compensation earlier than would otherwise be the case and prevents cases being contested at the regulatory decisions committee, which could cost a lot of time and money.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, does the noble Lord find it as astonishing as I do that, on an issue such as interest rates, which is obviously of great concern both nationally and internationally, nobody in the Bank of England or the Treasury had the faintest idea about what was going on with LIBOR?
Lord Deighton
My Lords, I absolutely accept the noble Lord’s observation that it is really a swingeing indictment of the financial system that a benchmark as critical as LIBOR—which is responsible for settling about $300 trillion-worth of transactions—could be manipulated in this way. Once this was uncovered, however, the Government have moved extremely swiftly, appointing Martin Wheatley, the chief executive-designate of the Financial Conduct Authority, to do a review. He came up with a 10-point plan, which has been implemented in full. The Financial Services Act was amended to make sure that LIBOR activities were brought within statutory regulation; we created a new criminal offence to ensure that it could be followed up in that way and the FSA has now been given the power to compel banks to participate in LIBOR setting.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the general public are somewhat bemused by the large sums of money involved in these transactions and are even more puzzled as to why there seem to be very few people who have been either prosecuted or convicted with penalties affecting the individuals concerned? Could my noble friend comment on that?
Lord Deighton
My Lords, with respect to the sanctions and penalties, I would point out that there are ongoing criminal investigations with the Serious Fraud Office. Three arrests were made at the beginning of the year, so it is clear that we are determined to follow through on picking up on criminal activity where that can be proven to have taken place.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, before asking my question, I wonder if the noble Lord could clarify part of his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, where he referred to the “attempted” manipulation of LIBOR. Is he saying that the manipulation failed? Turning to the Question, when I was a member of the Regulatory Decisions Committee of the Financial Services Authority, discounts on penalties were offered for early settlement only in cases where either the firms had reported their own failings or they had offered exceptional levels of co-operation. Did either of these circumstances apply in this case to British banks prior to measures taken by the American authorities?
Lord Deighton
With respect to the noble Lord’s question on whether the attempt was successful, I think that is actually the issue. The FSA’s review found that it was unclear whether the manipulation did result in a change of rates, so that is an open question. On the degree of co-operation shown by the firms under investigation, I understand that the firms were entirely co-operative. Of course, they are all under new management and, effectively, are the new brooms trying to sweep clean. I am afraid that I cannot layer together the timing of that co-operation vis-à-vis the application of the US penalties, but I am happy to look into that and get back to the noble Lord.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Are the Government comfortable with very senior executives in the FSA, who are after all responsible for deciding those penalties, being able to move rapidly into employment with the banks at seven-figure salaries?
Lord Deighton
My noble friend makes a good observation. Clearly, there were some gaps in the historical supervisory structure, which is why we have passed the Financial Services Act reforming entirely the regulatory apparatus around this business. Of course, the FSA is about to be replaced by a combination of the Financial Conduct Authority, the Financial Policy Committee and the Prudential Regulation Authority. We now have a new regime surrounding this arena. I share my noble friend’s concern that moving from gamekeeper to poacher needs to be managed closely.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Are the penalty levels to which the noble Lord referred set in legislation? If so, can we not change the legislation?
Lord Deighton
The penalty levels are a matter for the FSA. In 2010, it re-established the code under which it assesses the fines to make them more transparent. It is an area which has been recently reviewed.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, may I at least commend the FSA for a new penalty regime which affected misbehaviour after 6 March 2010 and finally had some serious fines behind it? However, I still recommend the US system of triple damages. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial that the Government and all politicians stand behind the regulator in fierce enforcement and tough penalties? It was the slack that we saw cut for the banks under the previous Government that demonstrated to people that government and the regulator seemed to be on the side of the banks and not the people or the taxpayers?
Lord Deighton
My noble friend makes an extremely good point that under the new regime it is critical that government and regulators are seen to work together and to represent the interests of the consumers.
Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [HL]
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That the Bill be read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2013
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the draft order laid before the House on 8 January be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 February.
Scrap Metal Dealers Bill
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Service Pensions Bill
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:33 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 193 - Amendment 1 agreed.
Lord Eatwell
“(c) the Defence Fire and Rescue Service”
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, this amendment refers to the position of the Defence Fire and Rescue Service within the structure of the Bill. Noble Lords will remember that it was revealed in the discussion of the Bill in Committee—the issue had not been discussed in another place—that the Defence Fire and Rescue Service had an anomalous status relative to that of other firefighters within the UK. In particular, while other firefighters within the UK had their retirement age fixed at the age of 60, together with other uniformed services, the Defence Fire and Rescue Service at that time had a retirement age tied to the statutory retirement age. Therefore, it would be 65, rising in accordance with the pattern planned for the increase in the statutory retirement age.
My hypothesis in Committee was that this was simply a slip and a mistake and that people had just happened to miss the fact that a category of firefighters was not covered in the actual language of the Bill. I therefore expected that, once the Minister had taken the matter back—he conceded in Committee that he had not had the opportunity to consider it with any great care—the mistake would be understood and the firefighters would be included with the other uniformed services, having their retirement age fixed at 60, as is the case with the other uniformed services. However, to my considerable surprise, this has not been the case. I understand that the firefighters—and, indeed, the Ministry of Defence Police, to which I will turn in a moment—have met the Minister and that he has turned down this proposition. He has substituted for it the assurance that their pension age would be maintained at 65 and not, perhaps, go up with the statutory pension age, although his assurance was not terribly clear in the sense that it referred to a three-year differential between the statutory retirement age and that for Ministry of Defence firefighters. In due course, when it gets to 68 or 69, as we all live longer, those firefighters would see their retirement age go up—or so I presume; perhaps the Minister can clarify that later on—while that of their colleagues in the rest of their fire service would stay the same, at 60.
The Minister has one fundamental question to answer. It is an answer that not just this House but the firefighters themselves deserve. How does their job differ from that of local authority firefighters? In what way is it less onerous, when they have to work on military establishments, dealing on occasion with extremely dangerous materials, and occasionally also in war zones? How is their job less onerous? In those circumstances, why should we have this situation in which their retirement age is five years higher?
I wonder whether the Minister has taken the trouble to find out when the Defence Fire and Rescue Service members actually retire. If he did take that trouble, he would find out that the majority of them retire before the age of 60. They retire early, with a significantly reduced pension, and they have to do that because they are physically unable to keep going. A study performed by the Civilian Consultant Adviser in Occupational Medicine for the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation not only produced data but argued that continuing beyond the age of 60 was detrimental to the long-term health of firefighters in the Ministry of Defence Fire and Rescue Service. If the noble Lord had taken the trouble to find out what was actually happening, he would have found out that firefighters in this service are forced to retire early due to their physical condition or because they are unable to pass the regular physical examinations they undergo to ensure that they can perform their duties to the required standard.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my name is attached to the first of these amendments and I support the second one. I do not want to add a lot to what my noble friend has said but I concur with him that at some point along the line, there has been either a mistake or an oversight. There can be very little argument but that the uniformed ranks who happen to be employed by the Ministry of Defence do a very similar and, if anything, significantly more dangerous job in certain locations than firefighters generally, and that therefore the exception to the general rule that applies to uniformed staff covered in my noble friend Lord Hutton’s report ought logically to apply to this group of workers. I cannot see a logical argument for excluding them from that exception.
My second point is that this group is in a Civil Service scheme that covers several hundred thousand people. We are dealing here with a unique workforce of 800 firefighters who serve our defence forces in the United Kingdom, in war zones and in other parts where the British Armed Forces operate abroad. They are not like the rest of the Civil Service, and nor would it be a major cost to the Civil Service scheme were this anomaly to be rectified in the Bill. In the other areas of the Bill in which I am interested as regards the local government scheme, the Minister has been pretty flexible over many aspects, which I applaud—and he will, I hope, be more flexible later this afternoon. However, I am surprised that he cannot see that this is an issue on which the Government could easily concede; it would meet with huge approval, would cost very little and would correct an anomaly that has been there for some time but does not need to be aggravated by raising the normal statutory retirement age, which the rest of the Bill does.
I ask—I plead with—the Minister, if he is not prepared to accept the amendment, to take it away again and consider it seriously, because in this respect his civil servants, whether in the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury, are not serving him well. We should have found a way through this. We should find a way this afternoon to ensure that the position of this group of workers is recognised and reflected in statute.
Lord Hutton of Furness
My Lords, perhaps I should briefly join the debate because my report has been cited by my noble friend. I echo the comments of my noble friends and support their argument. I ask your Lordships’ House to indulge me if I revisit some of the issues from my report. It talked about the uniformed services in general, not about whether you happened to be in the Civil Service scheme or any other scheme. I talked about uniformed services—firefighters, police and the Armed Forces. My report made a simple argument that the nature of their service is unique and should be reflected in the pension arrangements that we make for them.
I have to say that if, during the course of my inquiry, I had known about the unique circumstances of the MoD firefighters, I would have referred specifically to them in my report and urged the Government to show some flexibility, support and sympathy for the special role that they play within our Armed Forces. Sadly, this issue was not drawn to my attention, so I did not make any specific recommendations about the MoD firefighters or the MoD police. If I had known about it, I certainly would have done so.
I am sympathetic to the Minister’s position. I am sure that his officials have told him that enormous complexity is involved in changing the normal pensionable age for this group of workers. However, I ask the Minister to remind himself—I know what a decent and honourable person he is—of the fact that this is fundamentally a matter of fairness and of the need to approach the issue in the right way. I do not believe that there is any substantive technical reason why we cannot look again at the role of the MoD firefighters and the MoD Police. If there is a technical issue it has to be addressed on the face of the Bill, as my noble friend suggested, or in the scheme regulations or the discussions with the relevant trade unions. Surely there has to be a way of doing the right thing for these people. The MoD firefighters currently happen to be in the Civil Service pension scheme, which has a higher retirement age than the firefighters scheme or the Armed Forces scheme. It is incumbent on us to address that issue and not to use the technical arguments as an excuse for not addressing this fundamental discrepancy.
I am not familiar with the history of all this—I am sure that there is a lot of history to it—but I wish that it had been raised with me, as I would have referred to it in my final report in the way that I have suggested. However, we now have an opportunity to do the right thing for these people, and I hope that this House takes the right course.
Lord Newby
My Lords, these amendments reflect an issue about which I know many noble Lords feel strongly. Before I address the amendments themselves, perhaps I may remind the House of the context and the background.
These forces are made up of civil servants directly employed by the Ministry of Defence. Although there are some similarities with their counterparts in the Home Office police and the local authority fire and rescue services, their terms and conditions of employment are set by the Ministry of Defence and are therefore materially different in many respects. As civil servants they benefit from provisions which are not available to their non-MoD counterparts, such as the Civil Service compensation scheme, injury benefit provisions, relocation and leave allowances. The amendments being suggested would fundamentally alter the status of these individuals and that should not be carried out lightly.
I should remind the House that, as civil servants, individuals joining these forces currently have access to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. This means that since 2007 those joining these forces have had a normal pension age of 65. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, would reduce that pension age to 60. He has already referred to this argument, but I shall make it again. Such a reduction in pension age runs counter to the Government’s aim of managing the risks associated with increasing longevity. It would also make these workforces unique in seeing a five-year decrease in their pension age as a result of these reforms.
Furthermore, there are a number of problems associated with the specific amendments that have been proposed. First, it is not clear how the amendments proposed by the Opposition would be implemented. The institutional architecture required for these workforces to become part of the non-MoD fire and police schemes would need to be established, bringing with it additional cost. The non-MoD fire and police schemes are locally administered and early work suggests that in order to include the DFRS and MDP in these schemes, equivalents of elected police commissioners and fire authorities would need to be established for these forces. The schemes are also discussed and established through fora which the MoD forces do not participate in, and which are not designed to cater for them, such as the Police Negotiating Board.
The amendment would also split the remuneration of these individuals so that their pay and other conditions are controlled by the Ministry of Defence while their pension entitlement would be set by either the Department for Communities and Local Government or the Home Office. This will potentially place financial risks on the Ministry of Defence over which it has no control and, more importantly, would prohibit the MoD from taking a view on appropriate remuneration for these forces in the round.
However, the Government are not deaf to the concerns of the House. I have listened carefully to the arguments for providing these groups with additional protection. I have, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned, also met representatives from the groups themselves to hear their concerns. One of the issues that they highlighted was that as SRA and NRA increases in the decades ahead, the disparity between their retirement age and that of their civilian counterparts would be increased and their retirement age would move towards 68. They believe that such further increases in retirement age would be unfair and unreasonable, and I agree. Therefore, I held discussions with colleagues in the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence. As a result, the Ministry of Defence pledged to look at appropriate ways in which the issue could be managed so that retirement at 65 could be maintained in the new pension schemes established by the Bill when they are implemented in 2015.
This is a sensible way for the issue to be resolved. The details of these changes should be discussed by the employer and their employees, and, for the MDP in particular, in conjunction with the consideration already under way of their wider terms and conditions. In the light of these arguments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell
Well, my Lords, we got the answer that we all feared. We were told that somehow the unique position of an injustice is such that the injustice should be maintained. We were told that it was not clear how the changes could be implemented. “It’s just too jolly complicated. Our staff aren’t up to it. We haven’t got enough civil servants who can puzzle through all these problems. There is no way through”. That is ridiculous.
We were told that somehow these firefighters would have to be transferred to other pension schemes. I am afraid that that is not the case. Civil Service pension schemes are flexible and perfectly able, as currently structured, to take into account differing retirement ages.
We then heard the proposition that the differential—the unfairness—should be fixed at five years’-worth of unfairness, with the retirement age of MoD firefighters and police being kept at 65. Apparently this is not too difficult to implement. We can find a way to fix the retirement age at 65 but we cannot find a way to fix it at 60. I am afraid that the Minister has significantly reduced the credibility of his own arguments.
He also completely failed to address two fundamental points. He failed to answer the question: in what way do the working conditions of Ministry of Defence firefighters differ from those of local authority firefighters? He failed to take into consideration that the majority of MoD firefighters are forced to retire before the age of 60 because of physical and other health reasons. He also failed to take into account the point made by my noble friend Lord Hutton that this is a fundamental issue of fairness. Given that that is the position, we owe it to Ministry of Defence firefighters and police to agree this amendment. I urge noble Lords to do so and beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, the amendments in this group bring the Bill into line with the Government’s announced policy on judicial pensions. They recognise the special constitutional position of the judiciary and have been tabled in response to the Delegated Powers Committee’s 10th report. The report identified that the Bill will move some features of judicial pensions, which are currently provided for in primary legislation, into secondary legislation. Under the amendments, the pensions of the judiciary will be separated from the Civil Service scheme, of which they were originally going to form part.
The regulations governing pensions for the judiciary will be made by the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland where this is appropriate. Scheme regulations will also require the consent of the Treasury. In addition, in order to recognise the move from a basis in primary legislation to one in secondary legislation for some elements of scheme design, scheme regulations will attract the affirmative procedure. The exception to this will be cases where the pension board for the scheme deems the regulations to have either a minor or a wholly beneficial effect. The judiciary will be represented on this board. As a final change, we have amended the Bill so that the Lord Chancellor’s role in making pension schemes for the judiciary becomes a protected function. This means that any future machinery of government changes will not change the fact that the responsibility for these pensions will remain with the Lord Chancellor.
The amendments that I have described represent a reasonable balance between the importance of recognising the judiciary as having a particular and special role within our constitution and ensuring that the Bill continues to provide a consistent and coherent framework for public service pensions. An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of any modern democracy. It must be able to carry out its role without interference from government. These wide-ranging reforms to all public service pensions, which will impact on judicial remuneration, in no way diminish that fundamental constitutional role. Judges will be as free to uphold the law, to interpret the will of Parliament and to rule against the Government of the day after these reforms as they were previously. Indeed, judges have the protection of the affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament, not government, will have the final say on any major changes.
Amendments 26 and 27 address a separate issue about some individuals who have worked for the residential property tribunal. It has emerged that some of them may be provided with pensions under the Rent Act 1977 and may not be covered by the provisions of the Bill. This amendment clarifies that these individuals should be included within the scope of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
“1A (1) Scheme regulations for the judiciary may be made by the Lord Chancellor.
(2) Before making scheme regulations in relation to an office with a jurisdiction exercised exclusively in relation to Scotland, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Secretary of State.”
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, the government amendments in this group concern powers, which have been previously debated at length, to amend primary legislation and to make retrospective changes. I am hopeful that both sets of amendments will be well received across the House.
The amendments on powers to amend legislation follow on in particular from the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. As the Delegated Powers Committee noted, the Bill as drafted contains “unrestricted” powers to amend primary legislation. The committee did not see a justification for such a wide scope to make changes without full parliamentary scrutiny. It recommended that the powers be limited to being able to amend existing primary legislation for consequential and consistency purposes only. We have looked at this, and agree with the committee.
While the powers currently mimic those in the Superannuation Act 1972, the predecessor to this Bill, there is no evidence of the powers being used for anything beyond consequential amendments in the past. We do not envisage a scenario where wider use would be needed in the future. The amendments therefore reduce the scope in line with the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendations. The powers can be used only for consequential changes to current Acts, including changes that are needed to achieve consistency.
I should make clear that the amendments do not remove the power to amend primary legislation completely, since such a power is essential to bridge any gaps between pre-existing primary legislation and the scheme regulations, but they significantly reduce the scope of the powers to be used in ways that the committee felt could not be justified. I hope that this strikes a balance that the House can support.
The powers to make retrospective changes were also mentioned in the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, although it did not make any specific recommendations in this case. However, we have discussed these retrospective powers in detail in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions, and I hope we are approaching a resolution that everybody can support.
Our amendments take account of amendments tabled at earlier stages by the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Whitty, both of whom also have amendments on the Marshalled List today. I hope they feel that we have been able to take account of their arguments as we work through the detail in this complicated but vital area. As I think we all agree, we must get this absolutely right and I hope the House will feel that our amendments achieve that.
As I have set out before, powers to make retrospective changes can be required for several reasons. Usually they are required to make minor or technical operational changes to allow the schemes to run efficiently, often for the benefit of members. They may also be used to make retrospective changes that are part of wider negotiations and which increase the likelihood of the Government and their employees reaching agreement on a package of reforms. Therefore, the Government firmly believe that such powers are necessary and should not be restricted.
However, the Government recognise that if there are insufficient protections against using these powers in an unfair way, even if we have no intention of doing so, this could damage members’ confidence in these reforms. That is why we have brought forward the new clause contained in Amendment 36 and the associated consequential amendments.
Amendment 36 implements a consent lock for any retrospective changes to pensions that have “significant adverse effects” on members. Members or their representatives would have to agree to such changes. Significance is a low but appropriate threshold—one that is on the whole favourable to members and not the responsible authority. It has already been used in the Bill and by some noble Lords in their own amendments. I note that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in this area refers similarly to “material” effects. If I may say so, he and I are talking about the same thing.
Indeed, our amendments mean that material or significant retrospective changes would require the consent of the members who are affected, or their representatives. Amendment 36 therefore provides an extremely strong form of protection against the unfair use of retrospective powers. It will give members who are significantly adversely affected, or their representatives, a veto on any such changes. The requirements to follow the affirmative procedure and to lay a report to Parliament will also continue to apply to safeguard wider interests, including those of the House.
The consent requirement will apply to changes that have a significant adverse effect on the pensions of all scheme members, whether active, deferred or pensioners. That means that they go further than the protections against retrospective changes in many existing schemes, including the NHS, local government and teachers’ schemes. They provide unambiguous protections for all members, not just deferred and pensioner members.
However, the consent lock will not apply to retrospective changes that have a significant adverse effect on non-pension benefits, such as injury and compensation schemes. Such benefits will continue to be protected instead by the enhanced consultation procedure of Clause 22. That clause requires consultation with a view to reaching agreement, a report to the appropriate legislature, and the affirmative procedure.
Injury and compensation schemes cover people by virtue of their particular employment, not whether they happen to be members of a public service pension scheme. The persons covered do not accrue an entitlement throughout their career in the same way as a pension, but rather receive benefits that are calculated at the point of claim. Moreover, those schemes are entirely funded by the employer with no employee contribution. We therefore think that a veto power over changes to injury and compensation schemes that might in some cases be regarded as retrospective would give disproportionate influence to members. None the less, I should make clear that reforms to current injury and compensation schemes are not contemplated by this Bill.
