House of Commons

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 6 March 2013

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

1. What discussions she has had with political leaders about recent disturbances in Northern Ireland.

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

I have had regular discussions with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and other political leaders in Northern Ireland about the disturbances of recent months. The protests should now end. A way forward that commands broadly based support can be found only through dialogue and working together.

[David Rutley]

In the light of the recent successful interception of four mortar bombs by the police in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps she is taking to counter the work of terrorists whose aim is to kill and maim innocent people?

[Mrs Villiers]

The attempted terrorist attack this week demonstrates how severe the terrorist threat continues to be in Northern Ireland. It was only through the highly effective action of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners that mass casualties were averted. The Government remain vigilant in the face of the threat and have included it as a tier 1 priority in their national security strategy.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The interception of the mortar bomb attack prevented a devastating attack on Londonderry and saved lives. In the light of the string of attacks and attempted attacks from that particular quarter, will the Secretary of State tell us what extra resources she is going to give to the police and the security forces in Northern Ireland in the coming year to counter the dissident terrorist threat?

[Mrs Villiers]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that shortly after taking office the coalition devoted an extra £200 million to national security priorities in Northern Ireland, which has been tremendously helpful to the PSNI, not least in enabling it to replace its Land Rover fleet. We will continue our discussions on the successor funding when that £200 million runs out, and we continue to do everything we can to support the PSNI and its partners, and the Northern Ireland Executive, in countering this threat.

[Mr Dodds]

The Secretary of State will be aware that some of those involved in the dissident terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland who have been charged with the most serious offences, including murder, have been released on bail in recent days, while others who have been involved in the protests and who are likely to receive a non-custodial sentence have been remanded on bail. Does she understand the bewilderment of most ordinary people in Northern Ireland at that situation, and the anger that is perpetuated in the community by what is perceived to be this double standard?

[Mrs Villiers]

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that those are matters for the courts, not for me as Secretary of State and not for the police. I am afraid that the courts make their own decisions on those matters, taking into account the risk of reoffending.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that those are matters for the courts, and indeed they are, but the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has referred to the huge challenges now facing Northern Ireland from the so-called new IRA and from the loyalist demonstrations. Does the Secretary of State agree that she must now have more than just regular discussions with political parties, and that she really needs a structure for those discussions with the Irish Government and with all the political leaders in Northern Ireland if we are to deal with those serious issues?

[Mrs Villiers]

Of course it is important that those discussions continue. I had a very helpful meeting with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Tánaiste a few weeks ago, and we hope to put another so-called quad meeting in the diary very shortly. Both Governments believe that it is important for a dialogue to occur on flags and symbols, and for progress to be made towards the shared future in Northern Ireland that everyone in the political leadership wants. It is essential that that should now be delivered.

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

In view of the current political difficulties and the impasse on some issues, would the Secretary of State consider it useful to convene round-table discussions involving herself, the Irish Government and all the political parties in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is important for Northern Ireland’s political leadership to develop a process so that the leaders of all the political parties can work together on matters such as flags and identity. That is an important way of ensuring that the protests come off the streets and that we find a genuinely inclusive way to decide on these issues. The Belfast agreement gives guarantees on protecting identities of Irishness and Britishness, and it is now time for the political parties to work together to see how we can translate those guarantees into a sensible way of approaching issues around flags and symbols in Northern Ireland.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her comments to date. At a time when the PSNI is under extreme pressure and when the rule of law is under threat from loyalists and republicans, does she agree that it is hugely important that all political leaders in Northern Ireland give their unambiguous support to the rule of law and to the PSNI, and that they articulate within their communities the need to support those organisations and principles, rather than simply becoming a voice for dissent?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree. I am firmly supportive of the PSNI, which does an outstanding job. It has dealt with these protests in a very sensible way, and it has faced difficult situations. Indeed, almost 150 of its officers have been injured, so it has my firm and unqualified support. I hope that it will enjoy that support from Northern Ireland’s political leadership as well.

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

In her recent discussions, has the Secretary of State been able to confirm that the amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill tabled by the Home Secretary, which would allow her to transfer lead responsibility for counter-terrorism to the National Crime Agency, will not apply in Northern Ireland and that the Chief Constable will remain in overall control of all counter-terrorism investigations and operations?

[Mrs Villiers]

The Home Secretary certainly agrees that if there were any suggestion of extending the NCA’s remit to national security matters in Northern Ireland, that could happen only with the consent of the Chief Constable of the PSNI. The primacy of the Chief Constable is retained to ensure consistency with the devolution of policing and justice.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

2. What discussions she has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on the Government’s proposed welfare reforms.

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

4. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the Government’s welfare reforms in Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mike Penning)]

Earlier this morning, I discussed these matters with the First and Deputy First Ministers at the Joint Ministerial Committee. I am sure that the whole House would say that a simpler benefit system will reward those in work and the vulnerable in our society.

[Chris Ruane]

On 27 February, the Minister responsible for social development in Northern Ireland, Mr Nelson McCausland MLA, said:

“I have said many times already that I have concerns about the potential impact of Welfare Reform on local people. I will continue to work with Ministers in Westminster to mitigate against the most negative impacts of these reforms.”

Will the Minister tell us what he thinks the “negative impacts” of welfare reform in Northern Ireland are and what progress he has made in helping the Minister in Northern Ireland to address them?

[Mike Penning]

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) has been to Northern Ireland on many occasions and is working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the particular Minister with whom I have also worked. The measures are going to be difficult, but we face the situation that work needs to pay and that under the present system it does not. In Northern Ireland, of all the areas of the United Kingdom, welfare desperately needs reform.

[Tom Greatrex]

One effect of the welfare reform changes in Northern Ireland is that, on the most recent figures, 98,000 children in Northern Ireland are now living in poverty. Indeed, the Belfast West constituency is the second highest in the whole of the UK in that respect. Following the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), will the Minister explain exactly what he is doing about that particular aspect, which does not necessarily have anything to do with people being in or out of work, but is having a distinctly negative impact on many Northern Ireland households?

[Mike Penning]

Child poverty was discussed this morning at the Joint Ministerial Committee, and it has been an aspiration for all of us, over many years, to get rid of it. The situation in Northern Ireland, however, is that too many people and families are completely reliant on welfare, and that unless we reform the system it will not be possible for them to get off benefits and into work, which must be the aspiration for all of us.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State and the Minister in praising the bravery and success of the police in preventing a terrorist attack in Londonderry on Sunday night. As the right hon. Lady said, those who seek to destroy peace and progress will not succeed, but we have to remain vigilant to the threat they pose. On welfare reform, will the Minister tell me how many people in Northern Ireland will be adversely affected by the bedroom tax?

[Mike Penning]

That is obviously a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, but we all want to make sure that the people who come to see us at our surgeries on a regular basis who are inappropriately housed or cannot be housed can be put in social housing if they need it. In Northern Ireland, between 2010 and 2012, the budget went up by 10.7%, with more than £500 million spent on housing benefit. We have to do something about that, while mitigating the effects on those in need.

[Vernon Coaker]

The “not me, guv” attitude will not work. According to the Chartered Institute of Housing, 66% of working age social tenants in Northern Ireland will be affected, and 32,000 people will lose out as a result of the bedroom tax. The Government have given no consideration to the specific issues to do with housing in Northern Ireland—from the type and scale of stock to the segregation in and between communities—so will the Minister urgently meet the Northern Ireland Executive and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss the disastrous consequences of this policy?

[Mike Penning]

Well, that is the Labour party’s position. What we want to do is get people into housing that will be beneficial for them. Every week families come to the surgeries of Members throughout the House, and throughout the United Kingdom, and say to us, “I do not want to sleep on the floor any more, and I do not want my kids to sleep on settees.” How can we help them when others are living in one and two-bedroom properties although they do not need that excess capacity? What is the Labour party going to do about that? I expected the shadow Minister to ask about the very difficult security situation in Northern Ireland, but he has not done so today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the Minister aware that there will be a £10 million a year deficit in housing benefit following the implementation of the bedroom tax, which will leave families in the Province in dire straits? Will he review the changes in the Northern Ireland block grant so that smaller homes and apartments can be built?

[Mike Penning]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is a friend of mine, has adopted the Labour party “tax” mantra. This is not a tax. What we are trying to do is make the position fairer for all our constituents. It is true that capacity is an issue in Northern Ireland; the problem is that there are too many people in the wrong sort of housing, and we need to help them to get into the right sort.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Is the Minister aware that Northern Ireland has one of the highest levels of dependence on benefits in the United Kingdom, that a high proportion of its population have mental and physical disabilities, and that its provision for affordable child care is the lowest in the UK? Will he assist the efforts of the Minister in the devolved Department for Social Development—along with the Department for Work and Pensions—to secure mitigation measures other than those that have already been announced in relation to welfare reform in Northern Ireland?

[Mike Penning]

Of course I will continue to work closely with the Minister in the devolved Administration. However, the best way in which to help those who are receiving welfare benefits is to get them off benefits and into work as soon as possible.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

3. What her policy is on youth unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

8. What her policy is on youth unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

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

The Government’s efforts to reduce the largest deficit in UK peacetime history and deliver sustainable economic recovery are an important way of dealing with youth unemployment. Further specific measures to help young people in Northern Ireland to find jobs are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, with whom we are happy to work closely.

[Alex Cunningham]

Given that youth unemployment now stands at over 20%, does the Secretary of State not share Opposition Members’ sense of urgency about the need to get Northern Ireland’s young people back to work? We have proposed a bank bonus tax that would help to create 2,000 jobs for those young people. What specific things are the Government going to do?

[Mrs Villiers]

I will take no lectures from Labour on youth unemployment. Youth unemployment rose by a third—by 35%—under Labour in Northern Ireland, youth employment fell by nearly 10%, and economic activity among young people fell by 3%. We are determined to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. Our deficit reduction plan is keeping interest rates low, which is vital for job creation and investment, and corporation tax is being reduced. We have also recognised the special circumstances of Northern Ireland by providing, on average, a higher block grant per head than is provided anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Since it was established by the British and Irish Governments, the International Fund for Ireland has played an important role in facilitating and encouraging investment in projects that support communities, businesses and young people. What future role does the Secretary of State envisage for the IFI, and how can it help the Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the IFI. It has done tremendous work in the past, and continues to do that work. I shall be happy to meet IFI representatives to discuss how we can work together more closely to address youth unemployment issues. I am sure that they will engage with Northern Ireland politicians who will travel to the United States for the St Patrick’s day commemorations in a week or so.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Secretary of State referred to corporation tax. Will she update the House on her discussions with the Treasury about the possibility of devolving to the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set its own rate of corporation tax?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have had a number of very useful discussions with the Prime Minister and Chancellor on this important matter. The Prime Minister will meet the First and Deputy First Ministers shortly to discuss it further, before deciding on possible next steps.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Youth unemployment in my constituency has increased significantly in the last year. Will the Secretary of State ensure that that figure is not added to by the closure of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency office in Coleraine, and will she speak with the relevant Transport Minister to make sure that those 200 jobs and their cost-effectiveness are preserved by bringing employment across to Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am very much aware of the importance of this issue. I was in the Coleraine area only last week, and I have discussed this matter with the Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). He is aware of the concern felt in Northern Ireland, and he either met Alex Attwood for further discussions yesterday or will meet him today. It is important that he takes into account the views of Northern Ireland before he makes his decision.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Instead of saying, “It’s not me, guv,” and shuffling responsibility for the terrible level of disaffection among unemployed young people in Northern Ireland, why does the Secretary of State not accept that it is her Government’s macro-economic policies that are causing this disaffection? With the marching season coming up and the loyalist disorder just past, this is a very toxic situation and she is just walking away from it and shuffling responsibility on to the Northern Ireland Executive.