I therefore hope that the House will be able to support these amendments. I believe that they provide excellent reassurance to members that the retrospective powers will not, and indeed now cannot, be used in ways to which they do not consent.
I hope that the House will find it helpful if I speak to the other amendments in the group. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would restrict the scope of powers to make retrospective changes such that they could make only non-material changes. As I have said, we believe that the scope of those powers should not be categorically restricted. Flexibility can be desirable—I mentioned the possibility of members consenting to significant changes if they are part of a wider negotiating package—and it is much more important that we give members a fair say in what affects them. Our amendments do that, with a veto power no less. So, in the light of our amendments, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is unnecessary.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, would take away the clear responsibility of the responsible authorities to make a judgment on the effect of retrospective changes. It is not entirely clear who would take a view instead, but it might well end up being the courts. The difficulty here is that these are decisions—what is significant and who is affected?—that require a clear decision in order to start the right consultative process. Someone has to take a view on the nature of the effects in good faith. In our view, the authority is best placed to do that, given that it operates the schemes and would initiate and implement any changes.
Public authorities should not be held to unrealistic standards of judgment. That is inefficient, encourages inaction or excessive litigation, and hampers their ability to deliver their public functions. Not all effects will be so clear cut as to leave no room for disagreement, so it is right to leave a small margin of safety.
If responsible authorities do not exercise their judgment reasonably, they do so at their own risk. Of course, members can always challenge the decisions of the responsible authority on this point as part of the consultation, or even in the courts. So there is no justification or incentive for the authority to act irresponsibly or without good faith. Although I can understand the reason why these amendments have been tabled, I fear that I cannot support them.
However, I hope that the House is reassured that just because there is a small element of subjectivity, that does not mean that the way is open for the responsible authority to act in an arbitrary manner. More importantly, I hope that the House will agree that the Government’s amendments on retrospection provide excellent protections to members.
The Government have listened carefully on this topic and have brought forward sensible amendments inspired by previous amendments tabled by Members on the other side of the House, and I urge noble Lords to support them.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I refer to the amendments tabled in the name of myself and my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson, since the government amendments are substantially responses to the points that we made in Committee. I want to make it clear why we feel that the situation has, let us say, not moved on far enough.
Let me deal first with Amendments 37, 38 and 39 because they make a proper, logical story. They seek to remove from Amendment 36 the role of the authority in deciding whether an adverse effect on the pensions payable has in fact occurred. In other words, the authority has to decide whether its measures should be challenged in consultation. This is as if, in a game involving Manchester United, penalty decisions against it were to be made by Sir Alex Ferguson. I am sure that he, as a talented football manager, would then make a decision on a reasonable basis. However, with all due respect to that distinguished person, do we think that these decisions would be made in a way which was balanced? I could choose any other football manager, including Mr Wenger, who apparently never sees things that happen on football pitches.
I refer to balance because in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in setting out the criteria that he applied in these circumstances, said that he wanted to achieve a sensible balance between members’ protection and the role of the authority. It seems that while the proposed new clause in Amendment 36 provides for a significant protection for members of the scheme, it is still not balanced in that it leaves the authority with the responsibility for deciding that its own measures have had an adverse effect on those members. In those circumstances, even the most reasonable person is likely to be reluctant to feel that measures which they are taking have a negative impact upon the scheme. Our amendments simply remove the role of the authority so that the new clause would say,
“containing retrospective provision which appears … to have significant adverse effects”.
In those circumstances it seems to me that the authority, facing the responsibilities that the noble Lord referred to, and without the protection of the statute giving it the decision-making responsibility—a decision-making role or power—would take a more balanced and reasonable view. These amendments are to encourage reasonableness on behalf of the authority.
Moving backwards, our Amendments 22 and 23 refer to what is now Clause 12, which deals with the employer cost cap. The problem with this clause is in subsection (7), where it is recognised that steps to change the cost cap may result in an,
“increase or decrease of members’ benefits or contributions”.
In other words it may decrease members’ benefits so that the action of using the cost cap to encourage efficiency and efficient management of pension schemes may result in the retrospective diminution of benefits which members feel that they have accumulated.
The key question is whether Amendment 36 covers that eventuality. The eventuality that it covers is,
“where … the responsible authority proposes to make scheme regulations containing retrospective provision”.
Changing the cost cap may have retrospective consequences but does not contain retrospective provision. Much as we welcome the general intent of Amendment 36, then, it does not deal with one of the significant cases of retrospection that still deface the Bill. Amendments 22 and 23 are designed to protect the benefits of pensioners against retrospective effect, perhaps unintentional, when there is some change in the cost cap. We are delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, here performing duties that were formerly performed for him.
Those two amendments are necessary unless the Minister can find a way for Amendment 36 to refer not simply to regulations containing retrospective provisions but to regulations that have retrospective consequences. That would be a way, I suggest, to transform Amendment 36 from a rather imperfect structure to one that would deal with retrospection throughout the Bill.
The amendments that I and my noble and learned friend have tabled are in the spirit of Amendment 36 and indeed of the Government’s laudable attempts to remove the retrospective elements—the ones, that is, which are unnecessary and potentially harmful to members; I understand that there are technical retrospective elements that are necessary—but I feel that they have not yet managed to achieve what the whole House wishes to achieve. Our amendments would contribute to that goal.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on the extent and the manner to which the Government’s amendments to the ability to make changes and to make retrospective changes affect the fundamental issue of affordability. I apologise for raising this issue yet again but it is fundamental. We start, as everyone knows, from the OBR advising that there will be a cash flow deficit of £15.4 billion by 2016-17. My related question to the Minister is: what is the Government’s estimate of the additional cash flow deficit costs of both increasing longevity and, more particularly, the new single-tier pension proposals made by the DWP? It strikes me that two separate silos have been working on this, with the Treasury in one and the DWP in the other. Precisely what the effects of the loss of employer and employee NI contributions and the ending of contracting out will be on the deficit of pay-as-you-go public sector schemes seems to some extent to be a mystery.
I think it was in Committee that the Minister advised that he felt the estimates I suggested were too high; thus I would be grateful if he would comment on what the Government’s estimates are. My revised estimates, done with the assistance of Michael Johnson, who many noble Lords will know has done significant work on the subject, are that there is an additional cash flow cost from longer longevity of the order of £2 billion per annum, and there may now be an additional £3.4 billion resulting from the loss of public sector employers’ NIC rebates with the ending of contracting out and a further £4 billion per annum as a result of public sector employees continuing to enjoy an enhanced occupational pension as if contracted out while still being entitled to further accruals under the new single-tier state pension, once it appears. In contrast, private sector employers who are contracted out will be permitted to change their scheme rules, effectively to reduce pensions paid, without trustee consent. As I have said, I cannot believe that the prospect of a potential cash flow deficit of some £24 billion per annum will be acceptable to whoever is in power at that stage, given the state of the public finances. Dare I say that it seems that not only the Opposition but the Government are ignoring the affordability issue with regard to this legislation as it passes through both Houses of Parliament?
I would be grateful for a response to the question about to what extent room for manoeuvre is being reduced by the government amendments. Secondly, what is the Government’s revised, post-OBR estimate of the total cash flow deficit cost of the arrangements under the Bill?
Lord Whitty
My Lords, as the Minister said, I have Amendments 7, 31 and 35 in this group. I should explain that for the remainder of the discussion of the Bill on Report I am likely to be seeing it through the perspective of the Local Government Pension Scheme which, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, is a funded scheme, not a pay-as-you-go scheme, and, moreover, a funded scheme that has recently reached agreement between the trade unions and the LGA, sanctioned by the CLG and the Treasury, on a new cost-management structure. I therefore think the costs of any limit on retrospection in that scheme are unlikely to arise. I probably should declare that I am an honorary vice-president of the LGA and a member of the GMB, although I have no pecuniary interest in the pensions covered by the LGPS. I was also, until recently, chair of one of its schemes.
The Minister deserves considerable credit for moving significantly on this front. It is clear that what appeared to be quite an open-ended ability to amend primary and secondary legislation in the original text of the Bill has been significantly modified by the changes which he has proposed and the procedures that he has outlined, particularly in relation to Amendment 36. It would be nice if he could go a little further, particularly in respect of two points. Amendment 7 would effectively prevent retrospective changes for non-administrative reasons that had a material detriment for any members of the scheme. The reference in Amendment 36 to “significant adverse effects” sounds like a significantly higher threshold than “material detriment”. Does the Minister think there is a real distinction there? Could some quite serious detriment in effect occur without triggering Amendment 36? I would hope not, but I would like some on-the-record reassurance on that point.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am pleased that I am moving in the right direction, at least as far as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is concerned.
On the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, there are two differences between the Alex Ferguson situation and the one that we are discussing. First, while he could of course be relied upon to act impartially in every circumstance, he is not given that freedom. There are a referee and various other officials on the pitch, taking decisions on a second-by-second basis. There is an authority; it is just not him. The noble Lord is concerned about what happens if that authority then acts improperly or unreasonably—if, say, the referee blatantly misses a series of handballs in the penalty area. The answer is that if there is a sense that the authority is behaving improperly, it has an oversight body: the courts. The authorities cannot just make arbitrary decisions, let alone unfair ones, without acting in good faith. If they do act unreasonably, they are also acting unlawfully. It is right that the responsibility lies with them, as they operate the schemes. Somebody has to make an initial decision. The underlying implication of what the noble Lord is saying is that the authorities will act in a malevolent way to do down scheme members. I do not believe that they will, or that that is the history.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, on a point of information, in the LGPS we make a clear distinction between an employing authority and an administering authority, the latter being the equivalent of a quasi-trustee body, whereas this seems to imply the employing authority— that is, the local authority. If it were the administering authority, I think that we would be slightly more reassured.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I simply do not know the answer to that question. I will have to write to the noble Lord. I hope that, in doing so, I will be able to reassure him.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on the cost cap. Its operation has been extensively discussed here and I hope that noble Lords were reassured that we will not seek to use it to reduce accrued benefits. If noble Lords have not been reassured, I hope I can reassure them now by setting out the Government’s own detailed amendments on retrospective provisions and protections.
As I have stated, the new clause on retrospective protections will require that retrospective changes to pension benefits with significant adverse effects be subject to the consent of members or their representatives. This would include changes made as a result of the operation of the cost cap. I have already made clear that adjustments to benefits or contributions under the cost cap would not be retrospective. The new clause, set out in Amendment 36, also provides protections to this effect. First, there would be the procedure set out in Clause 12(6) for reaching agreement on changes that are contingent on the operation of that mechanism. Then, when scheme regulations were made to give effect to those agreed changes, those regulations would require consent for any provisions that were retrospective and had significant adverse effects on pensions.
Given this, I hope that noble Lords are convinced that Amendment 23 is not necessary either. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, himself said in previous debates, this would be a belt-and-braces provision to provide further protection to members in the event that the cost cap is triggered. There is no need for this additional protection because the response to the cost cap calls for the approval of the members themselves. If that response were to involve a retrospective change with a serious adverse effect, the implementing provisions in scheme regulations would also require consent. So the belt and braces are already in the Bill, were that extremely unlikely scenario ever to happen. In these circumstances and with these reassurances, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, asked a couple of questions about whether the changes relating to restricting retrospection would reduce the Government’s ability retrospectively to reduce provisions and thus make it easier, in his view, to get the costs under control. The problem about that from a legal point of view—leaving aside whether it is desirable in practice—is that tinkering with accrued rights falls foul of human rights legislation and the Government have made it absolutely clear that they have no intention of going down that road. On the question of figures in Michael Johnson’s report, the Government simply do not recognise them. The House should be reassured that the costings for these reforms and the single tier have been fully worked through. If, at some stage in the future, the schemes appear unfinanceable, we have the cost cap; that is the whole purpose of having a cost cap. If his worse fears were borne out—and, as I say, we do not recognise the figures that Michael Johnson has produced—
Baroness Noakes
I thank the Minister for giving way. He says that the Treasury does not recognise the figures in Michael Johnson’s helpful report, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Flight. Could he say what figures it does recognise because, clearly, the proposals for the single tier pension and the impact on contracted-out contributions came after the development of the public sector pensions and after the OBR report? There has to be a figure, given that he does not recognise that quoted by my noble friend, so what figure do the Government estimate it to be?
Lord Newby
The best way of dealing with this is by writing to the noble Baroness to explain how the Government believe that the proposals for the single-tier pension can be accommodated within the finances we think are available. I do not believe that a single figure here deals adequately with it, but we will write to her. We have not had a huge amount of time to analyse Michael Johnson’s figures, but on first sight, they do not look like ones that we can follow.
As regards the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and whether “material” is different from “significant”, is one a higher bar than the other? As I said earlier, we believe that they are virtually synonymous. We do not believe that material is of a lesser or greater value than significant. Therefore, we do not think that there needs to be any concern in that respect.
Amendment 31 would require that any change to scheme regulations undergoes consultation with a view to reaching agreement. I understand why the noble Lord is concerned that there should be meaningful consultation with scheme members and their representatives when scheme regulations are made. The Government carry out consultations for a number of reasons. While it is always good to have agreement, this will not always be the appropriate focus. Pensions are complex issues and regulatory changes may often be needed for minor and technical reasons. It surely would be impractical for the Government to undergo a more onerous consultation process every time a minor change was made. Moreover, this amendment is not necessary to ensure that this consultation is meaningful. This already is a mandatory requirement of any consultation process. If any stakeholder felt that a consultation was not meaningful or fair they could challenge this in court.
Amendment 35 goes somewhat further than Amendment 36. It would require that any change to scheme regulations after the first set of regulations has been made should follow the higher standard of consultation and reporting requirements set out in Clause 22. As I have said previously, this would be simply impractical. Amendments to scheme regulations can be made for a wide range of reasons down to the most minor of changes. It cannot be right that the more extensive provisions in Clause 22 should apply to every circumstance. Very often these changes are to the benefit of members and I am sure that any delay in implementing such beneficial changes because of the legal requirement to carry out the kinds of consultation set out in Clause 22 would not be seen by members in a positive light. I hope that noble Lords can understand why such a blanket requirement would not be in anyone’s interest. The Government already are committed to proportionate levels of consultation on all scheme regulations, which is the appropriate and responsible course of action.
Amendment 35 would also change Clause 22 so that, instead of setting a high bar for changing the protected elements, it would be illegal to make any such change unless the members or their representatives consent. I fully understand the concerns of some members and their representatives around these issues but, again, such a blunt instrument does not seem to me to be a particularly sensible way forward.
The Government have committed themselves to the reformed schemes as they have been negotiated and they are even now working hard with members and their representatives to ensure that these are implemented by 2015. The Government believe that the deal which has been put in place is one which should stand for 25 years, perhaps longer. It is an arrangement which represents a good outcome for both individual members and the taxpayer. The provisions of this clause are intended to reflect that commitment. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would go far beyond that and would seek to bind all future Governments over the next 25 years in a way that this House does not tend to endorse.
None of us can foresee the future. I will reiterate again that the Government see no reason why these pensions should not still be fit for purpose in a quarter of a century from now. However, the responsible course of action is to ensure that, if any future Government were to take a different view, for whatever reason, strong but appropriate processes are put in place to protect scheme members and to scrutinise the rationale for any changes they might seek to make. But the protections must strike a fair balance between the interests of the taxpayer and members. The Government do not believe that this can be achieved by allowing members to veto any change to scheme design, contribution rates and benefits. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to move his amendment.
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
“( ) The consequential provision referred to in subsection (2)(b) includes consequential provision amending any primary legislation passed before or in the same session as this Act (as well as consequential provision amending any secondary legislation).”
Police Integrity
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about our work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, we are lucky in Britain to have the finest police officers in the world. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public. They are cutting crime even as we reduce police spending, and the vast majority of officers do their work with a strong sense of fairness and duty. But the good work of those thousands of officers is undermined when a minority behave inappropriately.
In the last year, we have seen the Leveson inquiry, which cleared the police of widespread corruption but called for greater transparency in policing, and the shocking report of the Hillsborough independent panel. We have seen the sacking of PC Simon Harwood and the investigation of several chief officers for misconduct, and yesterday I told the House about the investigation led by Mick Creedon into the work of undercover officers from the Metropolitan Police.
I want everyone to understand that I do not believe there is endemic corruption in the police, and I know that the vast majority of police officers conduct themselves with the highest standards of integrity. This was confirmed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in its report last year. But that does not mean that we should ignore the fact that when it does occur, police corruption and misconduct undermine justice, let down the decent majority of officers, and damage the public’s confidence in the police.
We need the police to become much more transparent in their business. We need clearer rules for how officers should conduct themselves. We need to open up the top ranks so that policing is less of a closed shop. We need to make sure that officers who do wrong are investigated and punished, and we need to make sure that the organisations that we ask to police the police are equipped to do the job.
Many of our existing police reforms address these challenges. The new College of Policing will improve the quality of police leadership and drive up standards. Police and crime commissioners are making the police more accountable to their communities. Direct entry into the senior ranks will open up the police to talented outsiders. HMIC is more independent of the police, and for the first time it is led by a non-policing figure.
These reforms will help but we also need to take further, specific measures to root out corruption and misconduct from the police. First, in line with the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson, national registers of chief officers’ pay and perks packages, gifts and hospitality, outside interests including second jobs, and their contact with the media will be published online.
Secondly, the college will publish a new code of ethics, which will be distributed to officers of all ranks. In addition, the college will work with chief officers to create a single set of professional standards on which officers will be trained and tested throughout their careers.
Thirdly, to prevent officers who lose their jobs as a result of misconduct being recruited by other forces, we will introduce, for the first time, a national register of officers struck off from the police. The list will be managed and published by the College of Policing.
Fourthly, to introduce a sanction for officers who resign or retire to avoid dismissal, hearings will be taken to their conclusion, notwithstanding the officer’s departure from the force. When misconduct is proven, these officers will also be struck off by the College of Policing.
Fifthly, the college will establish a stronger and more consistent system of vetting for police officers, which chief constables and police and crime commissioners will have to consider when making decisions about recruitment and promotions. Every candidate for chief officer rank will need to be successfully vetted before being accepted by the Police National Assessment Centre.
Sixthly, Lord Justice Leveson’s report made several recommendations on policing, focused on providing greater transparency and openness. The Government accept what has been recommended, and the College of Policing, ACPO and others have agreed to take forward the relevant work that falls to them. I will place details of the Government’s response to each of the Leveson report’s recommendations on policing in the Libraries of the House.
Finally, I want to make sure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is equipped to do its important job. Over the years, its work has been evolving and the proposals I announce today develop it further. Public concern about the IPCC has been based on its powers and its resources. I want to address both these issues.
Regarding its powers, last year Parliament legislated, with welcome cross-party support, to give the IPCC the ability to investigate historical cases in exceptional circumstances. In the same legislation, we gave the IPCC the power to compel police officers and staff to attend interviews as witnesses.
In addition, as I have already said, we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to give the IPCC the power to investigate private sector companies working for the police, along with other powers the IPCC has asked for to improve its effectiveness and increase public confidence, and I am prepared to consider any further legislative changes that the commission says it needs.
But I believe the main difficulty for the IPCC is its capacity to investigate complaints itself. Last year, the commission investigated just 130 of the 2,100 serious or sensitive cases that were referred to it independently, while supervising or managing about 200. Individual police forces investigated the remainder. But 31% of appeals against forces’ handling of complaints were successful. That is simply not acceptable. I will therefore transfer to the IPCC responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive allegations. I also intend to transfer resources from individual forces’ professional standards departments and other relevant areas to the IPCC to make sure it has the budget and the manpower to do its work.
The Government’s police reforms are working and crime is falling. Corruption and misconduct are thankfully the rare exception and not the norm in our police, but that does not mean that we should not act. I believe this is a comprehensive plan to address public concern about the integrity of the police”.
I commend this Statement to the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships’ House today. We certainly welcome the direction of travel on this issue, and many of the measures outlined are sensible in principle. Obviously, a lot of detail has yet to be revealed and I hope that we will have the opportunity to contribute to that debate in your Lordships’ House.
British policing has an enviable reputation across the world for low levels of corruption, high standards of integrity and our tradition of policing by consent. That is why, when there are cases where standards fall below the level that we expect, we are rightly appalled and action has to be taken to address that. On many occasions when I have asked police officers why they have joined the police, without exception all have very high on their list a very simple reason: to help people. The vast majority of police officers join the force to help the public and keep people safe from crime and harm, and they take great risks when doing so.
Most people, when they go out to work in the morning, know that they will never face a situation where their life could be at risk. However, in Greater Manchester, there is now the trial for the killing of two police officers who were shot down for answering a routine 999 call. Officers such as those and their colleagues know that this is a risk they face. Every day, police officers across the country face incidents and disturbances. They have to inform families if their loved ones have been injured or killed. They have to deal with some very unpleasant situations and they undertake those responsibilities with great integrity and without regard to their own safety.
However, police officers are deeply concerned about serious cases that undermine confidence in policing. The vast majority of police officers want action against officers who let down the force and the public. They also want action to improve standards. We must have robust and meaningful action to tackle those who have weakened public confidence and respect. The Minister mentioned some examples; others include hacking and the Hillsborough tragedy. It is clear that there are also problems with some undercover officers, and it is right that we address cases where policing has failed to protect the public or deliver justice. We must ensure that we have a framework in place to make such cases less likely and take effective action against those individuals involved.
In the light of that, many of the Home Secretary’s measures are sensible. We support the implementation of the Leveson recommendations. Your Lordships’ House made it clear that it wishes the rest of Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals to be implemented with similar speed. We support a code of ethics, stronger professional standards and stronger action when these are breached. The Stevens commission has taken evidence on issues around codes of ethics, national registers, the role of the College of Policing, and proposals for striking off police officers, and is likely to make new proposals in this area.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister some questions around this matter. I would appreciate his answering me today, but if he cannot it would be welcome if he wrote to me. Can he say any more about the professional register? My understanding from the Statement is that the new College of Policing will manage and publish the register and have a duty to ensure that those guilty of misconduct will not be allowed to work for any other police force. The Minister said that they will be “struck off”, but from what? There is currently no register of police officers from which they could be struck off. Will there be a new comprehensive register of police officers, or will there instead be a list of those who have been found guilty of misconduct or other offences? What criteria willbe used?
The Statement implies that this will apply only to officers facing disciplinary action leading to dismissal, and there may be other cases where it would be right for someone to be on the register. Given the welcome commitment that disciplinary action will continue, even after an officer retires or resigns, will the Minister confirm that such officers will still be included on any list? What is meant by “publish”? Does that mean that the list will be publicly available or available only to the police? The Minister will be aware that former police officers often find employment in private security work of varying kinds, including, I am sure, in G4S. Will the information also be available to prospective employers?
I have one further point on this issue. As I have said, it is welcome that disciplinary action will continue even if police officers resign or seek early retirement, and we have called for such action. However, the Minister said in the Statement that those officers will face sanctions if misconduct is proven. What will those sanctions be? Being placed on a list or struck off a register is hardly a sanction if the officers have already resigned or retired.
On the issue of vetting, the Statement says that the college will establish a stronger system of vetting but that chief constables and police and crime commissioners have only to “consider” this. It does not appear to be binding. Is that the case, or have I misunderstood? Although candidates for chief officers’ posts will be vetted, it is not clear by whom. Given that the Government’s Statement places on the College of Policing additional responsibilities beyond those previously proposed, is the Minister confident that it has the necessary resources to undertake this very important work? Unless it is 100% accurate, it will not be worth very much or be that effective.
We welcome the code of ethics. Can the Government confirm that the activities of undercover officers such as using the identities of deceased children should be addressed in such a code?
Although there is much to welcome in the Statement, we are disappointed by the proposals regarding the IPCC. The Minister will be aware that Yvette Cooper, the shadow Home Secretary, has argued for the past year that the IPCC has neither the powers nor the resources needed to be really effective. We remain concerned that it will struggle to produce a timely response to the Hillsborough tragedy, and there are countless cases where the IPCC has failed to investigate swiftly.
The problem is that the Home Secretary’s reforms, which are outlined today to the IPCC, seem to be incremental. We are not convinced that the Government are doing enough to give the IPCC the real powers that it needs, or to create a proactive rather than a reactive culture to deal with problems, so there is a concern that it will not do enough to restore public confidence in the IPCC to solve problems swiftly, to get justice, and to ensure that lessons are learnt when policing goes wrong.
I am still not clear—I listened very carefully and I read the Statement before it came to this House—about the additional resources that will be available to undertake the extra work. It appears that all serious and sensitive cases will be dealt with by the IPCC rather than by individual police forces. How will “serious and sensitive” be defined, and who will define it? What about initially low-level cases that are deemed not to be serious or sensitive but which, as the investigation progresses, are deemed to be serious and sensitive? Will they be transferred to IPCC? How much of the total police forces’ budget will be transferred to allow the IPCC to deal with all serious and sensitive cases? Will the Government commit to ensuring that the adequacy of funding is kept under review?
In the Police Reform Act, Ministers argued that more cases should be dealt with by individual forces rather than by the IPCC. As a result, my understanding is that under the Government’s policies the number of commissioners roughly halved. Can the Minister confirm that he considers that that was a mistake and that the Government will now be recruiting more commissioners? It is hard to imagine that with additional work and investigating all serious and sensitive cases, more staff will not be needed, but where will those staff be found? How many staff and how much financial resource do the Government envisage transferring from police forces to the IPCC, or will they recruit in other ways? Will there be any new money from the Government, or are the Government confident that the IPCC can be fully and adequately resourced by this transfer of funds?
My final question, the Minister will be pleased to know, is whether he can also confirm that the additional powers for the IPCC, announced by the Home Secretary, will be introduced in this Parliament.
We are concerned that this incremental reform is a lost opportunity to introduce a new, robust organisation with a new framework. Currently, the IPCC, the PCC, the police and crime panels and the College of Policing all have a role to play. One has to ask whether one strong organisation with the appropriate framework and powers would be more appropriate. I really feel that the Government should look again at replacing the IPCC altogether with a new police standards authority, and with a new and coherent framework of standards and accountability for the police.
We all want to see well motivated, professional police officers who are keen to do a good job and serve the public. We have a duty to the public to ensure that they can have confidence in the work of the police and that action will be taken when things go wrong. We also have a duty to ensure that police officers get the support that they need and have a proper framework of accountability to keep standards high. The Statement today is welcome and responds to many of the concerns that we have raised, for which we are grateful. However, we remain concerned that it does not go far enough and that it will not deliver the kind of protection and framework that the police and the public need.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her general welcome for this Statement. I know that in another place similar support was given to the Home Secretary’s Statement. This is good news. I shall start with the last point made by the noble Baroness, which was on rebranding. Do we want a new body? I do not think that is necessary. The IPCC has good leadership under Dame Anne Owers and it has a sense of direction, which is now supported by the Government through this Statement. Although I cannot anticipate what may be in future Queen’s Speeches, I am fairly confident that legislation on this matter will not be long delayed. Indeed the Statement drew attention to that.
The IPCC is currently engaged in a lot of extremely serious investigations. The Statement referred to them as probably lying at the heart of the realisation that we need to look afresh at how we investigate the police, and at what new framework we should establish. This is the Government’s response. We believe in beefing up not only the powers but the resources of the IPCC. The noble Baroness asked where those resources were coming from and whether there was any fresh government money. The Statement rightly said that they were coming from the existing budgets of police forces—certainly in the main that will be the case. However, the matter will be discussed with each police force.
A Statement such as this is clearly indicative rather than absolutist. Certainly we will debate the issues that it raises over the next few months. However, it is important, when the Government have something to say on an issue as important as this, that they demonstrate to the House, through the way they present the issues involved, their direction of travel. That was the purpose of the Statement today.
The noble Baroness asked a large number of questions. There was a radio programme called “20 Questions”. I did not count the noble Baroness’s but I felt that she asked a fair number. I will do my best to answer them, but she very kindly said that I might write to her. It might help if I wrote on some of these matters and put a copy in the Library of the House.
The noble Baroness asked how public the professional register would be. It will be a public document. It is intended that organisations such as the Security Industry Authority and private security firms will be able to take note of these matters. It will not be just for police officers to note who has been in effect deregistered from the police service as a result of misconduct.
The parallel organisation to the IPCC is the College of Policing. With its code of ethics, it will provide the framework in which the new sense of purpose about integrity can be addressed. The noble Baroness asked whether it would cover matters such as the identity of children. As she knows, that is being investigated by Chief Constable Creedon at the moment, and he will report on the full implications. That is just the sort of issue at which I expect a code of Essex—sorry, ethics—to look. I apologise for that slip of the tongue.
The noble Baroness also asked how one would define “serious” and “sensitive”. One tends to know what is serious and sensitive when it turns up. This will be about the relationship between the IPCC and individual police forces. Individual forces have just as great an interest in making sure that the public are supportive of them and perceive that the integrity of the police is based very locally within each police force.
I have a few further points to make. The list is designed to ensure that all those who are dismissed as a result of misconduct proceedings, or would have been dismissed had they remained in service, cannot find employment in another force. That is the principal purpose behind it. They are struck off from being a police officer in the future. We envisage that the list will be used by other employers—I have mentioned employers in the security industry—to consider whether or not to employ such dismissed officers.
I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her on the other questions which I have not addressed, and I hope that I have assisted the House in giving some sense of the thinking that lies behind the Statement.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, before the clerk starts the clock for Back-Bench contributions, in the interests of ensuring that as many noble Lords as wish to do so are able to contribute in the 20 minutes which now follow, perhaps I may remind the House that this is an opportunity to put brief questions.
Lord Condon
My Lords, I declare an interest in policing and the security services. The Government are to be congratulated and supported by all sides of the House on bringing forward this courageous package of measures because it is clearly in the public interest and in the interests of the service to ensure the highest levels of integrity in policing. While there may be concerns about other aspects of police reform, this package is clearly moving in the right direction. When the Minister places a letter in the Library of the House, will he consider including in it a response to just how and when resources will be transferred from individual police services to the IPCC to enable it to carry out its enhanced role? It is not clear at the moment whether only budgets are to be transferred or whether this will involve real, live investigators moving sideways on attachments, moving permanently, and so on. The House would welcome some fairly clear guidance on how this is to operate, but in the round, these proposals are courageous and are to be welcomed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, who speaks with considerable experience of these matters. I shall certainly do my best to respond promptly to his request for details of the transfer of resources and whether indeed that will involve more than cash and budgets, and will extend to resources. To some degree, the Statement is a starting point for a discussion with individual police forces and, indeed, with police and crime commissioners for they too are engaged in the governance of the police across the country; I hope that that dialogue will be productive. I am sure that noble Lords appreciate that this is considered to be an important development in the integrity of policing.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and I agree with the implicit message that transparency and integrity go hand in hand. I do not doubt that, when there is a problem, those who feel it most keenly are individual police officers who themselves have shown the utmost integrity. First, what consultation has been undertaken on these measures, not just with ACPO but with those who represent the lower ranks of the police service? Secondly, will any of these measures —I am thinking particularly of the registers of interests, gifts and so on—apply to civilian staff within police forces?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend has raised two very interesting aspects and I thank her for bringing them forward. The key thing about these proposals is that they will affect the professionalism of the police at all ranks so, as she rightly points out, they represent a development that I hope will be welcomed. They will be part and parcel of ongoing discussions that we are having as we seek to create a modern police force in this country—something that covers a whole load of matters and will now include this. We will make sure that that happens.
It is intended that those employed by the police in a civilian capacity will be subject to IPCC involvement, a matter that the IPCC itself has raised with us. I cannot say whether the register of gifts, or of contacts with the media, will be extended into that area but she makes a very interesting suggestion that it should do so.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister a question which my noble friend did not ask. The noble Lord started his Statement by referring to falling crime levels. The Minister will be aware that integrity and transparency are not simply about high-profile corruption cases or miscarriages of justice but about the way in which the police represent what is going on in relation to crime and their success in dealing with it. He will also be aware that, a couple of weeks ago, the Office for National Statistics seriously queried the rate at which crime is falling and suggested that some of the police forces’ figures,
“overstate the true rate at which crime has been falling”,
and that officers may have been failing to document some offences.
The Minister may also be aware that there are even more serious allegations around, some of which may well be aired in a meeting here tonight, that some of that underrecording is deliberate, whether as result of reduced resources in police forces or as a result of deliberate connivance or encouragement by senior police officers. If that is at all the case, there are serious issues of integrity that need to be addressed. I am not clear whether this new structure would be able to address such issues in the police force; they are basically administrative but have huge implications for the public’s and the body politic’s trust in what the police are telling us. In particular, can the Minister indicate whether the ONS suggestions are being pursued and whether, in future, they could be pursued through these new arrangements?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord raises a very serious issue. There was in fact a letter in my local paper only last week on this very point, and I get—gratis, I have to say—a copy of the New Statesman, where I think there was a similar article last week. I have certainly read an article in a journal recently implying the same thing.
Lord Whitty
The Minister is a more avid reader of the New Statesman than I am.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I must remind noble Lords that this is a Statement, not a debate.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is of course very important to keep oneself well informed, even if it is just to inform one of where people are going wrong. This issue is a very serious one. I do not think there is any dispute about the fact that crime figures are falling. There are matters of definition, which I think it is going to be in everyone’s interests to get tidied up, but the allegation that these figures are being manipulated is a very serious one. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the meeting which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is not in his place at the moment, has called for this evening. I would like to have gone to it but I am on duty in the Chamber. However, I have asked an official to attend because it is very important that the Home Office follows these arguments and listens to what is being said.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, as one who was privileged, 45 years ago, to be Police Minister in the other place, I suggest that the situation which now obtains in relation to the police is not all that dissimilar to that which existed in the early 1960s. The Government of the day, a Conservative Government, set up the royal commission under Sir Henry Willink because they were convinced that only an inquiry that was wholly independent of government could have the chance of replacing the police in that position of trust and distinction which they had traditionally occupied in the community. I respectfully ask the Minister to consider deeply whether that precedent should not now be followed in the circumstances prevailing.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot accept the noble Lord’s suggestion that there is equivalence between the two situations, but I am certain that the restoration of good practice within communities is a very local matter. That is why the focus of the Statement is on the engagement of individual forces and the maintenance of professional standards throughout the police force from top to bottom. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I am not prepared to go quite as far as he would suggest.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on something said by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Is it not the case that senior officials in Whitehall and others who need access to highly sensitive, classified information undergo a process called positive vetting? Does this apply to senior police officers and, if not, why not?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is intended that an enhanced vetting process will apply to all senior appointments within the police force. All police recruits should be vetted at the point of recruitment, but the vetting process for senior posts within the police will be enhanced.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, as one who was a member of the former Police Complaints Authority who now serves on the small review group looking at serious cases for the IPCC, I welcome what the Minister has just announced. Perhaps I may ask him two questions. The first relates to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, about the implications of a transfer of resources from local areas to the IPCC. Has the Minister worked out the figures that we are talking about, bearing in mind that the cuts that have been imposed on police forces are causing serious problems in local areas? Has he worked out what the implications of the transfer might be, because many lower level cases are best dealt with at the point at which they occur; that is, in the local area. Secondly, the Minister mentioned the powers that are required by the IPCC and said that we can expect legislation. Will he consult not only the IPCC but the many other relevant organisations which have repeatedly raised concerns about the existing powers of the IPCC? What will he do to ensure that their views are taken into account before the legislation is formed?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
On the noble Lord’s latter point, if there is to be legislation, there will have to be a period during which Parliament and the wider public will be engaged in considering what might be in it. On resources, the Home Secretary will write to the IPCC, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, PCCs and the college itself to seek detailed proposals on how the transfer of resources might take place and over what period. I think that will help the noble Lord, Lord Condon, in his question to me. This is a matter of consensuality. I think that there is sufficient consensus within the police service to enable this to be done on a consensual basis, recognising that integrity in policing is holistic and not specific to one particular force.
Lord Deben
Can my noble friend confirm that there was a point at the turn of the century when in police education the phrase “leadership training” was changed to “management training”? If that is so, can he assure the House that that will be reversed and the lesson will be learnt that leadership is crucial in an effective police force?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend quite rightly recognises that we have been through a process where management has been seen as being the most important ingredient for success. Indeed, management is important, but in policing—and many other services—leadership is vital because of how those who command inspire those who work with them. The College of Policing is based on developing exactly that set of skills and indeed a professional ethos within the police force and reinforcing that professionalism.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the Statement, particularly the fact that the IPCC will now investigate all serious offences. For too long, we have had the ridiculous situation of the police investigating themselves, so this is a very welcome move indeed. I also welcome the other changes that the Minister has outlined.
However, there is another problem that needs to be addressed: the issue of police officers with a criminal conviction being allowed to remain as serving police officers. I have looked at this issue over the years, most recently in January 2012. I was looking at it in respect of the Metropolitan Police but I suspect that in other police forces the pattern is similar. I was absolutely shocked to find that there were 400 serving Metropolitan Police officers who had had a criminal conviction, a caution or a penalty note for disorder. Fifty-five of these were for offences of violence—of which 30 were for assault, ranging from battery through to actual bodily harm—and 22 for offences involving dishonesty.
All sorts of issues come out of this. For example, can it be right that serving police officers who have a conviction for violence are able to volunteer to be trained to use firearms or tasers? Can it be right that police officers who have a conviction for dishonesty can then appear in court? It seems inconceivable that police officers with serious criminal convictions should be allowed to serve. I urge the Government to look at this as a matter of urgency.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am equally shocked by the figures that my noble friend Lady Doocey has evidenced. We had the case of Simon Harwood, which I think made everyone aware that it was possible for people to resign from one force and sign on with another. This is designed to make that much more difficult. Indeed, as I have said, the vetting of constable appointments will make it very much more difficult, and that will address the concerns that my noble friend has expressed.
Public Service Pensions Bill
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, I will start with government Amendments 10 and 11, which would require equal numbers of employer and member representatives to be appointed to each pension board in the public service pension schemes.
The noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Sharkey, previously argued for an amendment that would have required one-third of pension board appointees to be member representatives. Their amendments essentially sought to create parity with requirements that apply to trust-based occupational pension schemes.
During Committee, I explained why simply importing those requirements was in our view inappropriate, but we accept the principle that employees should be properly represented, so, for the public schemes, we propose that there should be equal representation. That would mean that there will always be equal representation of employer and employee interests, regardless of the number of participating employers in a scheme. Given that public service pension boards will not have a role in setting the scheme regulations, there is no need to engineer a balance that favours either group.
The amendments would not prevent schemes appointing other types of board member. We anticipate that schemes will want to include scheme manager representatives, independent board members and other interests. It is of course right that other legitimate interests can be included alongside the core of employer and member representatives. We believe that our approach offers a fairer and better way to ensure that members’ interests are represented in the public schemes.
The other amendments in the group are straightforward clarifications and corrections. Amendment 9 would reinforce the appropriate reading of the Bill. As we know, there will be multiple scheme managers in the locally administered fire, police and local government pension schemes. The amendment makes it clearer that each of them shall have a pension board.
Amendments 12 and 13 are minor and technical corrections to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. Amendment 12 ensures that a scheme advisory board can be given a role in advising the scheme managers and pension boards in any public scheme that is administered by more than one scheme manager. The previous drafting inadvertently and incorrectly prevented a scheme advisory board being given such a role in the police scheme. The amendment corrects that.
Amendment 13 responds to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, in Committee, by adjusting the provisions that prevent a person with a conflict of interest being appointed to the scheme advisory board. The change means that mere membership of either the pension scheme or a connected scheme does not constitute a conflict of interest. The amendment would mean that the conflict of interest provisions in this clause exactly mirror those already in Clause 5. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, we on this side welcome the amendments. The Minister gave a commitment to the House which we are pleased has been honoured. We recognise that significant movement has been made by the Government in relation to governance and pension boards. In particular, we applaud what the Minister said about equal representation on pension boards. To have employees on such pension boards is a very welcome development.