[Mrs Villiers]

Not at all. The Government’s macro-economic policy is focused on dealing with the deficit and creating the right conditions for growth so we can start to resolve problems in relation to youth unemployment. That is why we are focusing on such matters as keeping interest rates low by dealing with the deficit and reducing corporation tax; why we are investing in broadband capacity—that is why Belfast and Londonderry are going to become part of our super-connected cities programme; why we are offering tax breaks for high-end TV, another growth area of industry in Northern Ireland; and why the Prime Minister is bringing the G8 to Northern Ireland, to showcase it to the world as a great place to do business.

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

5. What her policy is on the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mike Penning)]

In general, UK-wide party funding rules apply to Northern Ireland parties. However, the Electoral Commission cannot disclose information that relates to donations or loans to Northern Ireland parties. The Government are committed to making party funding more transparent, while ensuring donor identities are not released retrospectively.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to the Minister of State for that answer. He will know there is cross-party consensus that political funding in Northern Ireland needs to be more transparent and accountable to the public. Will he therefore engage with all the political parties who choose to take their seats here, to ensure we make progress on this very important issue?

[Mike Penning]

Not only will I engage with all political parties that take their seats here, I will also engage with those that do not, because I think this is a very important issue. In the last couple of weeks, with the shadow Minister for the Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), we took through a statutory instrument that puts in place an extension until September next year. We hope to be in a better position next year, but we must protect those who may be vulnerable should they wish to donate to a political party.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

For years this House has allowed the disgraceful situation to continue whereby Sinn Fein has been able to draw down tens of thousands of pounds of representative money without providing representation in this House. Discrimination against true democrats must be stopped. When will the Government grasp the nettle and stop this intolerable abuse and inequality of funding?

[Mike Penning]

I recently discussed this matter with the Leader of the House. This is a matter for the House, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will like to raise it with the Leader of the House. He might, perhaps, even get a debate on it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

6. What consideration she is giving to bringing forward an amendment to the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 in relation to notification requirements as part of the proposed Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

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

Under the relevant legislation, anyone who is organising a parade must notify the Parades Commission. If they fail to do so, the parade is illegal and those who organise or participate in it are liable to criminal prosecution.

[Mark Durkan]

First, as the MP for the city in question, may I join in the Secretary of State’s earlier condemnation of the attempted murder attack and her commendation of the PSNI interception of it, averting devastation and death?

Does the Secretary of State recognise that there was a gap in the understanding of the Parades Commission and the PSNI in relation to unnotified parades, and that that created a situation whereby we were getting dangerous notions, instead of responsible heads? Does she recognise that we, as legislators, may need to clarify the law on parades so that things are not destabilised during the forthcoming parades season?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am always open to considering ideas for making these decision-making processes work better, but the reality is that the problem over recent weeks has not been how the legislation is structured—the problem has been that people have not been obeying it. So it is vital, as we go into the parading season, that people respect the decisions of the Parades Commission, notifying it when a parade is contemplated.

I also wish to echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments condemning unreservedly the horrific terrorist attack that his constituency was threatened with and that was narrowly averted by the swift action of the PSNI.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

rose—

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is even more popular than he knew. Let us hear from him.

[David Simpson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to bringing forward an amendment to the Northern Ireland Bill to remove the Parades Commission, which is seen by many as part of the problem and not the solution?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is vital that everyone recognises that the Parades Commission carries out an important function. It is the only lawfully constituted body in relation to parading and its decisions must be obeyed. We have always said that we are open to a reform of the system that would see a devolved solution. If the Northern Ireland political parties wish to put forward such a solution, we will consider it seriously.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

7. What recent assessment she has made of the prospects for economic growth in Northern Ireland.

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

The Government are committed to dealing with the deficit to create the right conditions for growth and economic recovery. We are working with the Executive to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy and boost the private sector.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the important thing is to increase our exports for the UK as a whole? What role does she think Northern Ireland can play? What support can she give businesses in Northern Ireland to increase exports?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am working closely with Northern Ireland Ministers on this matter. There are huge opportunities this year to highlight Northern Ireland as a great place in which to invest, not least when the eyes of the world focus on County Fermanagh as the G8 summit comes to Northern Ireland, thanks to the personal decision of the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In my experience the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) rarely has difficulty in making himself heard, but there is a lot of noise at the moment and so, just in case, let us have a bit of quiet for Mr Stephen Pound.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am mortally obliged, sir.

Some 111,000 working families receiving tax credits in Northern Ireland will lose out because of the Government’s tax on strivers. At the same time, the Government will give a tax cut for those earning £1 million and above. Does the Secretary of State think that economic growth will be helped or hindered by having Christmas in April for millionaires?

[Mrs Villiers]

The Government are fully committed to their welfare reform programme. We believe that welfare reform is essential to ensure that work always pays. We believe that it is deeply irresponsible for Her Majesty’s Opposition to continue to oppose all the reforms of welfare, which are designed to get the welfare bill down. That spiralled under their tenure of the economy.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Like many other peripheral regions of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has suffered most during this recession. We understand that reckless expenditure will damage the economy, but would the Secretary of State support the calls by all the regional administrations in the United Kingdom for a fiscal stimulus for capital expenditure, which will create short-term jobs and increase the economy’s capacity in the long run?

[Mrs Villiers]

As Finance Minister for the Northern Ireland Executive, the hon. Gentleman has options available to him within the block grant, which he receives under the Barnett arrangements; his grant remains considerably higher than the UK average. We are happy to continue to work with him and his colleagues in the Executive to generate inward investment for Northern Ireland and to ensure that our macro-economic policy, for example, on reducing corporation tax, is delivering the maximum benefits possible to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy.

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

Does the Secretary of State understand the strength of feeling from the political parties and the business community about the case for the reduction of corporation tax in Northern Ireland so that it can better compete with the Republic?

[Mrs Villiers]

I certainly understand that and I gather that the right hon. Gentleman had some lively discussions on that matter at the Alliance party conference. The Prime Minister is well aware of that perspective on corporation tax and I have discussed it with him and with the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister on a number of occasions.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

9. When the most recent report of the investigation into the McGurk’s bar bombing will be made public.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mike Penning)]

I understand that the most recent public report on that tragic event was published by the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in February 2011. I tried to place a copy in the House today but have been told that that is not possible, but it will be on the police ombudsman’s website and it is available now.

[Michael Connarty]

I am disappointed that the Minister of State is replying, as I would have thought that the Secretary of State would take the chance to repeat her apology to me to the people affected by the McGurk’s bar bombing, which was the biggest bombing before Omagh. Do the Government accept that they cannot devolve the past and that their response should ensure that the suppression of witnesses that happened and the expert evidence that was given but then supplanted by lies and fabrication from the Northern Ireland police are not allowed to continue, so that we get to the truth about the collusion that took place before and after the bomb?

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mike Penning]

At the outset, let me pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done over the years. I know I upset him the other week when I was slightly robust, but Mr Speaker has also rebuked me for being too soft and quietly spoken in the past couple of weeks. Let us put it this way: I served in the Province and am very proud to have done so. No bomb is acceptable and we must get to the truth.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister of State acknowledge that I am a member of the second largest party of opposition in this House—that is, not the Labour party—and indicate what other reports by the Historical Enquiries Team are pending on other atrocities in Northern Ireland? Will he demonstrate that the HET must do more to reassure the majority community, as republicans murdered Protestants in Northern Ireland in cold blood and the HET should demonstrate that in its publications and findings?

[Mike Penning]

The issue has been raised with me on more than one occasion. I have continually looked into the evidence base and if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that such work is not taking place across the political divide in Northern Ireland, he should come and see me about it. He knows that he will get a welcome response.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Derek Twigg]

More than 2,500 households in Halton are affected by the bedroom tax. The chief executive of the National Housing Federation said this week:

“The bedroom tax is ill-thought and unfair as thousands of disabled people will have no choice but to cut back further on food and other expenses in order to stay in their…homes.”

Will the Prime Minister now drop this callous policy?

[The Prime Minister]

Let us be absolutely clear that this is not a tax. Let me explain to the Labour party that a tax is when someone earns some money and the Government take some of that money away from them—that is a tax. Only Labour could call a benefit reform a tax increase. Let me be clear to the hon. Gentleman: pensioners are exempt, people with severely disabled children are exempt and people who need round-the-clock care are exempt. Those categories of people are all exempt, but there is a basic issue of fairness. How can it be fair that people on housing benefit in private rented accommodation do not get a spare room subsidy, whereas people in social housing do? That is not fair and we are putting that right.

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

Figures published yesterday show that over the past 20 years there has been a 137% increase in the number of deaths linked to Alzheimer’s disease. Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to stop that awful condition afflicting more people in the future, we must invest much more in preventing it and on research in particular? Will he outline to the House what the Government are doing to help support those with dementia and those who care for them?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a point of concern to everyone in this House and everyone in this country, because no one knows when a relative could be afflicted by the condition. Her point is absolutely right: this is a disease and we should be thinking about it as a disease, as we do when we try to crack cancer, or heart disease, or strokes. That is why the Government are increasing the amount of money going into medical research so that we can try to prevent dementia in more cases. But there are many other things we need to do to improve the care in care homes and in hospitals and to ensure that we have more dementia-friendly communities so that we all learn how to deal with people who have dementia and how to help them lead lives that are as productive as possible.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I would like to ask the Prime Minister about an individual case that has been raised with me. John works in east London and is worried about what is happening to his living standards. His salary is £1 million and he is worried that under proposed EU regulations, his bonus may be capped at just £2 million. Will the Prime Minister tell us what he is going to do for John?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say to John and everyone like John is that under this Government, bonuses are one quarter of what they were when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury. I will take lots of lectures from lots of people, but I do not have to listen to the croupier in the casino when it all went bust.

[Edward Miliband]

I know the Prime Minister does not want to deal with the facts, but he sent his Chancellor to Europe yesterday in order to argue against the bonus cap, he says, presumably because he thinks it will be bad for the City of London, but who led the negotiations on the bonus cap? It was a Conservative Member of the European Parliament. What did she say? She said

“we have managed to produce a deal that will strike the right balance for the majority of bankers who take responsible decisions.”

Why are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor the only people who think it is a priority to fight for bigger bonuses for bankers?

[The Prime Minister]

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We have some of the toughest rules on bonuses and the toughest rules on transparency of any major financial centre anywhere in the world. When the croupiers were in charge, where was the transparency? There was none. Where were the rules? There were none. We are not going to listen to them, but there is an important issue here. There are some important British national interests. We are responsible for 40% of the EU’s financial services. Those industries are here in our country and we ought to make sure that they go on contributing to our Exchequer. We want to make sure that international banks go on being headquartered here in the UK. We think that matters. The right hon. Gentleman might want to just pose and play politics, but we care about these things. We also want to make sure that we can put in place the very tough ring-fence around our retail banks so that the complete shambles that he presided over can never happen again.

[Edward Miliband]

This is the man who in opposition said:

“There will be a day of reckoning”

for the bankers. Now he sends his Chancellor to fight against the bonus cap in Brussels. What did he say? Was he arguing that there should be more regulation of the banks? No. [Interruption.] Oh, he says he was. Let’s see. What did he say? David Cameron, “A Conservative Economic Strategy”, March 2008. I have it here. He said:

“As a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say”

that the problem of the past decade has been

“too much regulation”.

There we have it. I think John the banker will take heart that the Prime Minister is straining every muscle to help him. Now, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman about the cases of the hundreds of thousands of disabled people who will lose an average of £700 a year because of his bedroom tax. Is he going to fight for them, like he is fighting for John the banker?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, let us just remember what happened in 2008, when the right hon. Gentleman was sitting in government—the biggest banking bust in our history, the build-up of the biggest deficit in our history. All the mess that we have to deal with now was delivered by him and his henchmen in 2008. Before we go on to the spare room subsidy, let him get to his feet and apologise for the mess that he left in this country. Apologise!

[Edward Miliband]

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that there are people who do not like it if Question Time runs over. Personally, it does not matter to me at all. The more noise and disruption there is, the longer it will take and the longer we will be here. It is very simple.

[Edward Miliband]

I notice that the Prime Minister has a new tactic, which is to ask me questions during our exchanges. All I can say is that it is good to see him preparing for opposition. The Home Secretary shakes her head. I am looking forward to facing her when they are in opposition.

Let me ask the Prime Minister another question, because he did not answer the one about the bedroom tax. He talked earlier about the hardship fund. Let us look at the facts about the fund. Some £25 million of it has been allocated specifically to help disabled people hit by the bedroom tax, but how much do his own figures show he is taking from disabled people? The answer is £306 million. Will he admit that the vast majority of disabled people hit by his bedroom tax will get no help from his hardship fund?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the whole House, and the whole country, will note that there was no apology for the mess left by the Labour party.

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that his figures on the spare room subsidy are completely wrong. The last thing he said before sitting down was that we are cutting the money going to disabled people. That is simply not the case. In 2009-10 the money spent on disability living allowance was £12.4 billion. By 2015 it will be £13.3 billion. There is no cut in the money going to the disabled. This Government are protecting that money, in spite of the mess he made. On the spare room subsidy, pensioners are exempt, people with disabled children are exempt and anyone who needs help around the clock is also exempt. As he is fond of reading out letters from constituents, let me read from one I got on this issue from a pensioner:

“We are expected to find up to an extra £60 per month out of our pensions for having extra bedrooms.”

Of course, they are not, because they are pensioners and are therefore exempt, but they have been terrified by the right hon. Gentleman’s completely irresponsible campaign.

[Edward Miliband]

I think what that means is that there was nothing in the briefing on the question I asked. Let me just make it clear, because the Prime Minister obviously does not understand it. His own impact assessment—he might like to read it, by the way—states that 420,000 disabled people will be hit by the bedroom tax by an average of £700 a year. That is £306 million. The money in the hardship fund allocated to disabled people is just £25 million. It is basic arithmetic. Will he admit that the vast majority of disabled people will get no help from the hardship fund and will be hit by his bedroom tax?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, because anyone with severely disabled children is exempt from the spare room subsidy—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members must not shout at the tops of their voices at the Prime Minister. The question has been asked, it was heard and the answer must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman completely ignores the fact that anyone with severely disabled children and anyone who needs round-the-clock care are exempt from the spare room subsidy. The point he has to address is this: we are spending £23 billion on housing benefit. That is up by 50% over the past decade. That is £1,000 every year for every basic rate taxpayer. We say that it is time to reform housing benefit, and it is only fair that we treat people in social housing in the same way as we treat those in private rented housing. He has no proposals to do anything about welfare, other than to put up borrowing.

[Edward Miliband]

I think that we have established today that the Prime Minister does not understand his own policy. It is shameful to do this and not even understand the impact on the people of this country. He pulls out all the stops to defend the bankers and their bonuses, but he has nothing to say to the disabled people being hit by his bedroom tax. He stands up for the wrong people. It is no wonder his Back Benchers and the country think he is totally out of touch.

[The Prime Minister]

What we have heard today is what we hear every single Wednesday. The Opposition will not support one single change to welfare. They will not support reforms to housing benefit. They did not even support it when we took housing benefit away from people charging £100,000 a year. They would not support changes to child benefit. They will not support any changes to disability living allowance. They will not support changes to council tax benefit. They have opposed £83 billion of welfare saving. That is the point. They have to admit that their policy is to put up borrowing. They have nothing to offer, only debt, debt and more debt.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mark Pritchard.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Forgive me, Mr Speaker, I was taken by surprise and my question might surprise some Members even more. On 8 March we celebrate international women’s day. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the Indian and Pakistani Governments to do more to uphold the rights of women and to advance the gender agenda?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. There are some particular issues we should really focus on. Female genital mutilation is a completely unacceptable practice that we need to deal with right across the world, but including here in the United Kingdom, and we will be making an announcement about that. We should also do more to crack down on the completely unacceptable practice of forced marriages. Forced marriages are still taking place right here with people involved from the United Kingdom, and we need to do more to put a stop to it.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Q2. I have been asked by the good people of Whitburn to open a food bank for West Lothian. I am very proud of these people who are pulling together as community, but I have to say that I carry a sense of absolute shame that this Government are driving people, even working people, more and more to have to use food banks. I can see people waving this away. It is a question of morality. The Government must surely look after the poor as well as look after the rich.

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome people making this contribution in our country, as the last Labour Government did by giving the organisation that founded food banks a prize and an award for its work. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the use of food banks went up 10 times under Labour, but one thing Labour refused to do, which we have done, is to allow jobcentres to point people towards food banks if they need them. The last Labour Government were worried about the adverse publicity, and they put that worry before the needs of people up and down the country.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Q15. Does the Prime Minister agree that we cannot borrow less by borrowing more, that we cannot deal with the deficit left by the last Labour Government by increasing our debts, and that the shadow Chancellor’s plan for doing so is both financially and morally bankrupt?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The policy of the official Opposition is to borrow less by borrowing more. It is completely incredible. That is why the Leader of the Opposition comes here week after week and asks all sorts of questions but will never mention his borrowing policy. It is an extraordinary point, but the Leader of the Opposition has a policy he is so embarrassed about that he cannot tell the House of Commons.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Q3. David Nicholson showed wilful and culpable ignorance while more than 1,000 people died needlessly in the NHS. How can the public have any confidence in the administration of the NHS while this man remains? Will the Prime Minister not sack him immediately?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say about David Nicholson is that he has very frankly and very candidly apologised and acknowledged the mistakes that were made. That is an important point, because everyone has to think of their responsibilities with regard to the dreadful events that happened at the Staffordshire hospital, including the fact that part of the problem was people following a very top-down, target-led agenda which led to patient care being put on the back burner. David Nicholson has made his apology and wants to get on with his job of running an excellent national health service, and other people, frankly, should be thinking of their positions too.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Q4. Will the Prime Minister welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and agree with me that even governing parties can win marginal by-elections if they stick by their leader through thick and thin and campaign hard for a stronger economy and a fairer society?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly welcome the new Member of Parliament for Eastleigh—for the period of this Parliament. I am sure that he will enjoy making a contribution to our debates. I note very carefully the rest of my hon. Friend’s question.

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

Q5. This time last week, the Prime Minister told me that he would not force GP commissioners to put health services out to tender. By the end of last week, doctors, nurses and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, as well as nearly 250,000 members of the public, had said that they did not believe him. Was yesterday’s withdrawal of the NHS competition regulations down to his Government’s incompetence or to the fact that the public and professionals do not trust him and believe that he is about to privatise the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

With respect to the hon. Lady, there is an attempt to create an entirely false argument. The aim is to ensure that the rules for procurement and diversity in the NHS fully respect the position that was put in place by the last Government and that has been repeated under this Government. We are putting that beyond any doubt. What I would say to her is what I said last week: what are we to be frightened of in making sure that in our brilliant NHS there can be a full contribution from private sector companies and voluntary and charitable bodies?

That position was in the manifesto on which the hon. Lady stood at the last election. In case she has forgotten, I will remind her of what it said: “We will support”—[Interruption.] I thought that Labour Members would like to hear their manifesto. It said:

“We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care, particularly where they bring innovation—such as in end-of-life care and cancer services”.

What happens is that when the Labour party goes into opposition, it becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

A report to Monitor recommends the closure of acute services and most emergency and maternity services at Stafford. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and colleagues to discuss the serious impact that that would have on access to services for people throughout Staffordshire, including the two new Signals regiments that we will be welcoming in 2015?

[The Prime Minister]

I have discussed that issue many times with my hon. Friend and am happy to speak to him again. The trust continues to face serious financial challenges that are putting at risk its work to improve services for patients. As is required by the legislation, Monitor will consult the Secretary of State for Health and others before making the final decision to go ahead with the matter that my hon. Friend raises. If he wants to discuss it with me or the Secretary of State for Health, I am very happy to have that conversation.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Q6. This week, the Centre for Economics and Business Research reported that one in 10 people in Newcastle has borrowed money to pay for food. From April, 20,000 of our poorest households will be asked to find up to £125 per month to pay for the council tax benefit cut and the bedroom tax. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether, at the same time, he will benefit personally from the millionaires’ tax cut?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me address the issue of the spare room subsidy in Newcastle specifically. There are 9,000 people on social housing waiting lists. Across the country, 250,000 people are living in overcrowded accommodation and would love to have access to a house with more rooms, while 386,000 people are living in under-occupied housing. The Labour party does not want to recognise that reality and has absolutely nothing to offer in terms of reform.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Q7. Last year, more than 100 women were killed by men in the United Kingdom. We know that domestic violence happens behind doors across the entire country. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of international women’s day to pay tribute to the outstanding work of Wiltshire police in trialling new ways of reducing this appalling crime and to the victim support centre in Devizes, which provides services for those who suffer in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to do that. Fighting domestic violence is an important part of international women’s day, as my hon. Friend says. I commend not only the police in Wiltshire, but the local authority because it has done very good work to bring all the agencies together to ensure that there is a joined-up approach to cracking this difficult problem which, as she says, has often been hidden from view.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Q8. A recent report by the TUC suggested that wages in this country have been depressed by 3% since you came to power. Sorry, I meant the Tories, not you, Mr Speaker. Given that fact and the cuts to welfare, why is it that bankers, spivs and speculators can get away with stuffing their pockets with £50 notes under the guise of bonuses? When will the Prime Minister get a grip of the fat cats? If he is not going to get a grip, he should let my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) into his seat and he will get a grip.