Perhaps it is a small matter, but the Minister referred to the amendment dealing with conflict of interest. It is particularly gratifying to see that a small matter which might have been seen as an obstacle to equal representation on the pension board has been removed by careful drafting.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendments 9, 10 and 11. I raised the issue of member representation on pension boards at Second Reading, and in Committee, as the Minister said, I tabled an amendment that would have required one-third of members of pension boards to be members of the underlying scheme. I was grateful then for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for the amendment.
With the amendments now before us, I think that the Government have taken a realistic and fair view of member representation. The equality of employer and employee representatives on pension boards is an entirely satisfactory resolution to the problems that we outlined earlier. In fact, I think that the amendments provide a better solution than those proposed previously here and in the Commons. Equality of representation is very simple and clear and completely unambiguous. I know that my noble friend has been instrumental in securing the amendments, along with my right honourable friend Danny Alexander, and I pay tribute to their efforts and thank the Government for proposing the amendments.
Lord Newby
“(c) requiring the board to include employer representatives and member representatives in equal numbers.”
“( ) In subsection (4)(c)—
(a) “employer representatives” means persons appointed to the board for the purpose of representing employers for the scheme and any connected scheme;(b) “member representatives” means persons appointed to the board for the purpose of representing members of the scheme and any connected scheme.”
Lord Newby
Lord Eatwell
“(3A) A scheme under section 1 which replaces a defined benefit scheme may only be established as a defined benefits scheme.”
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, this amendment, which is a reprise of something that we debated in Committee, derives from a peculiarity of the process through which this Bill has gone, in that many of the measures in the Bill derive from negotiation between the trades unions, other interested parties and the Government. Having reached agreement, the Government’s side seems to appear in the Bill but the assurances given to the other side in the negotiations do not. What we have instead is simply a continuous series of government assurances.
This amendment requires that a defined benefit scheme should be replaced with a defined benefit scheme. This reinforces the Government’s oft-repeated commitment to maintaining the defined benefit structure once the definition of the defined benefit has been changed, in the way that was proposed by my noble friend Lord Hutton. However, Clause 8 still provides that any scheme, once closed, can be replaced by,
“a scheme of any other description”.
Those are the exact words. As I said just now, the Government have continuously sought to give assurance that they would not replace a defined benefit scheme by anything other than a new defined benefit scheme but they have proved peculiarly reluctant to place such a condition in the Bill. This persistent reluctance is becoming quite disturbing and is significantly undermining the confidence of pension scheme members that their rights are going to be protected in the ways that have been suggested.
As I pointed out in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, further undermined the confidence of members when he said on 19 December that,
“although the Government have absolutely no intention to change the basis of the schemes, it makes sense for a piece of legislation, which we hope has a long life itself, to allow flexibility in the future if there are unforeseen changes”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. 1585.]
Therefore, the Government are making a commitment: they continuously assure members that they will replace defined benefit schemes only with newly constructed defined benefit schemes—but, on the other hand, perhaps unforeseen circumstances mean that they will not.
I feel it is appropriate that the Government keep their side of the deal, which was that the defined benefit schemes would move from a final salary scheme to a salary-averaging scheme, which was a deterioration in the future pension benefits available to scheme members. They accepted that because the other side of the deal was that the Government said that they would commit not to move away from defined benefits. The Minister really has to tell us why the Government are so reluctant to keep their side of the deal. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, this is indeed a reprise of a debate which we had in Committee. I believe that the Government have been extremely clear about their position on this issue throughout the legislative process, both here and in another place. Let me explain again why we remain unmoved. At the risk of stating the obvious, the Government have no desire or intention to replace the defined benefit schemes that have been negotiated. Officials, employers and member representatives have worked extremely hard to agree scheme designs that meet the needs of the different workforces and which are fair and affordable.
We believe that the new schemes are fit for purpose. Everyone is now working to implement these schemes from April 2015 for most workforces, but earlier than that in some cases. Draft regulations for the Civil Service scheme have been shared with the House, while the local government scheme in England and Wales has gone out to informal consultation on its own draft regulations.
While each set of regulations remains a work in progress, there can be no doubt that they would establish a defined benefit scheme of the agreed career average design. So when the Government say that we have no other intention than to create defined benefit schemes, those are not mere words—we are putting them into practice. The Government say that we have no intention of replacing defined benefit schemes with other designs, and that intention is underpinned clearly in the Bill by Clause 22.
The extent to which a scheme is a CARE scheme is explicitly one of the protected elements in the clause. That means that for a full 25 years—26 years in some schemes—the defined benefit design could not be easily changed. To do so, the responsible authority would have to consult on the proposed changes with all those affected,
“with a view to reaching agreement”.
That is a higher standard of consultation than in most other statutory consultations. The authority must do more than seek out and consider the views of interested parties; it must engage with them, with the aim of reaching agreement with them. In addition, the authorities must present a case to Parliament, or the devolved legislature, for changing the scheme design from career average, notwithstanding an explicit presumption written into the Bill that it would not be desirable to change the design before 2040.
There is no ambiguity here. Noble Lords and scheme managers can be fully reassured of our commitment to a defined benefit arrangement. It would be misleading and unnecessarily alarmist to imply anything to the contrary. So I say again: there is no prospect of the Government wanting to replace the defined benefit schemes that we are working so hard to develop, and I believe that that is the position of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, also. The noble Lord may say, as he has in the past, that Governments come and go, but the status of the new defined benefit schemes will be protected by the Bill. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Eatwell
That was an intriguing reply. The usual reply in circumstances where the Government feel that they have covered all bases is that an amendment is unnecessary, but the Minister did not feel that he could say that. It is striking that, despite his variety of assurances, a simple statement is unacceptable. However, under the circumstances, I will take this away and think about it further. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, this amendment relates to revaluation. Clause 9 appears to allow the Treasury to change yet again the basis of revaluation, this time away from the CPI to something else. We discussed this in Committee and various assurances were given in that respect, although they are not as yet reflected in the Bill. However, no reassurances were given—indeed, the Minister was less than his usual emollient self—in relation to the provision in the Bill that in effect allows for negative revaluation in the light of changes in the CPI. That means that the Treasury can on the one hand amend the index and on the other impose a decrease in the accrued pension without any consultation with those affected, and in a way that, in the case of the LGPS, seriously undermines not only long-established practice but the recent agreement between the LGA and the trade unions.
I have looked at the history of the LGPS over the past 30 years, although it has actually run for a longer period than that, and there was only one point at which the relative index, at that point the RPI, actually fell at the point at which it was evaluated, and that was from September 2009 to the 2010 increase.
There were no precedents at that time. We had to refer back to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, which allows for increases but does not allow for decreases. The interpretation at that time was that that Act did not permit a decrease, so the 2010 adjustment was, in effect, zero. That is one aspect.
The other aspect of having the potential for a negative adjustment in revaluation is that it is inconsistent between those who are already receiving pensions or who are entitled to deferred benefits and are therefore governed by the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, in which case their benefits would not be reduced, and active members who are still contributing to the scheme and who would, at precisely the same time when a negative revaluation could be made under this clause, see their benefits go down. We would therefore be treating active members disfavourably compared with members who have left the scheme or are already drawing their pension.
I am grateful for the assurances on the continuation of the CPI, but the fact is that the sudden and unexpected replacement of long-established RPI by the CPI has left a legacy of distrust in the schemes. Part of that is that if the CPI, as is expected, performs, if that is the word, less substantially than the RPI, there is a greater likelihood or possibility of a negative figure. The recent agreement between the LGA and the trade unions made it clear that past practice would continue to operate, and that if there were a negative change in the index there would be a nil adjustment. The implication of this clause is that it is attempting to override that commitment and agreement, which I think the Minister, and certainly some of his predecessors, would accept got the Government out of a very difficult position on pension reform in general and the LGPS in particular. Therefore, unravelling that aspect of the agreement—there are other amendments I will come to with a similar effect—is not helpful.
Amendment 15 would stipulate precisely what is already past practice and in the agreement: namely, that if there is a negative movement in the index, there will be a nil adjustment. I think the Government should accept the amendment. I appreciate the strong words of the Minister last time that the Government are not prepared so to do, despite the anomalies and distrust it would create. There are alternative amendments on this in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Eatwell. Perhaps the Government could at least show their good will by accepting that if there were a negative increase, it would have to be subject to the affirmative procedure as provided for in my noble friend’s amendment, which no doubt he will speak to more ably than me shortly.
If the Government do not move at all, we are in some serious difficulty. It is causing considerable upset among employers, among those who have to engage in the new cost-management process within the Local Government Pension Scheme, among the unions and among the members of that scheme. The Minister could assuage those anxieties easily tonight by accepting my amendment or, in default of that, my noble friend’s amendment. It would be wrong for the Government to reject both. We would be on some sort of collusion course, whereas in general the LGPS and the arrangements for it from 2014 are done and dusted in a way that frankly was probably beyond the Government’s dreams only a year or so ago. I think that would be most unfortunate not only for the members of and employers in the scheme but for the Government and for future relations. I genuinely hope that the Government can move on this issue tonight. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I fully support the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Whitty, particularly on the complications that would arise with respect to the Local Government Pension Scheme. The amendment in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson refers to the general proposition in Clause 9(3) that,
“the Treasury may determine the change in prices or earnings in any period by reference to the general level of prices or earnings estimated in such manner as the Treasury consider appropriate”.
The Treasury has a completely free hand to determine the change in prices or earnings to be applied to the structure of the pension scheme. It seems to us on this side that this is really a step too far, so we have proposed that it should be subject not to a negative Commons procedure but to the affirmative procedure so that there can be a truly substantive debate on any particular proposal that might be unreasonable.
In Committee the Minister said:
“Any attempt to exercise this discretion in such a way that did not produce accurate and appropriate estimates”—
I must say as an economist that there is no such thing; there are estimates, but “accurate and appropriate” is something different—
“with reference to a reasonable index of prices or earnings”—
there is no such thing as that either—
“could be challenged by scheme members. Any decision which is not reasonable”—
that is fine—
“even without this amendment … could be challenged by judicial review and struck down by the High Court”.—[Official Report, 15/1/13; col. 608.]
What a cumbersome procedure. The affirmative procedure may be seen as taking somewhat more time and requiring more effort than the negative procedure, but how much better than saying, “Well, if this goes wrong, you’ve got to take it to the High Court”? That really is truly unsatisfactory.
Introducing this very minor amendment will provide an environment for the discussion of changes in the chosen index that can be deemed to be reasonable and to have the confidence of members of the schemes. I feel that this approach, perhaps allied with that suggested by my noble friend, would provide the confidence in the process of revaluation that from time to time can be enormously important in maintaining standards of living, particularly of more elderly pensioners.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as we are debating a group that started with an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I shall take this opportunity to answer the question he asked me earlier about whether the administering authority or the employing authority would determine whether an effect is significant. I am extremely pleased that I did not try to reply at the time because the answer is neither. It will be the “responsible authority”, because that is the authority that will be making the scheme regulations. In the local authority scheme, it would be not the employer but the Secretary of State. I hope that answers that question.
We have debated the amendments in this group before, so I shall try to be relatively brief in explaining why I do not believe it would be fair to restrict the revaluation of accruals from directly tracking growth, including when it is negative. Even though negative changes in prices or earnings are exceptionally rare, the Government firmly believe that if there is no revaluation ceiling, it would be unfair to have a revaluation floor to the benefit of members.
This is the sort of unbalanced risk-sharing between members and the taxpayer that the measures in this Bill seek to remove. The report by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, specifically criticised this “asymmetric sharing of risk”. In addition, such a revaluation floor could lead to the cost cap being breached, to the detriment of future members who simply end up paying for past members’ accruals growing faster than the scheme revaluation rate. For those reasons, I will not be able to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
I am also unable to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which would make the annual Treasury revaluation order affirmative rather than negative. As we have said before, this would not be an efficient use of parliamentary time and would be counter to the long-standing convention with other public service pension indexation. The order will be a run of the mill piece of legislation, and it would be incongruous for it to be subject to the affirmative procedure in each and every year.
However, I hope that I can go some way to meeting noble Lords’ concerns. In the years when the values in the order are negative, there will be a strong expectation that the Government of the day should ensure that there is a full parliamentary debate on the changes, not least because they would be so rare. Perhaps we can go further than that general statement and look at whether to require the affirmative procedure when, as unlikely as these events will be, the order sets out a negative figure. It seems that this would strike the appropriate balance between parliamentary scrutiny and sensible regulation-making.
I would therefore be willing, if the noble Lords were able not to press their amendments, to take this away to consider it further, with a view to returning to the matter at Third Reading with an amendment that would require any annual order to come before the House for affirmative procedure if the CPI index slipped into negative territory. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for at least part of that response. I also thank him for the clarification of “authority”, although it alarmed me somewhat more than I thought it would. The only more alarming thing would have been if he had said that it was the Treasury. It is clearly not within the bounds of the scheme to assess it, so my noble friend’s point in a previous debate is rather more valid than I was hoping it was. We will perhaps return to that at a later stage, at least informally.
On the amendments in this group, I read the Hutton report fairly thoroughly at the time. I do not recall the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, advocating that we should have negative adjustment. Clearly there is a balance of risk, which is reflected in the changes to the substance of the scheme that has been proposed by the Government and, in the case of the LGPS, has been accepted in the negotiations between the employers and unions. If the noble Lord seeks further rebalancing of the risk over and above what is already reflected in a scheme, which, I remind him, has been endorsed by the sponsoring department and, however grudgingly, by the Treasury, that reopens a can of worms.
Were I in the Minister’s shoes, which thank the Lord I am not, I would probably have said, “I will not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but I will accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell”. In that case, I would clearly have deferred to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and I and the rest of us could go home reasonably satisfied. As it is, the Minister on the one hand has said explicitly that he is going to reject that amendment, but on the other has described a process that did not seem a million miles from my noble friend’s advocacy of the affirmative procedure.
The Minister said that if there is a negative movement in the index, Parliament should have a full and thorough debate, having a couple of paragraphs earlier said that it was run of the mill legislation. It is clearly not run of the mill if it has not happened for 30 years. That full and thorough debate would normally be accompanied by an affirmative procedure, or something very like it. I am therefore not feeling quite so negative towards the Minister as I thought I would at the beginning of his remarks. He has said that he will go away and look at this. I think that if he looks at it carefully, he will come back and accept, or propose something equivalent to, my noble friend Lord Eatwell’s proposition. In that case, although I will not be completely satisfied, it gives a serious safeguard for the members of these schemes, and for the coherent administration of and trust in them, which are so important to tens of thousands of local authority workers and dozens of local authority employees.
I do not regard the Minister’s reply as satisfactory, but rather than press my amendment to the vote or encourage my noble friend so to do, we have to grab hold of the Minister’s offer of further consideration and see what he comes up with at this rather late stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, an important consideration now faces him. I am grateful for his commitment thus far, and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment on that understanding.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Clause 10 imposes a normal pension age of 60 on firefighters as well as on police and members of the Armed Forces. My amendment would build some flexibility into that but does not rule out 60 in respect of firefighters.
The Government, under the previous Fire Minister in the other place, set up a review, chaired by Dr Tony Williams. It published its report in January, just a couple of weeks ago. I think it is at best odd, and perhaps even outrageous, that the Government are pressing ahead here and are not taking the review properly into account. The report does not recommend a normal pension age of 60; nor does it make the case for firefighters working to 60. The review was set up to assess the appropriate normal pension age. Nowhere in the review does it say that 60 is appropriate. At most, the review’s recommendations establish a set of conditions —such as national firefighter fitness standards, fitness entry standards at recruitment, fitness training throughout careers, and an accepted testing regime—that would have to be met before working to 60 was possible.
The report provides medical evidence that working beyond 55 is not attainable by most current firefighters. Between half and two-thirds of current firefighters would not be fit enough to work beyond 55. Other figures in the report suggest that more like four out of five firefighters would not be fit enough to work beyond 55. The Government seem intent on imposing a national pension age of 60 despite the medical evidence against that. I hope that in his response today the Minister will explain fully why that is the case.
A national pension age of 60 will hugely disrupt the fire and rescue services. There is also a danger that it will not only discriminate against women but will drive out most women firefighters, undermining decades of equality work. A national pension age of 60 will not just remove the link to the occupational nature of the pension scheme; it will also risk making it unsustainable. With higher contributions, it will take a drop-out rate of only 7% to do so.
The Williams report recommended that firefighters over the age of 55 who can no longer meet the fitness requirement should be allowed to leave early on an actuarially reduced pension, calculated so there is no overall financial advantage or disadvantage to the firefighter. This means that most firefighters will get a reduced pension because the national pension age is wrong.
I want to move on to make some remarks about fitness. Aerobic fitness, one of the core components of fitness—along with anaerobic/high-intensity fitness and strength—is often measured using the rates of oxygen uptake, or VO2. The Williams report suggests that at least 42 VO2 is necessary for firefighting. This is the level recommended by experts in the field and is the level that the majority of fire services are using today. The report admits that at 50 to 54 years of age, 51% of firefighters are below the figure of 42 VO2. At the age of 55 to 60, that rises to 66%: two-thirds of firefighters are below that standard. The report suggests that if 42 is the standard, then by 60 years of age up to 92% of present firefighters could be below the minimum standard for operational duty. To push ahead with this is risky and dangerous.
The report suggests that, even in a best case scenario, where firefighters maintain their physical activity status, their body mass index and their smoking status as they age, at 55 years of age approximately 15% of firefighters would be below the minimum standard required for operational duty. By 60 years of age, this percentage would rise to 23%. However, this best case scenario model uses a higher entry standard than the one currently in force. It assumes that firefighters are recruited at 47 VO2, whereas actually the recruitment standard is much lower at 42. This means that the best case scenario is flawed as it assumes a much higher fitness level on recruitment than is in fact the case.
Will the noble Lord spell out clearly what kind of fitness regime and lifestyle changes will be necessary to meet this best case scenario? Most firefighters are likely to do fitness training at work of at least 30 minutes per shift; some do up to four hours a week. Does the noble Lord accept that what may be possible in the future, with new recruits and different standards, is fundamentally different from expecting people now in service to reach these service levels at ages between 55 and 60? It is risky and dangerous. If the noble Lord is not prepared to accept the amendment, can he tell the House why? The amendment commits the Government to do nothing other than accept that the national pension age must be set in scheme regulations and must be no more than 60. It allows for further discussions to take place, and if the Government are not persuaded, they can set the level at 60.
I had a meeting with the noble Lord. He very kindly met me and representatives of the Fire Brigades Union and I thank him very much for that. It was a very useful meeting and people put their case across very well. I appreciate that he did that. I hope that the Government will come back today with something positive.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I think that probably all noble Lords have had a most interesting letter from the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union setting out the union’s case on this matter. I do not know whether I read it wrong, but I got the impression from the letter that there are safeguards to protect those who are approaching retirement age at the present time and that the issue arises much more for firefighters who are now 40 to 45. In those cases, when it is recognised that people are going to live longer and when the pension age may rise to 67 or higher, it seems that we are going to be looking for a different standard of fitness. It is quite difficult to argue in your Lordships’ House that nobody is fit any longer at 55.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I think the noble Lord is absolutely right that there is a difference in fitness. That is the problem. A regime could be put in place for people when they first come as recruits. By accepting my amendment, the Government could set the age in scheme regulations, whereas at the moment the age would normally be 60. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, there are also in this group a pair of amendments in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson, both of which seek to add flexibility and that famous characteristic, future-proofing, to the Bill. It is a laudable objective of the Government to have a common movement—a standard process—that can be seen as fair and generally acceptable across the entire structure of public service pensions. However, it is an objective which will, inevitably, from time to time, run up against reality. We have already seen it run up against reality in the case of the uniformed services, which we discussed earlier. It could also run up against reality in a whole series of other circumstances where the best would be the enemy of the good. In other words, the commitment to uniformity would produce elements of unfairness and, perhaps, elements of unsatisfactory performance because individuals were staying in employment longer than they ought to in some circumstances.