[The Prime Minister]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that when his hon. Friends were in charge, the bonuses were higher, the banks were going bust and there was no proper regulation. That is why we are dealing with the mess—[Interruption.] He can try and wave it away, but the right hon. Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) were sitting in the casino when the wheels stopped spinning and the country nearly went bust.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Q9. Does the Prime Minister welcome the action taken today by the Office of Fair Trading to ensure that payday lenders behave responsibly and fairly?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important case because a number of payday lenders have been behaving in a completely irresponsible way. The OFT is putting 50 firms on notice over their behaviour, and requiring them to take specific actions or face fines or have their licences revoked. The OFT is also consulting on referring the entire sector to the Competition Commission. Action is being taken and I commend the OFT for what it has done.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Q10. Rotherham college of arts and technology has just had a cut of 280 places for 16 to 18-year-olds. That is a 10% cut, despite Rotherham being a youth unemployment hot spot. With rising youth unemployment and a flatlining economy, why is the Prime Minister denying the young people of Rotherham an education? Will he explain why he is cutting taxes for millionaires while young people have no future?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me just tell the hon. Lady that in her region, employment is up by 21,000 this quarter, and by 74,000 since the election. We have taken 192,000 people in her region out of tax altogether, and youth unemployment has fallen since the election.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

Q11. Like many others I welcome last week’s figure showing that annual net migration has fallen by a third since the general election. Does the Prime Minister agree that that shows that the Government are ending uncontrolled immigration while the Labour party has opposed every single step we are taking to bring it down?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a worthwhile point and we have taken action right across the board to deal with the completely unacceptable situation we inherited. Under the last Government, net migration ran at more than 200,000 people a year, which meant 2 million over a decade. That is two cities the size of Birmingham coming and staying in our country under their completely busted and bankrupt system. We have cut that net migration by a third by taking a series of steps, none of which the Opposition have supported. We hear that tonight we are going to get one of those fake apologies from the Leader of the Opposition. I suspect it will be every bit as real as his completely fake apology for the mess he left the economy in.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Q12. After the riots the Prime Minister offered people in Croydon reassurances about public safety. Under the latest Tory proposals, however, every police station in Croydon North will close down and there will be fewer police officers than the wholly inadequate number that existed immediately after the riots. Is that another broken promise?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the hon. Gentleman’s figures are wrong. The number of neighbourhood police officers in London is up from 895 to 3,418. Crime is down in the Met, and he should welcome that rather than criticise it.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The Lord said, “Go forth” and in Eastleigh Labour came fourth. The Prime Minister has observed that UKIP is a party of

“nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists”

yet his Deputy Chairman says that the Conservatives should form an electoral pact with UKIP. How are the talks going?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I commend my hon. Friend on his splendid waistcoat. I am sure that if he reveals it a little further we will see that—yes, all right; enough already. It was a good, honest and fair fight in Eastleigh, but I want to be absolutely clear that the party that is meant to challenge as the Opposition in our country went precisely nowhere.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Q13. My constituents in Dumfries and Galloway are demanding that big businesses pay their full taxes. Likewise, they are determined that individuals should pay all their taxes. The Prime Minister has said that he will pay all taxes due in the proper way. Next month, will that include any tax at the new 45p rate, which he has cut from 50p?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government’s G8 initiative on tax transparency, on which we are going to make some real progress. The reason for replacing the 50p rate with the 45p rate is that the 50p rate was not raising proper money. Indeed, it raised £7 billion less. That is probably why for 10 years in office the Labour party never put it in place. That is also why under this Government the 45p rate will be a higher rate than ever it was when the two croupiers were sitting in the casino.

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

Q14. The widely disputed economic benefits of HS2 may or may not be realised in 20 years’ time. However, the blight, fear and anxiety the project generates hit my constituency on 28 January with the announcement of the extended route. I now have constituents who cannot sell their houses, businesses uncertain about their future and the potential loss of a £500 million private sector investment set to generate 7,000 jobs in 2016. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that representatives of HS2 visit my constituency to address the real concerns of my constituents about this project?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to make sure that what my hon. Friend asks for happens. I quite understand that the launch of a project such as HS2 causes a lot of local concern and unease. That is why we are putting in place such a large national consultation and will put in place a very generous compensation scheme. If we are to win in the global race economically, we must ensure that we invest in new infrastructure, whether roads and bypasses, bridges, tunnels or, indeed, railways including high-speed rail. The rest of the world is getting on board the high-speed rail revolution and it is right that we should too.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Giving an extra £150 million to local authorities to streamline adoption services and taking the exact sum out of the care sector’s early intervention grant seems to be a classic example of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. In adopting that approach, is not the Prime Minister acting in a manner more usually associated with his coalition partners?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that. It is important that we make progress with rates of adoption in our country. Far too many children are left for far too long in care when we know that they could be adopted into loving homes. Taking some of that money, and really encouraging local authorities to raise their game and improve what they do, can transform the life chances of other people who would be stuck in care. We all know that the state is not a good parent, and we want to see more children adopted more quickly, so more can grow up in a loving home.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that new car sales were up 8% in February?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in that. The fact is that the economy is rebalancing. We are seeing that in the export figures to some of the fastest growing countries in the world. We see it in the fact that 1 million more people are in private sector jobs. We see it in the fact that the rate of new business creation is the fastest now that it has ever been in our history. We see it in the fact that our economy employs more people now than it has ever done in our history. There is still a long and difficult road to travel, but the deficit is down by a quarter and we are taking the steps we need to take to get the economy moving. But as ever, we have nothing constructive from the Opposition.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to hear the Prime Minister say that he agrees that the payday loan industry is irresponsible. Will he now therefore commit to doing the one thing we know would make a difference and cap the charges of legal loan sharks—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, the most important thing to do today is to welcome what the Office of Fair Trading is doing, which is putting those companies on notice. It is worth making the point that without an effective regulated sector, there are far more dangers from loan sharks, which is the point that the hon. Lady makes.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

This week, the 45 million people of Kenya, one of the fastest emerging markets in which the UK is the biggest trade partner, went to the polls to elect a new Government under a new constitution. Yesterday I came back from the funeral in Kenya of Dr Anthony King, the young, British conservationist, world-renowned in the fight against poaching, who was tragically killed last week. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to join me in sending our condolences to Dr King’s family and our support to the people of Kenya in showing the power of democracy, justice and the rule of law?

[The Prime Minister]

I commend my hon. Friend on raising this issue and I join him in paying tribute to Anthony King. I know that my hon. Friend travelled to Kenya to speak at his funeral, and it is right that he did so. We all want to see proper, free and fair elections completed, counted and finished in Kenya and a proper democratically elected Government in that country, and to make sure that there is justice when dreadful events such as this take place.

Syria

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

12:34

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the crisis in Syria.

The time has come to announce to the House necessary developments in our policy, and our readiness to develop it further if the bloodshed continues. Two years after it began, the conflict has reached catastrophic proportions. Ten thousand people have died since I last updated the House in early January. That means that more people have died in the first two months of this year than in the whole of the first year of the conflict. The total estimated death toll is now more than 70,000. The regime has used Scud ballistic missiles against civilian areas, and the UN commission of inquiry for Syria has found evidence of grave human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including massacres, torture, summary executions and a systematic policy of rape and sexual violence by the regime’s forces and its militia.

A year ago, 1 million people needed humanitarian aid inside Syria. That figure is now up to 4 million people, out of a total population of 21 million. Forty thousand people are fleeing Syria each week; three quarters of them are women and children. The number of refugees has increased thirtyfold in the past 10 months, and today the sad milestone of 1 million refugees has been reached. The population of Lebanon, which I visited two weeks ago, has risen by 10% owing to the influx of destitute people. This is a desperate situation of increasingly extreme humanitarian suffering.

There is no sign that the Assad regime currently intends to enter into a genuine political process. It appears to believe that it can defeat its opponents militarily, and it counts on being shielded by some countries at the United Nations Security Council. It will be necessary to turn each of those calculations on its head if the conflict is to come to a peaceful end.

Securing a diplomatic breakthrough remains, of course, our objective. Last week, I discussed Syria with the new US Secretary of State John Kerry here in London, and with other close partners in a core group meeting of the Friends of the Syrian People in Rome. In Rome, I met President al-Khatib of the Syrian National Coalition, and welcomed his brave announcement that the national coalition is open to direct talks with members of the Assad regime. We continue our efforts to develop common ground with Russia. I will have talks with Russian deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov later this afternoon, and next week with Foreign Minister Lavrov, also here in London. At the end of January, the UN and Arab League special representative for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, set out a credible plan for the establishment of a transitional authority in Syria. We are working with allies to achieve, if at all possible, Security Council backing for a transition process, and I am meeting Mr Brahimi again this afternoon.

However, the fact remains that diplomacy is taking far too long and the prospect of an immediate breakthrough is slim. Each month of violence in Syria means more death, wider destruction, larger numbers of refugees and bloodier military confrontation. The international community cannot stand still in the face of this reality. Our policy has to move towards more active efforts to prevent the loss of life in Syria. That means stepping up our support to the opposition and thereby increasing the pressure on the regime to accept a political solution. What we face is not a choice between diplomacy on the one hand and practical assistance on the other; helping the opposition is crucial to bringing about a political transition and saving lives, and both must be pursued together. We will always be careful in how we develop our policy, but our readiness to develop it further should be unmistakable, particularly to the Assad regime.

What happens in Syria is vital to our national interest for three reasons. The first is the growth of extremism. We should never forget that the vast majority of those opposing the regime are ordinary people trying to defend their communities and gain freedom for their country. However, Syria today has become the top destination for jihadists from anywhere in the world, and we are already seeing a rise in sectarian violence and attacks using improvised explosive devices, including car bombs. We cannot allow Syria to become another breeding ground for terrorists who pose a threat to our national security.

Secondly, the crisis is undermining the peace of the region. On top of the refugee crisis, there have been reports of clashes on the Iraqi border and in Lebanon. We are increasingly concerned about the regime’s willingness to use chemical weapons and have warned the Assad regime that the use of chemical weapons would lead to a serious response from the international community. Those who order the use of chemical weapons and those who use them will be held to account. There is also credible information that, through its Revolutionary Guard corps, Iran is providing considerable military support to the regime, including personnel, equipment, weapons and direct financial assistance.

Thirdly, we and our allies must always be prepared to respond to situations of extreme humanitarian distress. Our foreign policy is inseparable from upholding human rights, protecting lives and supporting international law. We must assist the genuine moderate and democratic forces in Syria who are in dire need of help and who feel abandoned by the international community. The longer this conflict goes on, the more human suffering, persecution of minorities, radicalisation and sectarian conflict there will be.

Despite these three compelling arguments, there will still be those who say that Britain should have nothing to do with Syria, but we cannot look the other way while international law and human rights are flouted; we cannot step back from a crisis that could destabilise the heart of the middle east, and it would be the height of irresponsibility to ignore potential threats to our own security. I want to explain to the House, therefore, the next step in increasing our support to the Syrian people, and I emphasise that there may well have to be further steps.

We have contributed nearly £140 million in humanitarian aid so far. This is funding food, clean drinking water, medical assistance, blankets and shelter for many tens of thousands of people. We are supporting the Syrian National Coalition’s own efforts to deliver aid inside Syria, and we will seek new ways to relieve the humanitarian crisis and to expand access to aid across the country, while preparing to help a future Government deal with the aftermath of the conflict.

We have also committed a total of £9.4 million so far in non-lethal support, such as power generators and communications kit, to the Syrian opposition, civil society and human rights defenders. We have trained more than 300 Syrian journalists and activists and are providing satellite communication devices to document human rights violations and abuses.

I informed the House in January that we would seek to amend EU sanctions on Syria to open up the possibility of further assistance if the situation deteriorated. On Thursday, we finalised with our European partners a specific exemption to the EU sanctions to permit the provision of non-lethal military equipment and all forms of technical assistance to the Syrian National Coalition where it is intended for the protection of civilians.

This is an important advance in our ability to support the opposition and help save lives. Such technical assistance can include assistance, advice and training on how to maintain security in areas no longer controlled by the regime; on co-ordination between civilian and military councils; on how to protect civilians and minimise the risks to them; and on how to maintain security during a transition. We will now provide such assistance, advice and training.

We intend to respond to the opposition’s request to provide equipment for search and rescue operations and for incinerators and refuse collection kit to prevent the spread of disease. We will help local councils to access funds and equipment to repair electricity and water supplies to homes, and we will respond to the opposition’s request for further water purification kits and equipment to help civilian political leaders operate and communicate.

We will also now provide new types of non-lethal equipment for the protection of civilians, going beyond what we have given before. In conjunction with the national coalition, we are identifying the protective equipment that will be of most assistance to them and likely to save the most lives. I will keep the House updated, but it will certainly include, for instance, armoured four-wheel drive vehicles to help opposition figures move around more freely, as well as personal protection equipment including body armour.

We will now also be able to provide testing equipment to the opposition to enable evidence gathering in the horrific event of chemical weapons use. We will also fund training to help armed groups understand their responsibilities and obligations under international law and international human rights standards. Any human rights violations or abuses are unacceptable on all sides. We have allocated nearly £3 million in funding this month to support this work and an additional £10 million thereafter, comprising $20 million in non-lethal equipment and practical support for the Syrian opposition and civil society, on top of the $60 million announced by the United States. We hope other countries will offer similar assistance.

The Cabinet is in no doubt that this is a necessary, proportionate and lawful response to a situation of extreme humanitarian suffering and that there is no practicable alternative. All our assistance will be carefully calibrated and monitored, as well as legal, and will be aimed at saving life, alleviating this human catastrophe and supporting moderate groups. The process of amending the EU sanctions regime in this way was difficult, and the decision came down to the wire. We persisted with it because we believe it is preferable to have a united EU approach. In our view, if a political solution to the crisis in Syria is not found and the conflict continues, we and the rest of the European Union will have to be ready to move further, and we should not rule out any option for saving lives. In case further necessary amendments to the EU sanctions regime prove impossible to agree, we stand ready to take any domestic measures necessary to ensure that core sanctions on Syria remain effective.

This is a situation in Syria where extreme humanitarian distress and growing dangers to international peace and security must weigh increasingly heavily in the balance against other risks. With the crisis now becoming one of major dimensions by any standard—with millions of people on the move, many tens of thousands dead, tens of thousands more in daily danger of losing their lives, the world’s most volatile region in growing tension and political deadlock that has endured for two years—our policy cannot be static nor our position indifferent. A situation of growing gravity requires a steadily more active approach, learning the lessons of previous conflicts and always emphasising the need for a political and diplomatic resolution of the crisis, but crucially also being prepared to use increased pressure and levers to try to bring that about. We will continue to keep the House properly informed as we press for an end to the conflict, to provide life-saving assistance and to work to ensure that Syria has the political transition its people need and deserve, and which they have now waited far too long to see achieved.

12:46

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this morning.

This month marks the second anniversary of the start of this brutal conflict. As the Foreign Secretary rightly pointed out to the House, two years on, the death toll is now estimated at some 70,000 and is rising by the day. Only today the United Nations announced that the number of Syrian refugees had now reached 1 million. Half are children. More than 400,000 have become refugees since 1 January 2013 alone. More than 7,000 are now reported to be fleeing every day. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees today declared:

“Syria is spiralling towards full-scale disaster”.

As the number of casualties rises, frustrations too have been growing. That has understandably led to renewed calls for the international community to do more. The primary responsibility for the crisis rests with Assad and his regime, but does the Foreign Secretary accept that the deteriorating situation in Syria also represents an abject failure by the international community and that it shares a collective responsibility for that failure? It is right that efforts must now intensify, but the key issue is the breadth of those efforts, how they are channelled and how likely they are to deliver results.

There are some vital areas where the international community must better co-ordinate and target its efforts. First, on international diplomatic efforts, the stalemate at the United Nations Security Council is more than just frustrating: it is deplorable. The case must be made to Russia and China that supporting or aiding Assad not only harms Syria but harms their own interests, and indeed their standing in the wider region. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what representations he will make to Foreign Minister Lavrov when he is in London next week on this issue and the prospects of a change of position in the Security Council?

Secondly, 11 separate rounds of sanctions against Syria have already been agreed. The issue at present is not necessarily new sanctions, but effective enforcement of existing ones. Given the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to Lebanon, does he agree that more must be done to ensure that countries fully comply with the existing sanctions to which they have already signed up?

Thirdly, on international accountability, the responsibility for the crisis primarily rests with the Assad regime, as I have made clear, and the perpetrators must ultimately be held to account. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that efforts to collect and publish the names of Syrian army officers ordering the ongoing atrocities are vital? Such efforts could serve as a clear signal of intent that those officers will face the full force of international justice for their crimes—and of course that includes the use of chemical weapons.

Fourthly, on the issue of peace talks, Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib, the leader of the Syrian National Coalition, last month reportedly offered to engage in talks on a political settlement without demanding Assad’s resignation. In an interview last week, Assad claimed that he was

“ready to negotiate with anyone, including militants who surrender their arms.”

Neither of those offers has yet been accepted, nor can we make a judgment as to the spirit in which they were intended, but will the Foreign Secretary offer his assessment of whether they constitute even a slight narrowing of the gap between the Syrian authorities and opposition forces?

Finally, let me turn to the central issue of the UK’s support for the Syrian opposition and the announcements in today’s statements. It is right that the UK is at the forefront of co-ordinating international efforts to deliver aid to those most in need, both within and beyond the Syrian borders, and I welcome recent announcements to that effect. Beyond humanitarian assistance, when it comes to our support for the Syrian opposition forces, it is vital that all our support must continue to be targeted and accountable if it is to be effective.

The Foreign Secretary has today said that the Government will move towards

“more active efforts to prevent the loss of life in Syria.”

It is right that the international community must increase its efforts, but it is vital that the parameters of those efforts are clearly set out, defined and understood. Indeed, on this issue, the Foreign Secretary’s statement at times raised more questions than answers as to the real direction he is suggesting for British Government policy.

The Foreign Secretary has today spoken of the amendments to the EU arms embargo. I welcome the fact that those changes were collectively agreed at the EU Foreign Affairs Council. Those amendments were focused on ensuring that the right to non-lethal equipment and technical assistance could be delivered to opposition forces, but the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), seemed to add confusion to an already complex issue when he told the House on Monday that this

“is not about lifting any arms embargo.”

However, he also said that the recent amendments to the existing EU arms embargo were about

“ensuring that all options are on the table and that EU countries have maximum flexibility to provide the opposition with all necessary assistance to protect civilians.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 674-76.]

Given those statements, it is understandable that there is some confusion over the Government’s position that requires further clarification. Will the Foreign Secretary say more about the next steps that he mentioned in his statement? Will he confirm whether the Government will push for an EU arms embargo to be lifted? Will he also set out what, if any, further amendments to the embargo he will call for?

The Foreign Secretary has recently admitted that, when it comes to lifting the arms embargo, the risk of arms falling into the wrong hands is

“one of the reasons we don’t do it now.”

We agree that that risk is, indeed, very serious, so will he set out what would have to change on the ground in Syria for him to change his view on the relative risks involved in such a strategy? Does he accept the reality that today’s Syria is replete with arms, and does he also accept the great difficulties involved in guaranteeing the end use of weapons, given the lack of clarity today about the identity, intent and, indeed, tactics of some of the rebel forces? Does he accept that it is perfectly possible that, if Europe or, indeed, the west more generally, were to decide to arm the rebels, Russia or, indeed, Iran, which he referenced in his remarks, would simply increase its provision of arms to the Assad regime? Rather than pushing for the EU arms embargo to be relaxed, amended or lifted altogether, may I urge the Foreign Secretary to direct his efforts towards getting the Russians and Chinese to agree to impose a UN-mandated arms embargo? This would undeniably be the most effective way of cutting off a key lifeline to the Assad regime that it is currently relying on.

Curiously, having previously mentioned the fact that al-Qaeda is known to be operating in Syria, the Foreign Secretary was silent on that issue in his remarks today. In the light of potentially increased UK support for the opposition forces, will he set out the British Government’s assessment of the present level of activity by al-Qaeda and related jihadist groups in Syria?

The Foreign Secretary spoke about the Syrian National Coalition, but is he able to give any assurances about the degree of authority and control exercised by the SNC over the wide range of opposition forces operating on the ground?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am mildly alarmed by my sight of a further full page of text in front of the right hon. Gentleman, but I know he will put my mind at rest when he tells me that, in fact, it relates to something entirely different and he does not intend to deal with it.

[Mr Alexander]

One of my missions is to always seek to put your mind at rest, Mr Speaker, so I will endeavour to keep my remarks as short as possible. In my own defence, I would simply say that, by way of introduction, I indicated that the Foreign Secretary’s statement prompted more questions than it answered. I am, however, mindful of your view, Mr Speaker, so I will conclude shortly.

I understand that the frustrations of Government Members are growing, but a strategy born of frustration is less likely to deliver than one based on clear thinking and strategic insight. Surely the priority now for Britain should be to work to unify the Syrian opposition, not to arm it. The continuing loss of life underlines the fact that Syria needs to see a de-escalation and a political resolution. Although the Government have our support for their actions to provide the humanitarian and non-lethal assistance to Syria announced today, it is far from clear that taking steps to intensify this conflict in the months ahead would do anything to reduce the present level of violence being suffered by the Syrian people.

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman correctly draws attention, as I have done, to the extent of the human suffering. The fact that the United Nations has launched the largest ever financial appeal for humanitarian assistance underlines the catastrophic scale of that suffering. We must all remember that that is the background to the situation and to deciding what we have to do.

The right hon. Gentleman made some recommendations towards the end of his remarks, some of which we have done, including work to unify the Syrian opposition, which, of course, is what we did for many months. They have been unified, to the extent that it can be practically achieved, in the Syrian National Coalition and we have recognised that group as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. I do not suppose that any opposition or political grouping will be perfect in the eyes of this or any other country, but I do not believe that there will be a better attempt or greater success at unifying the Syrian opposition than the national coalition.

It would be wonderful if some of the right hon. Gentleman’s other recommendations could be achieved, including Russian and Chinese agreement to impose an arms embargo by the whole world on Syria. We would, of course, support that—we will go over this ground in our meetings with the Russians this afternoon and next week—but I have not seen any prospect of Russia agreeing to such an arms embargo. It is a good thing to wish for, but in practical, diplomatic terms there is no possibility at the moment of it being achieved. That is the background to the decisions that we have to make. Many things would be far preferable, such as an immediate agreement on a negotiated political transition in Syria.