We need a degree of flexibility and Amendment 19 relates flexibility to a scheme-specific capability review. These reviews are now becoming quite common within public services, as they already are in private industry. They are designed in some circumstances to relate to the capabilities of individuals with respect to age. If there were to be a thorough review which a Government at the time accepted, this amendment would give the Government the flexibility to amend the pension ages set out in Clause 10(1) and (2). This would provide a degree of flexibility and that is all it is intended to do.
I questioned the noble Lord in Committee about a number of reviews that are currently under way. He pointed out to me that those reviews were not considering issues of pension age and I accept that entirely. However, this does not mean that considering pension age relative to capability will not occur or is not likely to occur. On the contrary, it is highly likely to occur over the next 10 years or so. Amendment 19, therefore, provides the Government with the necessary flexibility to respond to scheme-specific capability reviews.
Amendment 20 would incorporate into the Bill a proposition directly taken from my noble friend Lord Hutton’s excellent report. He argued at the time that the relationship between the state pension age, which is the sort of anchor of the whole structure, and the structure of pension ages in the public sector should be reviewed from time to time. This amendment incorporates my noble friend’s proposition.
In Committee, the Minister said:
“The DWP White Paper published yesterday says that we intend to hold a review every five years, so the link will be reviewed when a review is announced”.—[Official Report, 15/1/2013; col. 621.]
He got a bit muddled there but we know what he meant. That is fine, but could he tell us what is going to happen to this DWP White Paper? Is it the forerunner of some legislation? If so, when will that legislative proposition appear? Would it not be comfortable, given the structure of this Bill, to include Amendment 20, taken from the Hutton report, to achieve the goal he declares to be the Government’s goal, as set out in that DWP document?
I entirely understand the commitment to having a standardised, clear, comprehensible system, but there will always be anomalies which have to be appropriately addressed. I believe that these two amendments provide flexibility and would ensure that the Government could do exactly that.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I support Amendments 19 and 20, which aim to ensure greater flexibility in the Bill with respect to pension age. Clause 9, as we have heard, links normal pension age for public sector pensions to the state pension age, with the notable exception of firefighters, police and the Armed Forces. There is a strong case for other sections of the workforce being kept under review, as proposed in these amendments. In the NHS, a review is already under way—the working longer review—of the planned increase in the normal pension age for staff in the NHS pension scheme to 68. It is being undertaken jointly by the Government, employers and health unions.
The BMA, of which I am president, strongly believes that this review should be able to make genuinely evidence-based recommendations, which should cover any—and, if so, which—front-line NHS staff who have roles that are particularly physically, mentally and/or emotionally demanding and, therefore, should have their normal pension age capped at a lower age. The review was a key component of the scheme’s specific discussions between the Government and trade unions. However, these discussions appear to have been sidelined by Clause 9.
The principle is now established that not everyone should be linked to the state pension age. The list of occupations exempted from the Bill could lead to the curious situation whereby someone within those exempted occupations could have a less physically demanding role and would be protected, whereas someone who works in front-line clinical care—perhaps in the intensive care unit—is not protected because the NHS pension scheme is not included.
In a hospital setting, for example, there is pressure to deliver 24/7 care and it does not seem fair to protect one group completely on the basis of their occupational status, yet ignore the potential needs of another group. Many front-line NHS staff are engaged in very demanding work. I hope that the Bill can be amended to allow some flexibility. Amendment 19 would allow for further categories of workers to be exempt from the state pension age link if a scheme capability review found it appropriate. I hope that the Government will support it.
In the final report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, recommendation 11 states that,
“the link between the State Pension Age and Normal Pension Age should be regularly reviewed, to make sure it is still appropriate”.
As written, the Bill does not seem to allow for that. Therefore, I hope that Amendment 20 also will be supported to make this explicit in the Bill.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as regards Amendment 18, we are aware of, and greatly respect, the hard work done by the police, firefighters and the Armed Forces. But the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, was clear that the normal pension age for these schemes should be equal to 60, subject to regular review. As we know, this fixed age is already significantly different from the position for all other public service workers. A pension age of 60 for police and firefighters is in line with the reforms implemented by the previous Administration. We are not, and nor should we be, in the business of reducing pension ages given the longevity challenges we face. To do so would go against all that the Bill is designed to achieve.
We already have made a commitment to review these provisions as and when future changes to the state pension age are announced. Those reviews will be separate from the state pension age reviews to ensure that the specific impacts on public service schemes are taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked about where we would legislate for the DWP White Paper more generally. We will legislate separately for that. Obviously, it is not appropriate to do that in this Bill. It is a much wider issue and we will deal with the question of reviews in the context of the rest of the White Paper.
I firmly believe that the drafting of the Bill is correct on this issue and that the pension age provisions, including the link to state pension age for other schemes, are rightly the cornerstone of the legislation. It is also worth remembering that setting a normal pension age of 60 does not prevent people retiring before 60 if they wish. Early retirement factors can be taken within the scheme rules and added pension can be bought. Both of those allow for more flexibility over when people can access their pension. All three schemes captured by this amendment already allow people to take benefits from the age of 55 if they wish.
However, I will attempt to respond briefly to the points raised concerning the firefighters and the review by Dr Williams, about which the noble Lord spoke. I should start by making it clear that it is not the case that the review found evidence that a very large proportion of firefighters would not be fit enough to work to 60. The report finds that the average serving firefighter is already beyond the required fitness levels at the age of 35 to maintain operational fitness until the age of 60, if those individuals maintain their physical activity levels and BMI.
In our meeting, I discussed with the union that there is an argument for more structured and formal procedures to be in place to help people keep fit. People may spend time on physical activity but quite a lot of it might generously be called pretty informal. Getting a more formal and rigorous fitness regime in place, which would help individuals more generally as well as in their ability to work to the age of 60, falls outside the scope of the Bill and is something that the FBU no doubt will want to discuss further with its employers.
The report projects that in circumstances where people maintain their physical activity levels and BMI, individuals could maintain operational fitness in many cases until their mid-60s. We simply do not believe that it is necessary to make an amendment which enables a lower pension age than 60 for members of the firefighters’ scheme, or for the police and Armed Forces schemes.
The difference from Amendment 19 is that it would allow for exemptions to any of the normal pension age provisions currently set out, should a capability review make such a recommendation. We are not talking about just the police, firefighters and Armed Forces but all other public servants who will have their normal pension age linked to the state pension age.
I should briefly remind the House of the reason for the state pension age link in the first place. To get a grip on public finances, we were faced with a choice. We could either significantly reduce the value of scheme benefits or ask people to work slightly longer before they can receive their pension. We decided that the latter approach is best. Scheme benefits will be marginally less generous in the new schemes but only by a small amount. Instead, we are asking people to wait until their state pension age before becoming eligible for their pension. We think that this is preferable to significantly reducing benefits and increasing hard-working public servants’ reliance on means-tested benefits in their retirement.
We should remember what this state pension age link really means. For those retiring in the near future, it means waiting until the age of 66. When people talk about waiting until 67 or 68 and beyond, they are talking about several decades’ time from now. We are not talking about extending people’s working lives overnight. Instead, we have a lot of time to assess how best to adapt to extended longevity and how to ensure that employers provide the right working conditions to allow people to work up to the state pension age. That is why the NHS working longer review—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, referred—is so important.
I think everyone recognises—I made this point in Committee—that it is not just in the public sector that there are a range of occupations which people cannot do as well at the age of 67 as they can at 27. It is a challenge across society to find methods of working which reflect that so that people can carry on working to a later retirement age without being faced with undue stress during their latter years. The review is looking not at the link with retirement age but at how best to deliver NHS services with a workforce who is living longer. I am sure that other workforces in the public sector will need to follow the lead of the NHS in looking at how they can achieve that.
What we should not do is seek to make exceptions to the state pension age link. As I have outlined, the link has very little effect in the short to medium term, but it is a crucial part of the solution to the long-term problem. While we should not dig our heads in the sand, there comes a time when it is best to accept the reality of the situation: people are living longer and the public service workforce must and will adapt to that. The previous Administration recognised that when they asked all public servants—barring those whom we have identified—to work to the age of 65. We are simply future-proofing that approach by tracking the state pension age as it moves beyond 65. If we do not face up to the challenge of increases in longevity now, we would only have to do so in the near future when there will be less resource available. For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment. The universal state pension link is absolutely vital to putting public service pensions on a fair and sustainable footing. I have complete confidence that, with the appropriate foresight and common sense from employers, it will be deliverable across all the relevant public service workforces.
Finally, Amendment 20 seeks to provide for an independent review of the pension age mechanisms in this Bill. I reiterate that the Government are totally committed to reviewing the pension age, as and when future changes to the state pension age are announced. This was one of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, and we are sticking to it. I add that the House should be reassured that, when coming to decisions on any changes to the state pension age, Ministers will bear in mind the consequences for public servants. We would also expect member representatives to feed into this separate process. None the less, there are good reasons why this Bill does not provide for the review to the normal pension age provisions, which would follow any state pension age reviews that result in a change to the state pension age. For a start, public service pensions link to the state pension age, not vice versa, so given that work on the state pension age reviews is still in its early stages, and we do not know exactly how it will consider public service schemes, it would be premature to lock down details of the normal pension age provisions at this stage.
More importantly, we have not yet even developed those details—and that is sensible. We should not be determining the parameters for such reviews so far in advance, nor should we be trying to do so. It would be for the Government of the day to consider what is appropriate, beyond of course taking into account any changes in longevity. If that were to involve an independent assessment, so be it. However, again, it would be for the Government of the day to decide if that were appropriate. The Government may already have had all the independent advice that they require on longevity from the wider state pension age review, depending on the final details of that process. If, during the course of that review, there was no representation from the public sector that it wished to be treated any differently from anyone else, the scope of a review would be rather less than if there was a lot of independent evidence and representations being made from the public sector that it was in a different situation from the rest of the workforce—and not just a different situation, but a worse situation. Of course, nobody is going to argue that the public sector should have a differentially higher retirement age. While we could put a bland commitment into the Bill just to review the provisions from time to time, that would not be worth while without being able to include any details. It would carry very little weight and give no more assurance on this matter than the public statements that we have made on our intentions on a number of occasions. I therefore urge the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister for his response. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but it is a bit odd and not really joined-up government to have the previous Fire Service Minister, Mr Bob Neill —I think I am right, but correct me if I am wrong—commissioning a report on firefighters’ pensions for 12 January, less than a month ago, when this Bill is going through. It is not very well organised and I think it should have been done better. However, I hear what the Minister says and, with that, am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Eatwell
“(4B) The link between the state pension age and a person’s normal or deferred pension age shall be regularly and independently reviewed to ensure that the link remains appropriate in light of scheme members’ longevity.”
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, the Minister has said that, with respect to the notion of the review, the Government will have reviews, because the DWP White Paper says so, but they are not quite sure what those reviews would be—it is all too complicated at the moment and they have not worked it out. Therefore, they cannot include it in the Bill. That is pretty unsatisfactory. On the one hand, they are prepared to make an assurance that there will be reviews but, on the other hand, they are not sure what form those reviews might take, who might be involved or what sort of procedures there might be. They are not willing to back up that assurance in the Bill. Finally, we are told that legislation does not matter very much and that it is just as good as an assurance. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
The issues that have been raised by the noble Baroness need to be considered on another occasion, and we will need to return to this issue at Third Reading.
“Fair Deal
The Secretary of State will, within twelve months of this Act coming into force, bring forward proposals to ensure that a member of a public service pension scheme is entitled to remain an active member of that scheme following—(a) the compulsory transfer of his contract of employment to an independent contractor; and(b) any subsequent compulsory transfer of his contract of employment.”
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, this amendment, dealing with the fair deal, covers a lot of common ground. But rather as with the last grouping, one finds that the common ground is not found in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell has already observed, there is a possibility of an erosion of trust, certainly on the union side, if the outcome of discussions does not find itself reflected in the Bill.
In Committee, the Minister observed that one was not able to accept this type of amendment because one was in the middle of a process of consulting and, therefore, such an amendment might be premature. But the principle appears to be held in common by all sides. The Minister has observed that,
“we are committed to the principle”.—[Official Report, 15/1/13; col. 627.]
We do not in any way doubt his sincerity, but we urge that it could be demonstrated that that commitment is found by putting it into the Bill.
The amendment that is before the House allows the principle to be put in the Bill, and allows for the consultation process. When one looks at the amendment, one sees that it permits the Secretary of State to bring forward the proposals within 12 months. That plainly allows any sensible consultation to take place and be concluded. It would also allow the commitment from Her Majesty’s Government to be honoured expressly.
Ahead of the government amendments in this grouping, I observe very briefly that we were genuinely puzzled as to what they were aimed at and why the Government have seen fit to bring them forward. Elucidation would be gratefully received. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I speak now according to the convention, although it may be more logical for the Government to explain their amendments. My Amendment 49 is also in this group. It is another one of these whereby what appears to be the implication of this Bill, if nothing else is done, is that it would unravel what has been agreed between the LGA and the trade unions on the Local Government Pension Scheme.
Pensions payable by the LGPS are revalued using the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. The amendment is required to enable the same methodology to be used for revaluation during service to continue once a scheme member is in receipt of their pensions. But there is a snag. The current situation, under Section 1 of the Local Government Act 2003, is that the Best Value Authorities Staff Transfers (Pensions) Direction 2007 requires this to be applied to those in the best value authorities. So under the existing scheme and direction the provisions relate only to those who are in best value authorities. It does not apply to those members of the LGPS who are employed by other local authorities and other members of the LGPS.
The agreement reached on the position beyond 2014 would provide for all LGPS members who are compulsorily transferred to be able to retain their membership of the scheme subject to the valuations provided in the scheme. I thought that the easiest thing to help the Government out of this one would be to tack on to the back end of the repeals process at the end of the Bill, when everybody is packing their bags to go home, something that simply says that we repeal the direction order. I am informed that it is not possible to do so in that form, but that one way or the other the Government intend to repeal the directions order. If the Minister could tell me how he proposes to do that, and preferably when, my particular concern about this group of amendments might be met.
The measure I am discussing is essentially part of the fair play aspects although the directions order covers slightly wider issues. However, the repeal is essential to achieve what I think most of us are agreed should apply beyond 2014 in the case of the local government scheme. I am really asking the Government to tell us how they are going to do the tidying up. If we cannot do it by repealing that order, how can we do it, and how can we do it so that there is no differentiation between LGPS members who happen to be employed by different member funds of the LGPS scheme? I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me that when he winds up. I hope that that will satisfy me.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I start with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. As he says, the LGPS differs from the unfunded schemes in several respects. While the current fair deal does not technically apply to that scheme, a similar principle is contained in the Local Government Act 2003. That Act requires the Secretary of State to make a direction to specify how pension issues are to be dealt with when staff are transferred out from a best value authority.
The noble Lord is understandably concerned to understand how the Government intend to implement the new fair deal policy for the LGPS, given this existing provision. The Department for Communities and Local Government is currently considering how best to do it. Should it prove necessary to amend the 2003 Act to implement the new fair deal policy, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will do so at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that I have given him the answers that he was seeking.
As regards the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, the Government have stated a number of times—both in this House and the other place—that we are committed to reforming the fair deal. There are provisions in the Bill to facilitate this. Indeed, the government amendments in this group are concerned with fair deal, which I shall come to in a minute, and work is under way to determine how this commitment will be implemented.
However, consultation closed only yesterday on some of the final policy details of fair deal. We are in the final stages of planning for its implementation. Therefore, in our view there is no need to refer to fair deal in the Bill in the way proposed and we believe that the amendment has serious flaws. As drafted, it would commit the Government to bringing forward proposals for ensuring that compulsorily transferred members of public service schemes can remain in those schemes. It would also seem to commit the Government to bring forward the proposals for the purpose of ensuring that compulsorily transferred staff can remain in their schemes, effectively committing government to implementing the proposals. However, it would not be appropriate to give any member of the scheme an unconditional right to remain an active member if their contract of employment was transferred to an independent contractor. While, of course, it is the Government’s aim that transferred employees would have a right to remain in the scheme when transferred out of the public sector, this right cannot be unconditional. While in the vast majority of circumstances it will be appropriate for fair deal to apply, there may be some cases when it would not.
There have been examples in the past, notably during the financial crisis, of highly paid specialist financial staff who have been brought into government for a time-limited period, and then transferred to independent employers. Although it may have been right to offer these staff access to the schemes while working in government, it would not be appropriate to allow them to retain access to the schemes when they leave, especially as the taxpayer is ultimately responsible for paying these pensions.
Similarly, on the wording of this amendment, a member of staff who was transferred out and then voluntarily moved off the public service contract to do purely private work could remain a member of the public service scheme. Again, this would not be right. The public service pension schemes are in place for those doing public service work, not for everyone who was once engaged in public service work at some point in their career.
These examples demonstrate that the implementation of the fair deal is complex. The Government are carefully considering these complexities to ensure there are no unintended consequences when the policy comes into force. Given this, it is the Government’s view that the fair deal commitment should not be on the face of the Bill. However, I can assure noble Lords that the fair deal will be implemented when we have done all the necessary work.
I hope that I can explain why government Amendment 42 is necessary. This amendment is concerned with people who are admitted to a public service pension scheme but who are not part of the main public service workforces listed in Clause 1. For example, it could apply to staff employed by a hospice who are offering services under a contract to the NHS and whose employer would like them to have the advantage of the NHS Pension Scheme. It is important to note that this amendment does not affect any of the main workforces in Clause 1. It can apply only to other people who are admitted into the scheme under the extension power in Clause 24.
Under the proposed new fair deal, a range of private and third sector bodies will be able to participate in these schemes in future. The amendment is concerned with ensuring that the schemes can be appropriately modified to reflect differences in the structure and nature of those diverse bodies. First, the amendment clarifies that scheme regulations may make special provisions in respect of people who are allowed to participate in the public schemes. The health and local government pension schemes already have a wealth of experience in providing for admitted bodies. The special provisions that are currently applied to those schemes include requirements for indemnities, guarantees, additional record-keeping, et cetera. These provisions are needed to ensure that the body meets the costs of participating in the scheme. The amendment would also allow for modifications that have already been made in respect of admitted bodies in the National Health scheme to be carried forward to the new schemes. Such modifications currently relate to about 60,000 scheme members and it is important that these can be maintained.
Secondly, the amendment allows for modifications to be made where bodies are admitted to the schemes in the future. Where scheme regulations provide for it, the responsible authority will be able to issue a direction to modify how the scheme applies to the staff of a body that is brought into the scheme. The NHS Pension Scheme currently makes between 100 and 150 such directions every year. Allowing for modifications to be made via an administrative direction will ensure that the scheme is applied appropriately in each case without the need to legislate for every single one or the delays that that would cause.
The Bill provides that a direction may be made only for permitted purposes. Those are that the modification is necessary to protect the public purse from costs arising from that body participating in the scheme, where additional information requirements are needed to allow the scheme and the risks to be managed properly by the scheme manager or to reflect the nature of the employment or the structure of the employer. This is not a new or novel power. The Secretary of State for Health has had broader powers to modify the health pension schemes since 1967. For those who wish to study the details, those powers are to be found in Section 7 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967. The power explicitly set out by this amendment is more restrictive in scope than this existing power, which provides unfettered scope to modify the existing health schemes. The important safeguards set out in our amendment will ensure that any modifications are appropriate. Allowing bodies to participate in the schemes under Clause 24 will usually be as a result of fair deal. In such circumstances it would not be appropriate for modifications to alter members’ benefits in any way. Modifications that relate to fair deal transfers will, therefore, be limited to ensuring that employers meet their liabilities in full or provide the information necessary to run the schemes properly. I hope I have succeeded in explaining why we think that that amendment is necessary.
Amendment 43 relates to the locally administered public service pension schemes. Under Clause 24(3), scheme regulations may specify bodies or persons that may be permitted to participate in the scheme. It is anticipated that the regulations will prescribe the types of body that may be permitted: for example, a body that is providing services related to the main scheme workforce or a body that staff are transferred to under fair deal. Clause 24(5) then provides for an administrative determination to be made to extend the scheme to persons employed by such a body. Clause 24(8) requires an up-to-date list of persons to whom the scheme has been extended.
All these functions sit with the responsible authority. Our amendment allows for the functions in Clause 28(5) and (8) to be delegated to the scheme manager in a locally administered scheme. This is subject to any condition that the responsible authority considers appropriate. This reflects current practice in the local government scheme, in which it is the local authority that determines to admit a body to its pension fund. There are more than 5,000 admitted bodies in the local government scheme, and local authorities are best placed to determine their eligibility to participate in the scheme and to assist in administering the list of those who participate. They will do so within the limits of the scheme regulations set by the responsible authority. In turn, it is the local authorities that will be responsible for managing and administering the scheme for that body. They will collect data, contributions and provide benefit information and pensions to members.
I commend Amendments 42 and 43 to the House.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, I have indicated in relation to the government amendments that elucidation would be gratefully received. Accordingly, I thank the Minister.
In relation to my amendment, I have listened carefully to him. We are clearly both trying to achieve the same objective and I immediately appreciate the complexity in having to draft these issues. What he has said is dense, but in a good way, and I wish to read it more carefully. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“(10) This section does not apply to the Local Government Superannuation Scheme.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am sorry if this amendment appears to be another bit of LGPS exceptionalism but I hope that it can actually clarify the situation. There is a bit of confusion between Clauses 12 and 13. On my interpretation, Clause 12 applies to all schemes, whereas Clause 13, to which I have little objection, provides for funded schemes. However, if Clause 12 indeed applies to funded and unfunded schemes, it will cause some difficulty for the agreement that has been reached on the new cost-management system for the LGPS. As the clause stands, it does not reflect the dual process required by the LGPS and the separate cost management that was negotiated.
We have received some relatively friendly indications from the Treasury that it recognises this problem and we would like assurances from the Minister that the Government recognise the dual process. The other implication for the LGPS is that it is ahead of the other schemes in terms of the 2014 start date. I would therefore welcome reassurance from the Minister that the ability of the Treasury, at various points that are set out, to override a funded scheme—in this case, the LGPS—would not be applied to a scheme that had its own government-endorsed cost-management process in place. If I can have that confirmation, or something like it, I would not press the amendment. Clarification would also be useful on whether the whole of Clause 12 is indeed intended to apply to funded schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
I hope that I can go at least some way in giving the noble Lord the reassurances that he seeks. The Government recognise the unique nature of the LGPS and that the cost-control mechanism for that scheme must reflect it. We have therefore developed a dual process to which the noble Lord referred, which will give scheme stakeholders additional flexibility to manage costs, while allowing the Government to retain final control over the costs and design of the scheme.
Clause 12 will provide for the Government to retain this overall control. They will use these provisions to put in place an automatic backstop which will apply if the scheme costs become unsustainable. The additional flexibilities that we will give to scheme stakeholders in their management of costs will operate alongside this backstop. As the noble Lord knows, this mechanism has been developed after extensive discussions with the LGA and the trade unions. We are confident that it will work and that the process envisaged is not inconsistent with the provisions in the Bill.
I know that this is not the noble Lord’s intention, but the effect of the amendment would be to remove the backstop that is part of the agreed mechanism. Given the importance of the cost-cap mechanism in ensuring the future sustainability of all the schemes, it is vital that the LGPS is covered by these statutory provisions in exactly the same way as the other schemes. All schemes need this mechanism to ensure that they are a sustainable way to provide good pensions that last. There is simply no reason to exempt the schemes. I hope that that will help to satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who clearly recognises the cost-management system that was agreed by the stakeholders of the LGPS. That is now on the record. I am not attempting to sabotage a backstop. However, Clause 12 looks to be a rather more interventionist clause than a backstop would imply. Nevertheless, if it is simply a backstop and the noble Lord recognises that the agreed system will work and will have government backing, then I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, the aim of the amendment is to push back to 2016 the relative closing date for the Scottish LGPS.
As observed in Committee, it was thought that a greater time would be required for the Scottish scheme to be renegotiated, for scheme regulations to be drafted, for consultation to take place and for implementation to be laid down. There is certainly a view in Scotland that more time will be required for this process. Indeed, in a letter from the Scottish Finance Secretary to the Chief Secretary dated 7 September last year, it is stated that the date was “exceptionally challenging” if it were to be in 2014 or 2015. If the Minister can assure the House that the Scottish Government are now confident that they can meet the current timescale, and that trade unions and employers in Scotland have been consulted, I would plainly be in a position to reconsider whether the amendment should be advanced. At this point, however, pending what the Minister has to say, I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is extremely straightforward, and the noble and learned Lord has asked me a question about the attitude of the Scottish Government. As I explained in Committee, the Scottish Government may think that the timetable is challenging but they have not asked for the extension of time that the amendment proposes. There has been a series of correspondence between Westminster and the Scottish Government in which there have been no calls for a delay. In fact, when the Chief Secretary wrote to the Scottish Government asking if there were any particular amendments that they would like us to consider tabling, a request for a delay was not specifically made. I should take this opportunity to reiterate that we do not believe that a delay is necessary. There is ample time—just over two years—for the Scottish Government to prepare before the existing schemes are closed. These important reforms do not come as a surprise either north or south of the border.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, recommended back in March 2011 that the key scheme design features should be part of a UK-wide policy framework. Everything that has been done since then, for almost two years now, has proceeded on that basis. Furthermore, the new Whitehall-administered schemes provide an excellent basis for the Scottish Government to consider when finalising their scheme designs. We are not suddenly asking the Scottish Government to start these reforms from scratch.
I should also reiterate the financial implications of introducing a delay. This would result in hundreds of millions of pounds of additional liabilities being accrued in the Scottish schemes. These additional costs would have to be met from the Scottish budget at the expense of Scottish jobs and services, something that I am sure all noble Lords would want to avoid. In addition to the cost implications, we should also consider the disadvantages that Scottish public service workers on lower and middle incomes would face if the reforms were delayed. They would continue to subsidise the pensions of high flyers for another year. Taking all of this into consideration, I hope that the noble Lord would feel that it would be inappropriate for us to accept this amendment.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. It may be that the Scottish Government are treating this with a degree of insouciance because they may recognise that, after a certain event in 2014, they may have quite a lot of free time on their hands. At this point I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
“6A A scheme under paragraph 7A of Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977.
Exception: injury benefits and compensation benefits”
Lord Newby
“1A A scheme under paragraph 7A of Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977.
Specified benefits: injury benefits and compensation benefits”
Lord Newby
“(ii) such earnings as scheme regulations for the new scheme may specify, being earnings derived by the person from the new scheme service, are to be regarded as derived from the old scheme service (subject to sub-paragraph (3)).(3) The amount of the earnings that are to be regarded as derived from the old scheme service must not be materially less than the amount of the earnings that would have been the person’s pensionable earnings derived from that service had it ended when the new scheme service ended.”
Lord Newby
My Lords, these are minor amendments that have been urged on us by scheme members. They increase the level of flexibility given to schemes and protect the value of the final salary link for benefits that have been accrued in the current schemes. The amendments concern the definition of pensionable earnings to be used in the new schemes and for the purposes of the final salary link. The current drafting ties the definition of pensionable earnings for the use of the final salary link to the definition of pensionable earnings for the new schemes. We have recognised, however, that in some instances this might not be desirable; for example, the differences between the calculation of career average and final salary benefits might make a shared definition incongruous.
Furthermore, we have listened to concerns that imposing a shared definition means that the value of final salary benefits could conceivably be reduced. This would go against the spirit of the Government’s commitments on the protection of the final salary link. These amendments, therefore, mean that schemes may use the same or a different definition of pensionable earnings for the purposes of the final salary link as that used for the purposes of the new scheme. This does not preclude the option of applying the definition of pensionable earnings that is used in their existing schemes for the purposes of the final salary link, if desired.
However, to make sure that the value of the final salary link cannot be undermined by using a new definition, the amendments contain a backstop protection, which is that the definition of pensionable earnings for the purposes of the final salary link may not result in the amount of earnings being materially less than they would have been had the definition provided for in the old scheme been applied when the new scheme service ended. I hope that noble Lords will find these amendments to be a suitable resolution to this issue.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 sets out which periods of time should be disregarded in determining whether someone has continuity of employment for the purposes of retaining their final salary link. First, any gap, or gaps, of five years or less where the person is not a member of a public service or public body pension scheme should be disregarded. This is directly in line with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. It allows public servants, for example, to take carer’s leave or to gain experience in the private or voluntary sectors without seeing a detrimental impact on their final salary pensions by losing this link to their future public service salary.
Secondly, and most pertinently to Amendment 30, any gaps of any length of time should be disregarded if a person was in a different public service or public body pension scheme. Again, this is to allow members to gain experience in different areas and to move from one area of public service to another. Crucially, it is also part of the Government’s very clear commitment to public servants to honour their final salary benefits. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would cut across that commitment. It would be unfair to exclude current members of the local government scheme from final salary link protections, which are being given to other public service workers. Additionally, it would create a barrier to movement between local government and other public service and public body employment.
Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, members of existing public service and public body final salary schemes are able to maintain their final salary link when they move between schemes by transferring their rights to benefits out of their old final salary schemes into their new employer’s old final salary scheme. This amendment would not affect this. However, members of local government schemes should not have to proactively transfer their benefits out of the LGPS to ensure benefiting from the Government’s commitment on protecting their final salary benefits, especially where other public service workers do not have to do this. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, this is complicated territory. The way in which the Minister described the implications of my amendment is not the way in which I understand it. The LGA and the unions are concerned that Schedule 7, as it stands, could reintroduce an additional complication —an additional cost—into the LGPS scheme, which was expressly removed by the agreement between the LGA and the unions. That relates not so much to movement between the LGPS employer and different public sector employers but to the situation with people who have been employed by one LGPS employer, who then leave and come back. I do not specifically stand by the wording in the amendment, so I shall withdraw it shortly. However, the Government need to make it clear where the responsibility lies. It seems to us that responsibility for those in pensionable public service could see the original employer being liable rather than the final employer. That would give rise to unknown liabilities lying with the original employer and not with the employer of the individual once they return to LGPS employment.
This could carry on over a substantial number of decades, so the administrative costs of an employer trying to find out where their ex-employees have moved would be quite substantial. It is difficult to estimate, but some actuaries are telling the LGA that it could cost an additional 1% to the scheme. If that were anywhere near an accurate estimate, it would seriously jeopardise the 19.5% cost-management figure that has been built into the LGPS and would increase the overall cost to the LGPS over and above the ceiling.
I understand some of what the Minister says but, having outlined the dilemma, perhaps he could suggest some other way of doing it. At the moment, there is potentially a quite unnecessary cost loaded on to the management of the LGPS. As I say, actuaries are telling us that that could amount to a full 1% of the total cost. Even if it were half that figure, it would be a serious issue. It needs to be solved. My amendment may not solve it, but I would be grateful for more guidance from the Minister. Perhaps he could have some discussions with the LGA on this issue before the passage of this Bill is completed.
Lord Newby
My Lords, we realise that there is concern about the potential costs involved in this policy, but we do not believe that it generates unreasonable costs. It is about offering fairness and consistency. The likelihood is that most people who leave local government service for prolonged periods of time to work in different public service employment would not expect to return. It is therefore most likely that they will transfer their final salary benefits to their new employer’s final salary scheme. However, if liabilities for certain local government funds are increased by the risk of a final salary link attaching to future employment with different local government employers, it would be a matter for individual funds to make appropriate financial arrangements, with the help of scheme regulations if required. Undoubtedly, further discussion will be required on exactly how this should be carried forward. However, we do not believe that it is an insuperable problem for a very good feature of the scheme. We hope very much that negotiations and discussions will take place and that some of the fears of local government actuaries will turn out to be unfounded.
Lord Newby
“(ii) such earnings as scheme regulations for the new scheme may specify, being earnings derived by the person from the new scheme service, are to be regarded as derived from the deemed transfer scheme service (subject to sub-paragraph (2A)).(2A) The amount of the earnings that are to be regarded as derived from the deemed transfer scheme service must not be materially less than the amount of the earnings that would have been the person’s pensionable earnings derived from that service had it ended when the new scheme service ended.”
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
“Procedure for retrospective provision
(1) Where the responsible authority proposes to make scheme regulations containing retrospective provision which appears to the authority to have significant adverse effects in relation to the pension payable to or in respect of members of the scheme, the authority must first obtain the consent of the persons referred to in subsection (3).
(2) Where the responsible authority proposes to make scheme regulations containing retrospective provision which appears to the authority—
(a) not to have significant adverse effects as specified in subsection (1), but (b) to have significant adverse effects in any other way in relation to members of the scheme (for example, in relation to injury or compensation benefits),the authority must first consult the persons specified in subsection (3) with a view to reaching agreement with them.(3) The persons referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are the persons (or representatives of the persons) who appear to the responsible authority to be likely to be affected by the provision if it were made.
(4) The responsible authority must, in a case falling within subsection (1) or (2), lay a report before the appropriate legislature (as defined in section 22).
(5) In a case falling within subsection (1) or (2) there is no requirement to consult under section 21(1).”
Lord Newby
“(b) section (Procedure for retrospective provision)(1) or (2) (procedure for retrospective provision having significant adverse effects) applies.”
(c) they are scheme regulations for a scheme relating to the judiciary, unless the pension board for that scheme has stated that it considers the regulations to be minor or wholly beneficial.”
Lord Newby
“(6) By virtue of a determination under subsection (5) the scheme regulations then apply to the persons to whom the determination relates as they apply to other persons to or in respect of whom pensions and other benefits are provided under the scheme (or such class of other persons as may be specified in the determination).
(7) Subsection (6) is subject to—
(a) any special provision made in the scheme regulations, and(b) a direction under subsection (7A). (7A) Scheme regulations made under subsection (2) or (3) in relation to any persons may include provision authorising the responsible authority by direction to modify provisions of the regulations in their application to those persons for the purpose of—
(a) securing appropriate protection against additional costs to the scheme that might result from the application of the scheme regulations to those persons, (b) obtaining information about those persons, their employers and other relevant persons, or(c) taking appropriate account of—(i) the arrangements under which those persons are employed, and(ii) the organisational structures of their employers.”
“( ) Where, by virtue of section 4(5), there is more than one scheme manager for a scheme under section 1, the responsible authority may delegate its functions under subsection (5) or (8) to the scheme managers, subject to such conditions as the responsible authority considers appropriate.”
Lord Newby
(a) persons within the description of persons specified in section 1(2) for which the responsible authority may make the scheme, and(b) any other persons to whom the scheme relates by virtue of section 25.”
Lord Newby
My Lords, I turn to two government amendments to Clause 25. Amendment 44 is intended to remove any ambiguity as to the persons to whom Clause 25 applies. It has always been the Government’s intention that this clause should relate to any person who qualifies for a public service pension scheme under Clause 1(2) of the Bill, as well as any other persons to whom a scheme has been extended under Clause 24—that is, all those who are eligible for a public service scheme and not just those who are currently members of such a scheme. Doubts have been expressed about whether the clause has that effect. This amendment sets out the Government’s intentions unambiguously.
Noble Lords will remember that at Third Reading we debated a proposed amendment to Clause 25 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Noble Lords were concerned that the clause was too general in its scope and could allow local authority employers to undermine the Local Government Pension Scheme by offering alternative pension arrangements as a matter of course. The noble Lord therefore sought to exempt the Local Government Pension Scheme from Clause 25. I gave assurances in that debate that these powers did not allow eligibility for the main schemes to be overridden, nor did they allow employers to make any alternative arrangements mandatory. I stand by those assurances. In short, Clause 25 does not allow scheme managers or employers to act in the unscrupulous manner that a number of noble Lords feared.
However, I am aware that some people, particularly in the local government sector, still have a lingering nervousness about the clause. The LGA and others have explained that, while they accept that the clause cannot lawfully be used in this way, they remain concerned that some employers will misrepresent it. To put the matter beyond doubt, the Government tabled this amendment, which makes the use of Clause 25 subject to any provisions contained in scheme regulations. It makes it clear that provisions in scheme regulations take priority. Furthermore, it will be open to scheme regulations to restrict how the Clause 25 power is used in the scheme, if that is thought appropriate. My officials discussed the amendment with the LGA and I understand that it is content with this approach. I trust that this provides a further level of reassurance. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I simply thank the Minister for tabling these amendments. Amendment 45 in particular clarifies the position significantly.
Lord Newby
“( ) Subsection (1) is subject to any provision made in the scheme regulations for the scheme that restricts or otherwise affects the power to make payments under that subsection.”
Lord Newby
“15A In section 11 of that Act (provision against pensions under two or more judicial pension schemes), at the end there is inserted—
“(5) This section does not prevent a scheme under section 1 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 having effect in relation to a person”.”
“Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1).
Schedule 2, paragraph 1A.”
Lord Newby
“Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10)In Schedule 4 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (transfer of employees etc of Legal Services Commission), in paragraph 4 (pension schemes), after sub-paragraph (2) there is inserted—
“(2A) Where an individual who is employed in the civil service of the State by virtue of paragraph 1(1)—
(a) was a member of a relevant LSC scheme immediately before the transfer day,(b) had been a member of that scheme immediately before 1 April 2012, and(c) becomes, on or after the transfer day, a member of a civil service scheme,the individual is to be regarded, for the purposes of section 18(5) of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, as having been a member of the civil service scheme immediately before 1 April 2012.(2B) In sub-paragraph (2A)—
(a) “relevant LSC scheme” means a scheme made or treated as made under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Access to Justice Act 1999;(b) “civil service scheme” means a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972.””
Lord Newby
My Lords, this amendment rectifies a small oversight that occurred as a result of the large number of moving pieces in the machinery of government and it corrects a small injustice that might otherwise have affected staff in the Legal Services Commission. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, these members of staff will become civil servants from 1 April this year. The Government’s intention is, and always has been, that they will be treated in exactly the same way as other civil servants. This includes access to the transitional protection offered under the pension reforms.
Unfortunately, without this amendment the staff of the Legal Services Commission would fall between two stools. They would not be members of a public service scheme that could be included in Schedule 10 to the Bill, nor would they have been members of the Civil Service scheme on 1 April 2012. They would therefore not have been eligible for the transitional protection for those close to their current normal pension age.
I should add that this is an isolated issue. The staff of the Legal Services Commission are the only members of the Civil Service scheme who would have been left out in 2015. This is because they are the only ones to transfer in between 1 April 2012 and the enactment of the Bill. This amendment rectifies that very small problem. I beg to move.
“Amendment to the Railways Act 1993
(1) The Railways Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 11 (pensions), after paragraph 11 there shall be inserted—
“11A (1) This paragraph applies if an insolvency event occurs in relation to the employer or former employer of a protected person.
(2) Where this paragraph applies, the Secretary of State shall become liable to discharge any liabilities in respect of relevant pension rights, to the extent that they are not discharged by the trustees of a new scheme in which the employer was a participating employer.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) “insolvency event” has the meaning set out in section 121 of the Pensions Act 2004;(b) “relevant pension rights” means the relevant pension rights referred to in paragraph 6(3) above.11B The duty referred to in paragraph 11A also applies if an insolvency event has occurred in relation to the employer or former employer of a protected person on or after 1 October 1994.””
Lord Dubs
My Lords, the amendment stems from the situation that arose on 31 March 2010 when Jarvis, a rail maintenance company, went into administration. The amendment is not intended to make any new demands but simply to close what I think was an unforeseen loophole in the Railways Act 1993. Schedule 11 to that Act was intended to provide railway workers employed by British Rail at the time of rail privatisation with the right to a protected pension. This amendment is intended to restore that right.
In other instances where rail companies collapsed or gave up contracts, the workforce had always been transferred to other companies, but this did not happen with Jarvis, due to complex reasons related to the application of the transfer of undertakings regulations. Nevertheless, many of the Jarvis workers who had been employed by British Rail at the time of privatisation rightly expected that at least their pensions would be protected by the 1993 Act. It was then discovered that the Act does not cover cases of companies going into administration, which meant that these workers simply lost out. It is estimated that some 650 former Jarvis workers have been affected, and that the cost of meeting the pensions shortfall that would arise from accepting this amendment would be in the region of £400,000. The amendment would also honour the spirit of the Railways Act 1993 and ensure that in the unlikely event that another successor company to British Rail went into administration and the work was not transferred to another company, any affected workers who were also employed by British Rail in 1993 would have their pensions fully protected.