The right hon. Gentleman asked, rightly, how seriously we should take the offers to negotiate. Having talked to President al-Khatib of the national coalition last week, I believe not only that his offer is sincere but that he would love it to be taken up and that he really would negotiate with members of the regime without prior insistence on the departure of Assad. However, President Assad’s insistence during his weekend interview that the regime is ready to negotiate is something that we have heard for two years but that has never turned into actual substance. Of course, we will discuss with Mr Brahimi again this afternoon whether those statements can be used to bring both sides closer together. It is part of his job to try to do that. The evidence of the past two years, however, is that, in current circumstances, offers to negotiate by the regime are not sincere, are not followed up and do not lead to the sort of progress that we all want to see.

It is against that background of diplomatic deadlock and political stalemate while tens of thousands die that I argue that we have to do what we can in a very cautious, considered and clearly thought-out way to try to change that situation and to save human lives as best we can, working at all times with our partners and allies, including those in the Arab world. There is a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League today.

We will continue to use every diplomatic effort, but the situation that the right hon. Gentleman and I are describing cannot remain static. He is quite right to say that the international community has been an abject failure collectively. The United Nations Security Council has not shouldered its responsibilities. We have tried many times to put that right, but our resolutions have been vetoed. We have been working in the last month since Mr Brahimi’s last briefing to the Security Council to find a new common way forward for the council—we will discuss that again with the Russians in the coming hours—but that common ground has not emerged in a month of discussions behind the scenes in New York.

Given that situation, we all have to ask ourselves whether we are going to hold our policy completely static or show that we are prepared to change as the situation deteriorates—reluctantly perhaps, and cautiously at all times. I argue that we must be prepared to show an increased level of support for the opposition, and that it has to take a practical form if we are to exert any pressure on the regime—and, indeed, on Russia as well—to successfully negotiate on this matter. The parameters have, I hope, been clearly set out in my statement. They are clearly set out in the amendment to the United Nations arms embargo. It is amended, not lifted. The arms embargo remains in place; these are specific exemptions for non-lethal military equipment and for technical assistance for the protection of civilians. I have just given examples of what that means in practice.

As for the future, the EU sanctions have now been rolled over, with that amendment, for three months. There will therefore be a further discussion in May about the renewal of such sanctions, and the Government—and every Member of this House—will be able to form their views on what we should do, in whatever situation we have arrived at in May, about further amendments to the embargo, if they are necessary. I think the parameters are clear. The policy is clear, and above all I want to make it clear that its direction is clear: we must be prepared to do more in a situation of such slaughter and suffering, and a more static policy would not measure up to the gravity of the situation.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

While I welcome the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s speech and the specific measures that he has announced, I regret to say that I cannot see how any of them will have any serious prospect of reducing the length of the conflict or preventing the massacre of tens of thousands more Syrians. Will he accept that, until such time as the Syrian opposition have the military equipment that will enable them to defeat the Assad regime and thereby bring the conflict to an end earlier than would otherwise be the case, we will continue to see tens of thousands of people being killed and the extremists in the opposition benefiting from that delay? What would the Foreign Secretary have to be persuaded of, in order to accept that giving military support to the opposition in a controlled and responsible way is indeed necessary?

[Mr Hague]

What I—and, I suspect, most of the House—would have to be persuaded of is that there was absolutely no alternative remaining. My right hon. and learned Friend has put the case—for a long time, actually—for going much further than I have proposed today in regard to the arming of the opposition movements in Syria by western countries. The difficulties involved in doing that have partly been set out by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), but we also have to recognise that that conflict in Syria is already militarised. Opposition groups have access to substantial quantities of weapons, and those weapons are already inside Syria. There is such a flow of weapons. I therefore believe that it is right for the development of our policy to be graduated, for us to show our readiness to deliver increased assistance and for the European countries and the United States to be willing to amend our policy if the situation continues to deteriorate, but in a way that will command general support and that will pose the least danger to the increased militarisation of the conflict. That is why I think this is the right balance to strike, rather than moving to the position that my right hon. and learned Friend has consistently advocated.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Would it be a fair summary of our position to say that we are now providing every kind of assistance to the military forces of the opposition, short of the explosives, guns and bullets that actually do the killing? I have no objection to that; I think it is essential. In my judgment, the Foreign Secretary is right not to rule out the option of direct lethal military supplies, but would he acknowledge that the strategic diplomatic consequences of any such decision, and the degree to which we could get bogged down in a kind of cold war or proxy war, really need to be thought through very carefully indeed before we make any such positive decision?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He accurately characterises the position, although it is perhaps putting it too strongly to say that we are providing “every kind of assistance” short of lethal equipment. We are providing the assistance that I have set out today, and we will provide other assistance of that nature for the protection of civilians. That is an important requirement in the exemption to the UN arms embargo, and we will interpret it exactly. The assistance has to be for the protection of civilians. So the right hon. Gentleman went a bit too far in his characterisation of the position. He is right, however, to say that it would be a bigger and further step to decide to send lethal equipment. We have taken no decision to do that, and we have no current plans to do that, but it is necessary to be clear that in a situation of this gravity, with its implications for the peace of the whole region, we cannot rule out options. We cannot definitively rule that out. That was the thrust of his question.

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

My right hon. Friend gives a compelling analysis of the deteriorating situation in Syria, and the measures that he has announced should be not only accepted but welcomed by the House, in that they are designed to alleviate suffering and save life, but as we approach the 10th anniversary of the mistaken military action against Saddam Hussein, does he understand that many of us in the House are concerned lest we drift towards something that might be described as military intervention?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for saying that the measures I have announced should be welcomed by the House. I welcome his support and, yes, I absolutely understand that after more than a decade of conflict, in different ways, people are always anxious about new conflict. That does not mean, however, that we can stick our heads in the sand and ignore the new conflicts that have arisen in the world and that can affect us, for all the reasons that I have described. It does mean that our response to them has to be very intelligent and well calculated. Getting to the heart of his question, I think we can say clearly that no western Government are advocating the military intervention of western nations—or of any nations—in the conflict in Syria. The discussion is entirely focused on the degree of assistance that can and should be delivered to the opposition inside Syria. That is what the discussion is centred on, rather than on an external military intervention.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

But will the Foreign Secretary accept that the logical next step in the strategy that he has been pursuing for six months, if not more, is to arm the opposition? That is the logical position that he is now in, but I think that it is profoundly mistaken. Every time he has made a statement on this matter in the past six months, he has carried the whole House with him in eloquently condemning the horror, the deterioration and the barbarity of the evil Assad regime, but his strategy is wrong. Just going for regime change in what is a civil war, with its Shi’a-Sunni conflict and its reincarnation of the cold war, is never going to achieve his objective. What he should be doing, instead of just promoting the opposition’s call for negotiations, is testing the willingness to negotiate that Assad expressed over the weekend. He should test it to destruction, but he is not doing that. He is pursuing a failed strategy involving a monumental failure of diplomacy, and it is making the situation worse.

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman does not help his case in describing the Government’s position in that way. It very much follows from what I said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary that we believe the apparent offer of President Assad to negotiate must absolutely be tested and tested to destruction. We will certainly do that, and the right hon. Gentleman and I will strongly agree on that. If he were in government today, however, he would have to think about what else to do if that did not work, and it has not worked over the last two years—

[Mr Hain]

It hasn’t been tried.

[Mr Hague]

It has been tried countless times: Lakhdar Brahimi has been to Damascus countless times, and Kofi Annan before him went to Damascus countless times. Every possibility has been given to the regime to negotiate, but it has never entered into a sincere or meaningful negotiation. That being the case, it is not adequate to watch slaughter on this scale and say that we will stick our heads in the sand about it. It is important to have a foreign policy that relieves human suffering and upholds human rights. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would always be in favour of that.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

While I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s position in not supplying weapons to the rebels, it is perfectly clear that someone is supplying weapons to the rebels at present. Is not the great challenge for Syria the fact that that lot will end up fighting against Shi’a-backed militants, supported by Iran, Lebanon and Iraq, some time in the future?

[Mr Hague]

Of course, the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict is one of our great concerns. That is why we have to do everything we reasonably can to shorten the conflict, as that will only get worse as the conflict goes on. As my hon. Friend says, the conflict in Syria is already militarised and weapons have already been obtained and are being obtained by all the factions fighting in Syria, including the military council, working with the national coalition. I fear that the longer the conflict goes on, the more sectarian it will be in nature and the more opportunity there will be for extremists to take hold there. Giving our assistance to moderate forces and not to extremist forces is therefore one way in which we can try to shape the situation in a more sensible direction.

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

What consideration, if any, has been given to the possibility of implementing a no-fly zone?

[Mr Hague]

A no-fly zone is sometimes advocated, including at international meetings. The greatest difficulty with a no-fly zone is, of course, that it is a response of a totally different nature. It is a military intervention of the sort that we have been talking about and against which many hon. Members have warned. It would require military force externally on a substantial scale. A good argument of principle can be made for that on the basis of relieving human suffering by doing whatever is necessary, but the willingness of nations around the world to implement such a military intervention is limited, for understandable reasons. Indeed, such a no-fly zone could be achieved in practice only with the full participation of the United States of America, so major practical difficulties are involved. What we must not get into is saying that there are protected areas or humanitarian corridors, but then not being able to protect people. There is a sad and tragic history of those things. We should only take the step that the hon. Lady is talking about if the world and the international community were truly ready to bring it about.

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

My right hon. Friend is right to say that Syria can count on being shielded by some countries at the United Nations; not least, we know that Russia had the opportunity to bring about some sanctions in the Security Council early on. Will he start talking to his counterparts in the European Union and, indeed, in the United States about saying to the Russians, “If you don’t want to take part in this and put on the blue berets, get on the ground and do something, there will be consequences”? If the Russians refuse to take that sort of action, and are willing to stand by and let tens of thousands of people be slaughtered, we should work with our European partners, the US and south American countries to say to them, “We are not going to come to your country to showcase it in the World cup in 2018.”

[Mr Hague]

I say to my hon. Friend that we must use every art of persuasion we know in our talks with our colleagues in Russia. I can assure him that we do that. The shadow Foreign Secretary argued earlier that we must put the case to Russia about the growth of extremism in Syria and so on—and we do. I have lost count of the number of occasions on which I and other western Foreign Ministers have put the case to our Russian counterparts that everything Russia most fears in Syria is more likely to come true the longer the conflict goes on. That includes the rise of international terrorism and instability in the whole region. The Russians clearly have a different analysis, and we have not had any meeting of minds on the issue. I have to say that I am not a great fan of sporting sanctions. As a country that has just hosted the Olympics, we have a well-established position on that, but we will use every other art of persuasion in dealing with Russia.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Assad regime is clearly barbarous and has to go, but does the Foreign Secretary understand the concerns of many of our constituents who raise issues about atrocities and war crimes carried out on the opposition side, about the role of al-Qaeda and about the fact that support and help going into the country for good and proper reasons set out in good faith can end up helping people who are deeply hostile to western interests and equally guilty of terrible crimes against humanity?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course people are right to be concerned about any atrocities and any opportunity for international terrorism to take hold in a new place. That is one reason why we cannot just turn away from this crisis. It is also why—this is the nub of the right hon. Gentleman’s question—the assistance we give must be carefully thought out and monitored. Of course, all the assistance and equipment I have talked about is non-lethal. We will monitor its use to the best of our ability, but if it were misused or fell into the hands of groups for which it was not intended, that would have a very serious impact on our willingness to provide any such further assistance in the future. I stress that while people read about the opportunity for extremists to take hold, and while we are concerned about it, as I have described, the great majority of the people, even those involved in the fighting in Syria as far as we can tell, are not extremists. The opposition leaders whom I meet are people who sincerely want a future for their country that has nothing to do with extremism and terrorism. We must not leave those people feeling abandoned by the world.