I am seeking to put right something that was not foreseen and which clearly represents an unfairness and an injustice. Jarvis’s former BR employees are not receiving the protection that was promised at the time of privatisation. The major flaw in the protection order is that it is an obligation on the employer, but where the employer disappears it seems that there is no entity to take up that obligation. That is obviously a serious gap in the original privatisation process, and the former BR members employed by Jarvis were misled by the UK Government as a result. They expected to get the pensions to which they were entitled, instead of the much lower one they ultimately received.
I do not think that this amendment was debated in the House of Commons because it was not reached. If it was passed, it would mean that the British Government had honoured an obligation and a promise made at the time of privatisation that employees’ pension rights would be protected so that they were at least as favourable as the rights they enjoyed under the BR pension scheme. The new clause would provide the protection sought.
However, I understand that there is another option which the Minister may prefer. Under the terms of the Railways Act 1993, the Government could introduce an order to rectify the situation. The Minister therefore has two options. He can either accept the amendment or he can achieve the same end in another way. This is a matter of honour and integrity, and I think it is only right that several hundred workers should not be penalised due to something that was really only an administrative oversight. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, his concern relates to a situation that has arisen for people covered by the railways pension scheme, which is a very different kind of scheme from those covered by this Bill. That scheme was created as a railway industry-wide pension scheme for the multi-employer railway industry following privatisation. It is a unitised fund made up of a number of different sections, only one of which is underwritten by the taxpayer. Moreover, the scheme focuses predominantly on those working for private sector employers in the rail industry. Conversely, while some of the public service pension schemes in scope of the Bill may admit certain private or third sector organisations, they are predominantly focused on workers in the public sector. I will attempt to respond briefly to the points raised in the noble Lord’s amendment, but I am afraid that the primary focus of his attention should be my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
The amendment would create a liability for the taxpayer to underwrite any shortfall in a railways pension scheme section. This underwriting would be required if the section develops a shortfall as a result of the insolvency of a participating employer or former employer who is the employer or former employer of a “protected person”. Protected persons are beneficiaries of the section who still retain certain rights deriving from British Rail days and enshrined in regulations made under the Railways Act 1993 in relation to their pension: for example, if their employer is obliged to provide pension scheme rights “no less favourable” than the relevant pension rights in their former designated pension scheme from British Rail days.
Let me set out the current position. As I have said, the railways pension scheme is a unitised fund that is divided up into sections. There tends to be one section for each employer. Most participating employers in relation to sections of the pension scheme are private sector railway operating companies. Only two sections of the scheme benefit from a solvency guarantee from government. The first of these is the “1994 Pensioners Section”, a closed section that deals primarily with the residual, deferred and pensioner members of the former British Rail pension schemes at the time of privatisation. The second is the “BR Section”, a section comprising a small category of contributing members and beneficiaries deriving from the former British Rail pension scheme. Even if the amendment were within the scope of the Bill, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate to amend the existing legislation in relation to railway pensions, as set out in the Railways Act 1993 and regulations made under it, and create a further liability for the taxpayer, as the amendment seems to propose.
The noble Lord has tabled the amendment specifically because of the Jarvis case. One employer, Jarvis, made use of the railways pension scheme, but has become insolvent. In a situation where the sponsoring employer of a section of the railways pension scheme no longer supports the pension’s scheme, there are complex legal requirements affecting how the scheme should operate in the future. The trustee of the RPS has been working with the Pension Protection Fund to understand whether the three sections of the RPS affected in this case are eligible for support from the Pension Protection Fund. The three sections are currently still in an assessment period. In the mean time, the trustee retains responsibility for paying benefits, although the Pension Protection Fund provides guidance on how the trustee should do this.
I hope that my explanation has provided some clarity for the noble Lord, although I appreciate that he might not have got the help he seeks. However, I hope that he will understand me when I say that the railways pension scheme is not a public service pension scheme in the same way as those being legislated for here, and that this is not the appropriate place to deal with the very important matters he has raised.
Lord Dubs
The Minister has given me a fairly complicated explanation and I think I would not be out of order if I said that I want to study it in Hansard rather than comment on it directly, particularly since I am not an expert on the intricacies of this issue. However, the outcome is disappointing. No one is challenging the principle that these Jarvis workers should have been better looked after than they were, given the commitments that were made at the time of railways nationalisation, so what has happened is rather unfortunate. This does not seem to be a fair outcome, whatever the technical process by which the Minister has reached his conclusion.
I should like to make two comments. The Minister has suggested that I should address my comments to the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that he will be helpful to me if I redirect my arguments to the Secretary of State. I have no Bill under which to do that, although there may be other ways. I look forward to receiving the Minister’s help. Also, under the terms of the Railways Act 1993 maybe the Government could introduce an order to rectify the situation. The Minister did not comment on that suggestion, but I wonder whether he could take it away as an alternative to the other option he put forward. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
Arrangement of Business
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, because the Question for Short Debate of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, will now be taken as last business, the time limit for the debate becomes 90 minutes rather than 60 minutes. Speeches should therefore be limited to nine minutes, except for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and that of the Minister, which remain limited to 10 and 12 minutes respectively.
Crime: Women's Safety
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Desai
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the publication on 10 January by the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics of An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales, what steps they are taking to protect women’s safety in the United Kingdom.
Lord Desai
My Lords, it is my pleasure to introduce an important theme in our series of Questions for Short Debate. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. Peers from all sides have joined; and not too many, so we all have enough time to discuss this issue.
I was in Delhi when the horrible gang-rape incident happened on 16 December. I observed the amazing upsurge of movement among men and women in India, which later spread to other parts of the world, about the very urgent question of women’s safety as they go about the ordinary business of life—both inside and outside their homes. That is very important. This is not just a local Indian problem but a world-wide one. When I got back, I saw that the Government had issued an excellent document. The Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the ONS had published a statistical bulletin, An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales, which I want to use as a background to introduce the question of women’s safety.
First, although it is a very good document—it lays out the complexity of the issues, the different statistics, and the different sources and definitions with which we have to deal in judging the extent and seriousness of crime against women—parts of the problem are not covered in it. It relates mainly to adult women, aged 16 to 59, and therefore avoids the important question of children. There have been scandals in Rochdale, Derby and Torbay relating to the grooming of young girls and their exploitation. Perhaps other noble Lords will take up that issue. There is also the question of the abuse of elderly women. There are many other facets of the problem, which I hope other noble Lords will bring out.
The way the document lays out the issues emphasises one thing. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, only 15% of the victims of adverse sexual events actually report the case to the police. What we have in the statistics of police action on complaints is a very small part of the total problem. We ought to give some thought to how we can increase the rate of complaints and encourage women not to withdraw into a shell if they have had a horrible sexual experience and how we can encourage them to come out and complain.
A major difficulty with rape and other sexual assaults is that 85% to 90% of the perpetrators of the crime are known to the victim. They are partners, somebody in the family or somebody the victim knows very well. Part of the reluctance to complain may be that you might be harming a family member or friend. We ought to set up ways, perhaps after asking experts, to make the extent of the problem more visible to the police and the criminal justice system than it is at present. If we do that, we may be able to find out even more than before.
One rather tragic example is that of Frances Andrade, who was abused when she was a student at a music school. The case came to light many years later and she tragically died while the court case was going on. That shows us that women undergo a huge amount of bad experiences but somehow or other they are reluctant to, forbidden from or cajoled against complaining. We ought to deal with that as a first step.
If you bring together rape, sexual threats and indecent exposure, one woman in five experiences something sexually unpleasant. That is a very large number. It seems to be that practically every woman has an unpleasant experience in their life and somehow we do not find ways of getting around it. Half a million adult women are victims of sexual offences. Typically, according to the survey, the women who are more vulnerable to such attacks are young—16 to 19 years-old—are single or separated, have a low income, are sometimes students and are often physically unwell or disabled, as well as economically inactive. We have a profile of a vulnerable person who is more likely to be predated upon, and when we devise our systems for encouraging them to complain, following through what has happened to them and getting justice for them, we ought to look at this profile very carefully and find out how, based on that profile, we can add better things to protect these women’s lives than we have otherwise done.
I have very little complaint about the way the police operate and the courts go through with a complaint after it has been made. Perhaps other noble Lords will know more about that. There is of course a problem of delay. It seems that it takes more than a year from the beginning, when the police register the complaint, to the end of the process. It may be that this is inevitable—you must not hurry a process in such a way that may make injustice more likely, and we want to be scrupulously fair both to the victim and the offender and not prejudge the issue. Have the Government thought about any means for speeding up this process, while preserving the scrupulous care with which we administer justice? The victims would have some guarantee that there would be a somewhat speedier resolution to their problem than at present.
I do not want to take up all my 10 minutes, because I think other noble Lords will want to say more. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister say what the Government are doing to tackle this problem.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, in her influential review into how rape complaints were, and maybe are still, handled—I have to say that the noble Baroness should be speaking earlier than me in this debate—concluded that,
“it is time to take a broader approach”—
broader, that is, than relying on the conviction rate—
“to measuring success in dealing with rape”.
She talked in the report of,
“a range of priorities that needs to be balanced”,
in particular by giving “higher priority” to,
“Support and care for victims”,
as well as of helping,
“the victim to make sense of the police and prosecution processes”.
As the noble Lord said, if we did not understand the need for that before, the response of Frances Andrade to the prosecution of Michael Brewer has made it shockingly vivid.
The Government’s progress review of the action plan on ending violence against women and girls reported that a number of actions had been completed to identify ways to improve communication with victims of sexual violence. The actions taken were the completion of a Home Office handbook and a CPS booklet. Perhaps this issue needs to be revisited. The Home Secretary acknowledged last week that Frances Andrade’s suicide might discourage others from coming forward with complaints.
In late 2011, I attended a conference at New Scotland Yard for SOIT—sexual offences investigation trained; this is a new acronym to me—officers. I was impressed by the concern then shown by police to extend understanding and professionalism in this work, but I wonder whether this is still not something which is often better recognised by the more senior officers. Has it trickled down to the junior officers who will respond initially to complaints and offences?
What also made an impression on me were some of the comments made by victims of sexual offences, though “victims” seems to me to be the wrong word, because the women in question presented themselves very much as survivors. I looked this morning at the notes that I made. They included: “Victims have lots to lose … villains are the defence teams and the judiciary”—I recognise that that is a pretty complicated area and I do not want to be too simplistic, but this is the reaction—and “getting DNA on the database is regarded as a result”. What all that amounts to is the victim not being taken sufficiently seriously and not being treated as any of us would feel we or people whom we know to be in this situation would want to be treated.
Since I thought that we would have even less time available this evening than we have, my focus in preparing my remarks was deliberately narrow, although there is one other particular issue which I will come to in a moment. The noble Lord’s referring to how women are treated inside the home as well as outside prompts me to mention, though not at length, domestic violence. Another point that he made which is similar to what I have been saying was about the attitude of less senior police officers. When I mentioned this in a debate not long ago in the presence of a retired, very senior police officer who is a Member of this House, he took me to task afterwards. I raised the matter also with the chief executive of a domestic violence charity with which I used to be associated and she said, “No, the attitude has not changed. We’d like to think it has, but it hasn’t, certainly not to the extent that would be appropriate”.
The other issue that I will slot in, and on which public awareness is probably about 20 years behind that on domestic violence—which is how I have heard others describe it—is that of trafficking of women. Here I make a plea for imaginative understanding of victims. That ranges from how immigration issues are dealt with through response to minor offending by the victims of trafficking to treating the trauma which they have experienced.
It is not a very good idea to add to my speech in a rather disorganised way a whole lot of scattered points, so let me come back to the other item that I wanted to raise. The report which is the subject of this debate inevitably presents snapshots, but it is trends which are the most important. I am not saying that trends are completely ignored by the report, because one trend which is very clear within it is the steady rise in the number of offenders in prison for sexual offences, from around 6,000 in 2005 to almost 10,000 in 2011. That suggested to me that offender management is not succeeding, but then I came across the statistic that more than 80% of those offenders had not previously been cautioned or convicted for sexual offences. I am not sure how these statistics lie together and whether the Government have any comment to make on them, nor am I sure whether they are affected by a tendency to prosecute for a lesser offence than rape, which I presume is to ensure a conviction. Perhaps the questions on this should all be about the rehabilitative skills which will be available in the world of payment by results that we all see coming along the track.
I cannot get away from the thought that perhaps no distinction is being made with other offenders and that the best approach to rehabilitation as well as punishment is the big question. However, I shall return to where I started: I heard it said the other day that someone who is murdered is murdered once—I do not condone that, of course—whereas someone who is raped is raped over and over again, because that trauma is experienced again and again. In the system’s treatment of victims, we would do well to remember that.
Baroness Stern
My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for securing this debate, which is timely for many reasons, and for his good judgment in knowing that we would in the end be given nine minutes instead of five—that was extremely prescient of him. I am very glad that he cited in the title of his debate the Office for National Statistics publication, An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales. I take this opportunity to thank the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics for producing this compendium and for the hard and painstaking work that has gone into it.
When I was working in 2010 on the report on the treatment of rape complainants by public authorities, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, so kindly mentioned, I was struck many times by how confusing, uninformative and contradictory the official statistics were and how unhelpful they were in enabling people to have any understanding of what might happen to them if they were to enter the system. I therefore recommended in my report that clearer data be produced by the Office for National Statistics so that victims and the wider public would have a better idea of what might await them and how people are dealt with. At last, we have such information and it is very welcome.
I shall refer to just two points in the authoritative report that we are discussing today—I hope that it will be widely read, because there is much in it that is useful and which helps us to understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, the complexity of the subject. First, it says that between 2008-09 and 2011-12, the number of rape offences reported to the police increased by 22%. Secondly, it notes that conviction rates for all rapes—of females and males—increased between 2005 and 2011 by 9.9%, and that the conviction rate in 2011 was 51.8%. I understand that the figures for 2012 are somewhat higher. These changes in reporting and conviction are substantial moves in the right direction and reflect the profound changes that have taken place in the police, the prosecution service and the whole approach to serious sexual offences in the past few years.
In many places, most of the time, rape services are better trained and investigations and prosecutions are done by specialists. According to recent research by the Association of Chief Police Officers, 19 forces now have specialist rape teams. The research suggests that these teams increase reporting, victim confidence and victims’ willingness to stay with the long drawn-out process. More victims now have access to a sexual assault referral centre as more of these centres open. Research shows that these centres are universally welcomed. Everyone in the field will tell you that they have made an enormous difference to the humanity and effectiveness of the whole process. More victims, although not nearly enough, now have an independent sexual violence adviser to guide them through the system and help them with the ordeal of going to court and understanding what will happen to them and how they can best prepare themselves for it. The system of independent sexual violence advisers is so admired that the Government of New Zealand have been advised that it should be introduced there.
These improvements are the result of the efforts of a substantial number of people in the police and prosecution service, the health service, the voluntary sector and the rape crisis movement. These are people, often with huge commitment, working together and responding more effectively and creatively to victims. I will mention three very quick examples.
In London people who have been raped can go to the sexual assault referral centres called the Havens. I declare an interest as patron of the Havens. Some of these people are prepared to report to the police and some are not. Some of them come for medical and other help and do not want to go through the criminal justice process. The Metropolitan Police have placed a specially trained police officer—a SOIT officer, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained—in the centre from 8 am to 10 pm. This officer deals with those who want to report, and those who do not. Of course, it is their right not to report. Those who do not report are invited to talk to the officer anonymously, if they wish, to tell their stories without detail but to give enough information to contribute to intelligence-gathering—and perhaps prevent more rapes, as rape is often a serial offence. This must be good practice.
My second example is the UK Network of Sex Work Projects, which I am patron of, which runs a scheme to protect prostitutes from violent clients. The scheme is called Ugly Mugs. Information is collected from prostitutes who report violent clients and circulated to prostitutes who join the scheme via a website. This project has prevented much violence and rape and helped to arrest perpetrators. I thank the Home Office for supporting it and hope that the Minister will personally ensure that this support continues.
My third example is a project at a Cornwall rape crisis centre, where the counselling the centre offers to victims is now also offered through the probation service to women in trouble with the law, as a very large proportion of those women have been sexually abused in their early lives and those experiences have led them in many cases to the position they are now in.
This Government have built on the work of the previous one to ensure that we have a system that provides an all-round approach, with the victim at the centre; victim services for everyone, whether they report or not; a good healthcare response; efficient law enforcement; prevention campaigns that do not blame the victim; and work to change attitudes. There is very good news in an even more recent report from the Office for National Statistics that only 8% of the public now blame the rape victim if she is drunk or wears inappropriate clothes. That is a change from the previous set of figures.
So we have a system that works to change attitudes and is beginning to make special effort to protect the vulnerable. All this constitutes an approach that other countries want to copy, which is taking us, slowly but surely—there is indeed much more to do, including looking at the delay in cases coming to trial—from the gross deficiencies of the past to a more just and effective response.
I ask the Minister: how are the Government going to ensure that this continues? Specifically, what is the Home Office doing to inform police and crime commissioners that this work, although expensive, is very cost-effective and must be a priority? Will they keep the specialist units? What will be the exact arrangements in the reorganised NHS for providing sexual assault referral centres? Where will the responsibility lie? Where will quality assurance come from? I understand that the Minister may need to write to me about that. Finally, what do the Government envisage happening to the funding of the network of rape crisis centres and other voluntary projects that deal with many thousands of victims as local authorities face more cuts? Will the support come from central government? I look to the Minister for some reassurance on all these points.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I welcome this debate and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for introducing it. I will focus my remarks on drawing attention to three ways in which the scourge of sexual violence against women might be tackled more effectively alongside seeking to increase the number of cases that come to the police, before making a more general point.
The report to which this debate draws our attention tells us that shocking numbers of women are victims of sexual offending. It is a horrifying reflection upon our society. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has noted that the resolution of cases that do come forward takes a long time. If this is to be addressed in the manner that he wants, there is surely a need for greater provision of resources and training for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others involved in bringing justice to speed up the rate at which sexual offences are brought to court. Investigation has to be thorough and justice must be scrupulously pursued, but a year is a very long time for a case to reach court.
Secondly, independent domestic and sexual violence advisers and other such agencies play an invaluable role in accompanying survivors through the system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, noted. I hope that the Government are prepared to invest significantly in that crucial work. More cases might be resolved if that were to be the case; and some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about cases not being pursued or not being taken sufficiently seriously by the police might be addressed.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will recognise that recent budget cuts have led many local councils to reduce provision of services for survivors of violence. That is a real problem. I should add that a great deal of good work continues to be done by organisations such as the Worcestershire Forum against Domestic Abuse. Many individuals and organisations in civil society work with that organisation, as they do with others.
I believe that the suggestions that I have made would be a real help, but although they are crucial, they are tackling the symptoms, terrible as they are, of a deeper malaise. Lying behind the horrifying facts that the report highlights is the increasing sexualisation of our culture, which creates an enabling environment for sexual offences to develop. I feel that acutely as the father of two daughters, one aged eight and one aged 13. Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers’ Union, carried out an independent review of that in 2011, and noted the concern of parents on a number of issues, including the sexualised and gender stereotyping of clothing, products and services for children and pressure on children from a range of sources to act as consumers.
Those are just the background, but I suggest that it is an important one. A lot of what we see is the result of that increasingly sexualised culture. The number of children suffering from sexual offending is one result. Reg Bailey’s report suggests a range of actions to address those concerns which deserve attention, but which I cannot go into now. Suffice it to say that, as all noble Lords will recognise, there are big issues to which I hope that the Government will pay attention.
I add that it cannot be just the Government’s responsibility. It is good to know that attitudes to victims are changing. Much more needs to happen. Although I welcome the Question to the Government enshrined in the debate, I suggest that responsibility for tackling it lies with us all.
Baroness Gale
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Desai for giving us the opportunity to debate the report tonight. It throws up some interesting statistics on sexual offences. On average, 473,000 adults are victims of sexual offences per year, and the majority are female. About 90% of the victims of the most serious sexual offences in the previous year knew the perpetrator. That comes up in every study. For example, victims of rape are often raped by people they know.