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

Unfortunately, the record of moderates in standing up against extremists in such situations is not all that great. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that our sworn enemies, al-Qaeda, are fighting on the side of the opposition? Our concern is therefore that if and when the appalling Assad regime is overthrown as the Government wish, its chemical weapons stocks will fall into al-Qaeda’s hands. What practical guarantee can the Government give us that that will not happen? I asked that question on Monday; it was not satisfactorily answered, which is why I am asking it again.

[Mr Hague]

No one can give any guarantees. This is why a political and orderly transition should happen in Syria. There are certainly terrible weapons, chemical and biological, in Syria, which is why it is important to be clear that there is no military-only solution, whatever one’s point of view on the situation. Those chemical weapons are best safeguarded through a peaceful transition. That is what we need to keep arguing for. Without giving additional assistance to the moderate elements of the opposition, however, we would reduce rather than enhance the prospects for an orderly transition.

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

Is it not the case that it would be more secure, and more in our interests, to introduce a no-fly zone than to arm the opposition? We can keep control of the equipment in a no-fly zone, but we cannot do that if we hand it over to jihadist groups. Is it not also the case that the United States Administration and some neighbouring countries, including Turkey, are against the introduction of a no-fly zone, which means that we are unable to introduce one?

[Mr Hague]

Let me make it clear that I have not announced the arming of the opposition. This is different; it is about increasing the assistance that we give the opposition in the form of non-lethal equipment. The hon. Gentleman is putting the case for an external military intervention, rather than a move to any policy of support for the sending of lethal equipment to Syria. There is a respectable case for that, but as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), it would require the willingness of a large part of the international community, almost certainly including the United States, so that we were not making a false promise of safety to people. Syria continues to have strong air defences with very modern equipment, and the implementation of a no-fly zone would be a very large military undertaking. It is important for those who advocate it to bear that in mind.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

However distressing the picture of the humanitarian crisis that we see on our television screens—and it is indeed distressing—I must tell my right hon. Friend that I am extremely concerned that the United Kingdom’s hand is being drawn ever more closely into this mangle. I share all the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). What confidence has my right hon. Friend in his belief that what I think he described as the modern and democratic forces can be assisted, and will thence be in charge of a post-conflict Syria? If he is not confident of that, what we will be faced with is a further load of bloody jihadists. I hope that he will completely rule out the use of Britain’s armed forces, who are already greatly overstretched.

[Mr Hague]

I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. What I am confident about is that giving the active support that I have described to that modern and democratic opposition is the best way of helping to ensure that they are the ones who are successful. Our hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) rightly pointed out that it is often the moderate forces who lose out to extremists in circumstances such as these. The longer this goes on and the less support those forces receive from outside, the less will be their chances of success in standing up to those extremists. We must make a choice about whether we are prepared to give that support, and I think that the right choice for the United Kingdom is to increase the level of support for people who we would be prepared to see succeed.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The situation in Syria is obviously appalling, and the humanitarian crisis is absolutely devastating, but the ending of every war requires a political solution of some sort. What serious negotiations are being undertaken with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are fundamentally the funders of the opposition forces in Syria, and what serious engagement is taking place with the Government of Iran, particularly in regard to bringing about some kind of comprehensive peace negotiation and peace process? Without that, there will be more suffering, more deaths and more difficulties for everyone.

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. If regional powers were able to agree among themselves about the situation and about a solution, that would be an enormous step forward, just as it would be a vital step forward if we, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, were able to agree among ourselves. There have been some attempts. Last autumn, the Egyptian Government convened a group consisting of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey to consider the situation together and to see if they could agree on a way forward. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that they did not reach an agreement, but that is not to say that such a group could not be revived in the future. We have absolutely no problem with that. It did not succeed before—the reason it did not succeed is that Iran has not been prepared to agree on a way forward with other countries in the region—but that does not mean that it should not be tried again.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In this civil war, it seems that there is a military stalemate between two sides that have military forces. In those circumstances, and given that each side claims that it wants to negotiate, is there any chance that we can put all our efforts into securing a ceasefire, so that when the guns stop and civilians stop being killed, we may actually be able to use politics to resolve the situation?

[Mr Hague]

That is a very good thought. That too has been tried before, but it should be tried again. In any negotiated way forward, a ceasefire would be a very important element of the early part of the negotiations. My hon. Friend may recall that last summer the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, proposed a ceasefire to coincide with Eid. For a short time there was some hope that the proposal would be implemented, and there were many efforts to implement it in parts of Syria, but within days the ceasefire had completely broken down. Again, that does not mean that a ceasefire should not be at the top of the agenda for negotiations, but as my hon. Friend will have gathered, we do not have successful negotiations at the moment—much as we will discuss that with Mr Brahimi this afternoon.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what discussions he has had with Turkey, and what Turkey’s attitude is to the easing of the arms embargo?

[Mr Hague]

Turkey is very supportive of the change that the European Union has made in the arms embargo. It has, let us say, a forward-leaning approach to the crisis. If the Turkish Foreign Minister were here, he would not only say everything that I have said today, but say quite a lot more about the need for greater international support for the national coalition. I shall be meeting him again tomorrow, here in London, when he comes to the Friends of Yemen meeting, but I can say now that Turkey is extremely supportive of this announcement and of the change in EU policy.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I note that he does not rule out any option, and that, according to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), he does not rule out military intervention. No country is advocating that yet, but if Syria is considered to be part of a primary interest in our national security strategy, are we equipped to deal with this crisis? To what extent should my right hon. Friend be talking to his opposite number, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, about what contingency arrangements should be made—and, indeed, what additional expenditure is required—to give us the capacity at least to influence the security aspects of this problem?

[Mr Hague]

Of course the Defence Secretary and I discuss the whole range of international affairs on an almost continuous basis. We make the decisions about our policy on Syria in the National Security Council or in the Cabinet; we discussed it in the Cabinet yesterday. He and I are very much of the same mind, and work closely together in relation to all contingencies.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Ministry of Defence has plans covering a wide range of contingencies. It is not helpful for Ministers to speculate about those contingencies, and I stress again that we are neither calling for nor planning a military intervention. The discussion in the international community is about the degree of support for the opposition inside Syria, rather than about an external intervention. We will plan for all contingencies, but that is the context and the background of any military role in this crisis.

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

What does the Foreign Secretary think is the likelihood of chemical weapons being used in Syria, or of those weapons being moved to Hezbollah in Lebanon, thus destabilising the wider region?

[Mr Hague]

As I said in my statement, we are increasingly concerned about the regime’s possible use, or possible willingness to use, chemical weapons, and we are always concerned about any transfer of those weapons to other groups or other countries in the region, as are many of those countries. We send the strong message that I conveyed in my statement—and the President of the United States himself has conveyed a similar strong message—about the use of chemical weapons by anyone, including the Syrian regime.

It is important for the Syrian regime to hear the message that the world will be determined that the individuals responsible are held to account if chemical weapons are used.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly support the Foreign Secretary’s stand on this very difficult issue. Will he tell Mr Bogdanov this afternoon that, with 1 million fled and as many as 100,000 dead, the Syrian catastrophe now stands comparison with the Rwandan genocide, which led the international community to adopt the responsibility-to-protect doctrine in the first place, and that Russia should engage with coalition forces or face the prospect of a jihadist regime, which neither we nor it would want?

[Mr Hague]

Basically, I will tell him that—yes. That is part of the argument I stated earlier: Russia is rightly concerned about international terrorism—Russians have experience of that themselves—and if this situation goes on for many more months or years, we will see a much greater opening for such international terrorism. This is becoming a human catastrophe of immense proportions, so my hon. Friend can be confident that I will make this argument to my Russian counterpart in the robust terms he would want.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the advance copy of the statement, and welcome its emphasis on humanitarian aid. I am sure we all agree that it is now time for all nations to focus on a non-violent resolution if at all possible. That is obvious, but yesterday Israel said—threatened—at the Security Council that it cannot “stand idle” if the Syrian civil war spills over on to its border. This is a very serious situation. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that, and that we need to do everything we can to avoid further conflagration.

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely; the right hon. Gentleman is right. The danger of the spread of the crisis regionally, into other countries in different ways, is one of the reasons we cannot just watch it develop. We have to work out the best constructive approach, difficult though these choices are, to try to turn this crisis in the right direction, rather than let it drift in the wrong direction. Any of the neighbouring countries will take action if their borders are infringed, of course. We have agreed to the stationing of Patriot missiles by NATO in Turkey, Lebanon has been very concerned about clashes on its border, and the Jordanian border is a tense place—and that is even before we consider the Golan Heights and the Iraqi border as well. The regional dimension is of serious and increasing concern, which is one of the reasons for today’s package of policy changes and announcements.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I strongly reject the neo-con policies and ideas emanating from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)? What could be gained by our sending arms into this cauldron? Have we forgotten the disastrous policy of arming the rebels in Afghanistan? Have we forgotten the appalling atrocities being committed now by jihadis against Christians in Syria? What is wrong with basing our policy on life and not death?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend can be reassured that I have never considered myself to be a neo-con and do not describe myself as that as Foreign Secretary. Our policy must be very carefully calibrated. My hon. Friend draws attention to situations that have gone seriously wrong from the point of view of the international community. We must however also bear in mind, in the case of the western Balkans in the 1990s, the sense of abandonment and the radicalisation of Muslims in many parts of the world because of a policy that for too long denied people any ability in an extreme situation to protect themselves. The policy that I have announced, of doing what we can to protect civilian life, is a necessary and proportionate response.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary is well aware that there is no shortage of lethal weapons in Syria, so there is very little, if any, case for our supplying any. Frankly, supplying armoured four-wheel drive vehicles as well as personal protection equipment, including body armour, to the opposition and peoples we are trying to support, so that they can drive around in a state of total personal immunity, is not best calculated to enhance the credibility of our policy or its credibility in the eyes of the civilians who continue to live in the most appalling suffering and danger. The Secretary of State would, I believe, carry the whole House and country with a massive increase in our humanitarian assistance. He should direct his efforts to binding our European partners into doing that as well as to sanctions.