One paragraph in the report which struck me was that, of females who were victims of the most serious sexual offences in the past year, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, only 15% had reported such offences. The reasons that they cited why they did not report such incidents were that they were embarrassed, or did not think that the police could do much to help, or saw it as a private family matter, not police business. There is much to be done to encourage victims to report. Otherwise, there is not much chance of ever bringing the perpetrators to justice and they will carry on committing offences.
We know that such offences are prevalent throughout the world. Thursday marks the One Billion Rising Day, which is a global campaign calling for the end of violence against women and girls. The campaign highlights the fact that one in three women world wide will be raped or beaten in her lifetime. That is a terrible statistic. The One Billion Rising campaign deserves our support, which I hope that we will all give it on Thursday.
International agencies such as the UN, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have policies to deal with violence against women and girls, as does our UK Government. Whatever Government we have in office in the United Kingdom, they all address that issue.
I wonder whether noble Lords are aware of the policies of the Welsh Government on violence against women. They published a White Paper last year, and the consultation ends on 22 February. Following the consultation, they plan to introduce a new Bill, the ending violence against women and domestic abuse Bill. The Bill does not address the criminal justice issues, as the Welsh Government do not have the power to do so. It proposes that Welsh Ministers should have the power to appoint an independent ministerial adviser for ending violence against women. If the Welsh Government do that, that would be a first in United Kingdom. They wish to legislate to require local authorities and public service partners to collaborate on a local and regional level to develop and implement strategies to reduce violence against women.
The Welsh Government will commission an independent review of violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence across Wales to inform future strategic direction and funding. The Welsh Government want to ensure that all children and young people understand the key concepts of respect, fairness and consent, which are the cornerstones of healthy relationships. They believe that such knowledge and awareness will help inform and drive their everyday decisions and underpin their expected standards of interpersonal relationships.
Although that is primarily the responsibility of parents, the Welsh Government believe that schools also have a role to play in delivering those outcomes. The personal social education framework provides some direction. They believe that more should be done to ensure that schools work actively to support and promote healthy relationships. The Welsh Government propose to ensure that education on healthy relationships is delivered to all schools in Wales. They propose to place a duty on local authorities to identify a regional champion for educational settings on ending violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, who will support schools and promote a whole-school approach.
These are exciting and great measures by the Welsh Government, and I believe that they are relevant to tonight’s debate. Now that we have devolution, different parts of the United Kingdom can do different things. In Wales, in a sense it is quite easy for us to experiment and try out new measures, because we are a small country. We have 3 million people, all in close contact with each other, and can debate these issues. Does the Minister agree with the Welsh Government on their proposals, and will he hold discussions with Welsh Ministers to see how those proposals could be implemented in England? Again, with devolution, we can all learn a lot from each other where there is good practice. We created the first Children’s Commissioner in the United Kingdom, and all the nations of the United Kingdom now have one. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a good example for the UK Government to look at.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for introducing this debate in what is becoming an increasingly important subject. On occasions like this, one is not often of the view that it is good to be further down the list because everybody will have said everything and one will have nothing to say. That is not my view today; I have been extremely glad to have had the opportunity to listen to previous speakers and to learn about their specific concerns. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, indications of some improvement, which is a good sign for the future, as well as the priorities for future action by the Government, so I am glad indeed to be quite near the end.
There is a huge amount to be covered on this issue and even though we had a debate quite recently, I suspect that there will be plenty of others to come. The Government’s report that is the focus of our debate today states, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, that one in five women surveyed had been a victim of a sexual offence at some point in her life since the age of 16. That such a large proportion of women in England and Wales should have experienced this sort of assault is yet another indication serving to highlight the urgency of the need to address the very damaging effects of the increasing sexualisation of our society.
Provocative images and language permeate all areas of our culture from film and television to song lyrics and advertising, while the amount of explicit pornographic material widely accessible on the internet continues to grow. The ubiquity of this type of material creates an environment in which, as we are seeing, more and more people are exposed to images of sexual violence which can, in turn, have a serious impact on their own attitudes, expectations and behaviour.
Particularly vulnerable to these harmful influences are children and young people. The sexual offending report records that young women aged between 16 and 19 are the age group most at risk of being victims of sexual offences, while an NSPCC survey reported that physical and emotional violence is commonplace within teenagers’ intimate relationships. It appears that many adolescents are increasingly developing damaging attitudes towards relationships where violence and bullying are accepted forms of behaviour. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, mentioned the importance of schooling in all this and, my goodness, that is very true. Of course there is parental responsibility, but schooling will have an increasing responsibility over the years.
The development of communications technology is increasing young people’s access to sexually explicit material while simultaneously reducing the ability of parents to oversee what their children are viewing. These concerns, among others, prompted me to introduce my Online Safety Bill, which I am glad to see has its supporters in the Chamber today, as it is vital that mechanisms to reduce access to explicit content are made simpler for the ordinary internet or mobile phone user and that greater responsibility is placed on the providers of internet services to ensure that their products are not being used inappropriately.
The opt-in mechanism contained within that Bill would prevent children and young people accessing pornographic material on the internet, whether accidentally or otherwise, by requiring that this material is accessible only to consumers who have purposefully chosen, by opting in, to have access to such websites. Furthermore—and this is vital—service providers would be required to verify that the consumer is over the age of 18. This second mechanism ensures that young people are protected not only from inadvertently being exposed to unsuitable material but from intentionally seeking to opt in. Sadly, we also know that some young people intentionally seek access to pornographic material, and these young people’s own behaviour can be most influenced by the images to which they are exposed. As we all know, having had talks about trafficking children, the group to whom this whole approach is most dangerous is those who have been in care for a long time but have nowhere that they can turn to.
Sexual violence in all its forms, as we have heard, is extremely dangerous and damaging for individuals and for society as a whole. I certainly believe—as I am sure others do, too—that it is vital that we seek to redress this situation wherever and however it occurs, including in the digital arena. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I look forward to hearing what plans the Government will in future be making to protect women’s safety in the UK so that, with the increased services that are already being provided, we can begin to feel more confident that this kind of behaviour will diminish rather than increase.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for introducing this very important topic in your Lordships’ House. I speak as somebody who supports an organisation in Derby, where I am the bishop, called Safe and Sound Derby. It works particularly with women who are the victims of sexual exploitation, violence and abuse. In this debate, I feel that I really need to speak as a Bishop. It seems less obvious to do that when we are discussing pensions, public service and such things but in this debate I want to speak specifically from these Benches as a Bishop.
That is because the Government have the unenviable but vital and necessary task of trying to regulate behaviour. Ever since JS Mill in the 19th century, we have seen Governments trying to regulate behaviour to protect the individual’s right to be who they want and to do what they want. It is difficult to regulate people’s behaviour without—and this is where the church has a role, so I speak as a Bishop—looking at the ideas, imaginations and inner motives within people that lead them to claim freedoms which, in the terms of this debate, have such terrible consequences upon other people, such as violence against women and abuse.
In their attempts to regulate behaviour, the Government need to be in dialogue with faith communities and churches, which are particularly concerned with people’s inner motives and moral values, and the framework within which to try to live their lives. Our culture is dominated by people’s right to feel something, express it and be who they want to be. That has many great effects and outcomes but it also has some terrible ones, as we are hearing in this debate. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about the terrible profusion of pornography and the freedom to access, make and trade it—and to involve people in it. Starting from the base of what people feel they want has seen an inordinate explosion of promiscuity in our society in the past 30 or 40 years, and enormous stress in personal lives. My right reverend colleague the Bishop of Worcester referred to the sexualisation of young people and a sexualised society.
Most violence and sexual abuse takes place in a private space. That is why it is difficult for the Government on their own to legislate about behaviour. Motives, ideas and imaginings can be explored in private spaces, and that creates an atmosphere where people feel intimidated, disoriented and unsure what private space should be about. There are no public norms; you are suddenly in a very small space if you are subject to this kind of abuse and violence. So, besides the Government working with agencies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has said, and the structures in proposals in the excellent report, I invite us to think about how the Government can work with a problem that largely takes place in private space, below the radar—people claiming their freedom to be who they want to be.
One way of entering into the private space where most of this abuse takes place is through voluntary groups. The Safe and Sound project in Derby, which I support, works with victims and parents in their domestic settings, trying to help them understand what has happened to them and what values those domestic settings need to be about and to defend. In the past nine months in Derby, which is not a large city, Safe and Sound has dealt with 117 young people as well as older women.
We should note that not all these women and girls come from difficult backgrounds. I know that the statistics point that way but this very week in the Derby Telegraph, our local paper, there have been articles on three consecutive days about cases of children from very established and well-off homes being groomed and drawn out of those. The whole ethos of being a teenager, really, is to be uncomfortable in the private space that your family creates and to want to find your own private space; that is what teenage life is about. People who enter that through the internet and other ways, such as taking girls to parties or whatever, begin to create an attractive alternative private space that does not seem to have many moral guidelines. It is called grooming, and young people are increasingly being groomed into sexual exploitation, abuse and trafficking.
Our experience in Derby shows that grooming and abuse are not just happening in an ad hoc way; sadly, in our culture of freedom for people to behave as they think they want to and feel, grooming and abuse are highly organised. They are organised by gangs and by older men grooming younger women. It is a very scientific and commercial operation, sadly, for many people, and young women are manipulated and taken advantage of.
In this context, despite the excellence of the report, its analysis and suggestions, all the evidence shows that there is a significant shortfall in the availability of therapeutic services to deal with women who are confused about what private space is, how to defend one of some quality and how not to get drawn into private space that is abusive and damaging. I hope that the Government will take very seriously, first, the proper resourcing, as other noble Lords have mentioned, of the formal services and agencies that work in this area. Secondly, I hope that they will take seriously the resourcing of the work by voluntary groups such as Safe and Sound, which can enter into that private space of young people and their families and friendships to help people to engage and find a way out of the terrible places into which they are drawn.
Thirdly, and this echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, was saying, what steps can the Government take to be proactive in the world of education, of the formation of people’s values, priorities and a framework for those inner feelings and imaginations that are powerful in all of us? That partly includes working with schools, as the noble Baroness says, but it also includes working with faith communities and those who give priority to the values that we carry around inside us that guide us, discipline us and challenge us
Speaking as a bishop, I shall end by saying that something that is distinctive about the Christian faith is that it does not begin from saying, “I wish to decide how I feel and that’s who I’m going to be”. It begins from saying, “Love God and your neighbour as yourself”—that is, put others first and yourself second. That is the kind of moral and spiritual discipline that forms an adult person: not to love yourself first and do what that is about but to love others first and put yourself second. That is what Christianity is about. It is that kind of moral and spiritual discipline that is the only chance of complementing the Government’s task of providing models and guidelines of behaviour with encouraging people to learn and carry around within themselves some kind of respect and understanding of what human life is about that is based on some kind of discipline, some kind of self-denial and some kind of honouring of other people rather than oneself. I ask the Minister to comment on how the Government can complement faith groups and others to ensure that better standards of behaviour emerge not just from regulation and agencies but from moral conviction and the culture of self-discipline that make adult people proper citizens and would be a major step in bringing this terrible problem under control.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, there is no doubt that this piece of research is invaluable. I thank my noble friend Lord Desai for initiating this debate, and commend the work that has been carried out by the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics to provide an overview of the available statistics on sexual offending. I will not repeat all the somewhat depressing statistics that this research reveals, but what an important job there is still to do to reduce sexual offending and other violence against women and girls.
The plight of women suffering violence is about to have the spotlight shone on it, starting on Thursday of this week with the One Billion Rising campaign, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Gale. I hope that all noble Lords will consider joining the amazing events that are taking place all over the country on Thursday, not least outside in Parliament Square during the morning—singing, dancing and joyful as these events will be. Noble Lords can access the full menu of events if they put OBRUK into their search engine, or pop into the opposition Whips’ Office and pick up the pamphlet. These events will be joyful and respectful for women and those who love them, but they have a serious message—that violence against women is endemic across the world—and call upon Governments, parliaments and justice-makers to make this violence end. The events aim to increase awareness, raise money and revitalise existing anti-violence efforts.
The report that we are discussing tonight makes it clear that we in the UK still have a long way to go. Part of the build-up to the activities on Thursday were small events and discussions held all over the country involving thousands of women, young and old, from all kinds of backgrounds and ethnicities, and on one thing they were clear: to prevent violence against woman and girls we need to do much more to ensure that both young men and women are supported to develop positive and equal relationships with their peers. This must, of course, be true. When one in three 16 to 18 year-old girls in the UK say that they experience “groping” or other unwanted sexual touching at school; when more than 70% of 16 to 18 year-old girls and boys say that they routinely witness sexual harassment at school; and when, according to NSPCC research, “sexting” is linked to coercive behaviour, harassment and even violence in which girls are disproportionately affected, we know that more must be done.
There is a call for statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero-tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, become a requirement in schools. Does the Minister agree with that? Will the Government support the proposal that is being called for? I invite the Minister to send a strong message of support to the One Billion Rising international campaign and to the millions of women across the world who will be making their voices heard on Thursday.
Violence against women and girls flourishes in societies where prejudicial attitudes towards women are deeply entrenched. In its excellent brief for this debate, End Violence Against Women makes the important point that, similar to the long-term investment that successive Governments have made in, for example, road safety campaigns to change attitudes and behaviours, there needs to be sustained investment in work to prevent violence in order to save lives and reduce the emotional, physical and financial cost of violence in the long term.
The Home Office’s strategic narrative Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls is grounded in the principles of equality and human rights and has prevention at the heart of its approach. Nevertheless, I feel that this remains the weakest part of government actions. For example, a joint inspectorates report into sex offending by boys found that in almost half the cases they examined, there had been previous harmful sexual behaviour that had been either minimised or dismissed as a one-off. In the light of this finding on boys’ sexual offending, how are the Government ensuring that all schools teach young people about sexual consent, gender equality and respectful relationships?
In a 2006 ICM poll for End Violence Against Women, 405 of 16 to 18 year-olds said that they did not receive lessons or information on sexual consent or they did not know whether they had done, and 68% of 16 to 20 year-old girls said that they did not feel they had enough information and support about abuse.
I echo and support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. An important part of this problem is media sexualisation and access to inappropriate images and behaviours involving new technology and young people. Will the Government either support the very practical Bill introduced by the noble Baroness or bring forward legislation that deals with ways of combating the illegal sale of violent and grossly pornographic films depicting all manner of degrading and violent sexual behaviour directed towards women? So far the Government have failed to take decisive action on this, so will the Minister please ensure that robust action is taken on issues such as age verification and combating children’s, particularly young men’s, access to such material?
Finally, how are the Government working across government to deal with these issues? For example, and following the wise words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worchester, how is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, for example, supporting the Government’s efforts to tackle media sexism and sexualisation, which provide a conducive context in which violence against women and girls flourishes?
The contributions tonight draw on the level of expertise and commitment that we have in this House to deal with these problems. This report reveals the scale of the problem. The question now is: how will the Government step up to tackle the evil of violence and sexual assault against women?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for this opportunity to debate this important matter. All violence against women is completely unacceptable. It is the fundamental right of every woman and girl to live her life free of fear and violence, and it is therefore imperative that we in government remain focused and continue to raise awareness around this issue.
In introducing this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, rightly expressed the universal nature of this issue. Indeed, the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Thornton, drew the House’s attention to One Billion Rising, which is taking place this Thursday, 14 February, and which draws attention to the universal nature of this problem. For us in this country, the scale of the issues has been shown by the report that forms the background to this debate. It was reinforced by all speakers, and particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. I also thank her for informing the House about how they are tackling this problem in Wales. As she rightly points out, we can learn a lot from the devolved Administrations on this issue, and I am very happy to take up the invitation to study the Welsh experience.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about the importance of education and the key role it has to play in this. Schools can address this issue through the personal, social, health and economic education programme. When teaching about these issues, schools must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on sex and relationship education. The DfE has conducted a review of personal, social, health and economic education and will be publishing the outcome in 2013. The review was intended to take account of the outcomes of the review of the national curriculum, so this important matter is not being ignored by the Department for Education.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and respect her for the work she has done to raise awareness on this issue. She notes that the statistics demonstrate that more work still needs to be done to tackle violence against women and girls, and I assure the House that the Government are wholly committed to continuing doing so. That is why we have: ring-fenced up to £40 million across the spending review period as stable funding for specialist local services, support services and national helplines; published a cross-government violence against women and girls strategy and action plan; announced plans to criminalise forced marriage in England and Wales; introduced two new stalking offences; and tested new ways to protect the victims of domestic violence.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who mentioned this, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee that we expect every report of sexual violence and rape to be treated seriously from the time it is reported, every victim to be treated with dignity, and every investigation and prosecution to be conducted thoroughly and professionally. As such, the police have introduced a number of special investigating teams to deliver a consistent and professional response to the recording, investigation and prosecution of these complex—all noble Lords will agree that they are complex—and serious crimes. All rape cases are handled by prosecutors who have undertaken bespoke training. By February 2012, 849 rape specialist prosecutors had been trained. CPS successful outcomes rose in 2011-12 to the highest CPS conviction rates since recording began. The average length for sentences was in excess of eight and a half years, an increase of nearly 21 months since 2005.
It may help noble Lords if I address a number of other issues. Indeed, I may have to write to some noble Lords; the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was kind enough to suggest that I did so. The Ministry of Justice is spending £10.5 million over three years to fund rape support centres. Furthermore, the Home Office has committed funding of £1.72 million per year to part-fund 87 independent sexual violence adviser posts. The noble Baroness herself should take a great deal of credit for the sexual assault referral centres. There are currently 37 of them in the country. It is important that these local centres are supported.
My friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby talked about Safe and Sound Derby. I am pleased to say that the Home Office funds an independent sexual violence adviser in that particular centre. It was good to hear his observations and commentary on our society, and the relationship of individual expression and the difficulties which that then created for some people. He is absolutely right that it is important that we work closely with faith groups. The Government cannot eliminate violence against women and girls on their own. We need the support of the community to do so. It is about engagement with civil society, the voluntary sector and faith organisations. They are vital to success in this area.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned domestic violence. A lot of the violence that we are talking of occurs within the home. My noble friend will know that there are now specialist domestic violence courts, and that these are an important part of recognising that the issues involved are often complicated. We are dealing with matters that have previously, perhaps, been hidden and kept private.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Thornton, talked about the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood, and the ways in which that compounds the difficulties that we face. I cannot promise to support the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. On the other hand, it makes a positive contribution to the formulation of policy in this area. The Government have made a commitment to take action to protect children from excessive commercialisation and, indeed, premature sexualisation. The Bailey review did not make any particular recommendations connected to violence, but, in terms of causation, business and media regulators have taken a number of significant actions to reduce children’s exposure to sexualised imagery. We should welcome, support and encourage these, and make sure that they actually happen, because this is such an important part of ensuring that we make a success of this policy.
The safety of women and girls is paramount. Our approach to tackling violence against women and girls is therefore characterised by key themes: prevention; improving the support available; strengthening multi-agency working; and taking action to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice.
The violence against women and girls strategy will be refreshed in March to ensure that we continue to identify new ways and opportunities to eradicate these abhorrent crimes. However, ending all forms of violence against women and girls is not possible through government work alone, as I have said. Violence against women and girls is a societal concern. It is the collective responsibility of all of us to challenge embedded gender inequality and to prevent violence through sustained action that seeks to change attitudes and behaviour.
We need to send out a clear message that violence against women and girls is wrong, and that challenging attitudes and behaviour is key to achieving that aim. That is why the Government have launched two preventive campaigns through the mainstream media to tackle rape and relationship abuse among teenagers by creating awareness, changing attitudes and provoking debate.
As we have said, much has been done. The progress that we have made would not have been possible without the dedication and hard work of the police, local authorities, teachers, health workers, international partners and the women’s sector. I take the opportunity of this debate to thank all of them. Now and in the future we must build on and maintain this momentum and our commitment to enact change, to challenge collectively the inequalities and attitudes that encourage violence against women and girls, and to drive improved services for its victims. I believe that we are on the right path. Our ambition must be to create a society where no woman or girl need live in fear. Together we can make it happen.
European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL]
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text