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman can be pleased in that case, because we have announced enormous increases in our humanitarian assistance. It is for my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary, who was here earlier, to announce such things, and she announced at the Kuwait conference at the end of January a vast increase—a £50 million increase—taking the total to £140 million. We are one of the biggest donors in the world in trying to alleviate human suffering. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman lists what I have said we will be sending to the opposition he will cite the full list, including medical supplies, water purification and measures to help prevent the spread of disease. The need to alleviate humanitarian suffering is therefore at the forefront of our minds, and that is what Britain is devoting by far the greatest resources to in all the effort we are putting into addressing this crisis.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

In face of these difficulties, I strongly commend my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Office for the policy they are pursuing. In his statement, he rightly drew attention to the jihadists committing atrocities using explosive devices, including car bombs. I have a British-Syrian constituent on the verge of acquiring British citizenship who has immediate family who has been killed by such a car bomb. She now wants to bring her parents to the UK simply for them to have some respite from what is happening there. They are faced with an incredibly difficult journey either to Lebanon or Jordan in order simply to make the application to come here, which now seems extremely difficult even if they were to end up being successful and getting here. If the circumstances are as I have described, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that such applications simply for the parents to come here for a while would merit his support?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend described that case very well, but, as he knows, such decisions are for the Home Secretary. I cannot say that in all circumstances we will be opening doors for people to come to the United Kingdom. As I have said, there are now 1 million refugees in other countries. It is the responsibility of the countries that receive the refugees to look after them, with international support, and I pay tribute to the generosity of the people of Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq in what they are doing, and we are doing our best to assist. That is the prime way for refugees to be assisted. My hon. Friend’s question serves as a reminder, however, that not only are 4 million out of the population of 21 million displaced or in desperate need, but many of the remaining people are in extremely dangerous and stressful conditions and are unable to pursue normal life in any way, so this is affecting the great majority of the whole country.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

The divisions among factions in the moderate and democratic opposition not only make the extremists stronger, but make the process of staging negotiations very difficult and the ability to determine who will form a Government of Syria when the regime falls absolutely impossible. What are our Government and allies doing to get greater coherence and common purpose within the moderate opposition?

[Mr Hague]

There is much greater coherence now than there has been for a long time. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that it is difficult to bring together something like the national coalition, but it is very much the best attempt that can reasonably be made to bring together those moderate and democratic forces, and it is now there to be negotiated with. Quite often over the past two years the refrain of some of the other countries on the Security Council and of the regime has been, “We want to negotiate, but we do not have someone to negotiate with.” Now they do not have that excuse. The national coalition is there for them to negotiate with, and it is willing to negotiate, so the onus is now on the regime to show that it can seriously negotiate.

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

I urge caution. Human rights groups have confirmed that atrocities have been committed by both sides, and by arming the rebels we could be arming the terrorists of the future, as well as escalating the violence. May I bring the Foreign Secretary back to the comments he made over the weekend, which clearly indicated a change in thinking about non-lethal support, despite what we were told in this House on Monday? To what extent were his comments a reflection of reports we are now getting that President Obama is thinking about changing his policy on this issue?

[Mr Hague]

I am not aware of any inconsistency in what I have said. In fact, I have said throughout that we do not rule out any options; I have said that for two years, and it would be strange to start ruling options out as the situation got worse, not having done that at any period. That is what I have said today and it is what I said at the weekend. What we are proposing to do is what I have set out today, and my hon. Friend will know from Secretary Kerry’s announcement that it is closely related to what the United States has announced. It has announced $60 million of additional practical, but non-lethal, support to the national coalition, and I have announced $20 million—to use a comparator—that the United Kingdom will provide. So our policy is closely aligned with that of the United States, but neither country is advocating the policy to which my hon. Friend is so strongly opposed.

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

When the Syrian rebels use our armoured vehicles during battle, will that not be seen as the United Kingdom giving lethal assistance?

[Mr Hague]

Such vehicles are non-lethal equipment—that is how they are defined and that is very clear—as is body armour. The hon. Gentleman could advocate a different policy of not trying to save lives in Syria, and that is what he is suggesting in his question. He is suggesting that we say, “No, we will not try to save lives. We will not send this kind of assistance to people who desperately ask for it, even though they are slaughtered in huge numbers.” It is his choice to advocate that policy, but I do not think it is responsible, and it would not give moral authority to our foreign policy.

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

I am very concerned for my constituents whose Syrian Christian family living in Aleppo are being persecuted for their faith and having their friends murdered by the jihadists whom the Secretary of State has mentioned. What assurance can be given to me, and to the many hon. Members here today who are worried about this situation, that any British support is not helping rebels who are also Islamic fundamentalists?

[Mr Hague]

That is an important point, and it is important to stress, as I did in response to other questions, that our support is to the moderate and democratic forces in Syria. That is one reason why all the support I have set out is also non-lethal. It is also important for us to monitor, as best we can, the use of that equipment. If we thought that at any stage it was being used by people we had not intended it for, our attitude to providing any such further equipment would, of course, have to change dramatically.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The House is deeply united on the humanitarian aid but deeply divided on the oversimplified view of the Foreign Secretary, who, on this complex civil war, could not bring himself to mention the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group that is a vital part of the opposition. It has been accused of some of the most bloodthirsty massacres of civilians. Will he give an absolute guarantee that before we commit military equipment or personnel to Syria there will be a debate and a vote in this House, so that we can avoid repeating what we have done so often, which is, in trying to punch above our weight we die beyond our responsibilities?

[Mr Hague]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening carefully and will know that I have not announced or advocated sending military equipment or personnel. Of course we have conventions in this House, which he and I strongly support, about when we take decisions in the House, and we will observe all those. He will have to decide, given his long concern for humanitarian issues, whether it would be right to be static in the face of this situation. That is the alternative to what I have described. Everybody across the House is rightly concerned about the humanitarian situation, but I do not believe it is responsible for policy to sit still in the face of a rapidly worsening situation.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary mentioned the increasing evidence of the Iranian regime’s involvement in arming the Assad regime. Does he agree that there might be opportunities to put pressure on the Iranian regime to desist, in the context of the ongoing negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme?

[Mr Hague]

I am not sure that those negotiations provide the opportunity to put on that pressure, as they are very focused on the nuclear programme. Yesterday, I reported to the House during Foreign Office questions the progress—it is at a very early stage—made in those negotiations in Almaty last week. The pressure on the Iranians should be and is a different pressure: the world knows about these activities; in the end it will be proved in Syria that the Assad regime is doomed; and many people in Syria will not want to forgive Iran for intervening in all the ways I have described, including with armed personnel.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

How concerned is the Foreign Secretary at the comments made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees this morning that the number of refugees who would be leaving Syria had been severely underestimated and that there were barely 25% of the resources needed to deal with the 1 million people now leaving the country? What is the Foreign Secretary doing, together with colleagues in the Department for International Development, to make sure that that lack of preparedness is not allowed to continue?

[Mr Hague]

The United Nations asked at the time of the Kuwait conference for $1.5 billion in donations. This is the biggest financial appeal that the UN has ever made for such a crisis. In promising the additional £50 million, my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary took our total humanitarian support provided through DFID to nearly £140 million. We are very good at not only pledging that, but delivering it. We are good not only at saying we will write the cheque, but at writing the cheque. However, not all other countries are as good. The $1.5 billion was pledged and we have to make sure that other countries deliver on those promises. I am having many bilateral meetings with other nations involved in the next 36 hours and we are raising that issue with each of those countries, saying that we all now have to deliver on our pledges.

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

The Foreign Secretary will know that the United States was one of the last leading countries to recognise the Syrian opposition. Do the United Kingdom and the USA now have an agreed joint policy on Syria? If there is no such joint policy, the future for Syria looks bleak.

[Mr Hague]

There is a joint policy. My hon. Friend will notice that what Secretary Kerry announced last week is very close to what I am announcing this week. I discussed it with him on several occasions last week, in Rome and in London. We have a very similar view, both on the gravity of the crisis and on the need for increased action of the kind that I have announced today in order to try to speed a resolution of the crisis. My hon. Friend can be assured that London and Washington are closely aligned on this matter.

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

I have heard many statements like this one in years gone by and, inevitably, most of the time we end up being involved in a quagmire from which we cannot extricate ourselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I take the view that it is time to have a full debate, in Government time, on the Floor of the House, with the possibility of a vote.

[Mr Hague]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to distinguish between situations where Britain may be involved in a quagmire and situations where we are helping other people to try to get out of a quagmire—that is what we are trying to do with this sort of assistance. We cannot turn aside requests for assistance. I believe that this is the eighth statement I have given about Syria, so I am always willing to come to the House to debate it.

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

The Foreign Secretary has talked about the impact on the wider region, so will he comment on Jordan, a key strategic ally with very limited resources that is facing a huge influx of refugees from Syria?

[Mr Hague]

I pay tribute to the people and the Government of Jordan. Last summer, I visited the refugee reception areas just inside the Jordanian border. Since then, the numbers involved have got much larger, with more than 312,000 refugees in Jordan, most of whom reside with host communities and families but some of whom are in camps. The Jordanians have done a magnificent job and we have discussed regularly with them how we can help further. I shall meet the Foreign Minister of Jordan tomorrow and we will discuss that further.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

Although he was a ruthless and murderous individual, the late father of the current President of Syria had a reputation for doing what he said he was going to do. By contrast, his son is a fundamentally weak individual surrounded by stronger characters as advisers. To what extent does the Foreign Secretary agree that the personal weakness of the President of Syria will make a diplomatic solution unlikely, if not impossible?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right and the situation he describes is one of the obstacles. Not only the President of Syria but other members of his family are closely involved in the power structure in Syria, including his brother. An entire system of finance, power and rewards makes up a pyramid of which President Assad is simply at the top. A political and diplomatic solution requires people much further down the pyramid to agree that it is a good idea. That makes the situation complex and is one reason why offers of negotiations by the regime are not followed up by serious negotiations. That is indeed one of the obstacles.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has set out for the House a bleak picture of a dangerous civil war, with a toxic mix of Iranian involvement, possibly al-Qaeda and other extremists. What assessment have the British Government made of the claims of alleged involvement from Hezbollah in the conflict in Syria and of the wider potential for regional instability that would flow from that?

[Mr Hague]

There is the potential, as we have discussed, for regional instability, including in Lebanon and in relation to Hezbollah. One of the dangers is of clashes on the Lebanese border in the south of Lebanon between Hezbollah and the Free Syrian army or other elements of the Syrian opposition—let alone with Syrian regime forces. I do not have any other evidence that I can cite about Hezbollah, but that in itself is a great danger and is one of the reasons we are assisting with the stability of Lebanon. In Lebanon two weeks ago I announced additional British funding for the Lebanese armed forces, which are an important part of trying to keep that border peaceful, including our direct help with the construction of border observation posts. Of course, there is everything else we are doing to try to bring about a resolution of the crisis.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has always been very clear that our priorities are to try to stop the killing and to find a peaceful solution. If a peaceful solution can be found but the price is that Assad stays in power, would we be able to accept that deal or have we reached a stage at which the precursor to any deal must be that Assad goes?

[Mr Hague]

It is not for us to decide who is in power in any other country, including in Syria. It is the position of the Syrian National Coalition and all opposition groups that they want to see the departure of President Assad, but we will not be more like the Syrian opposition than the Syrian opposition. Mr al-Khatib has said that he is prepared to negotiate with the regime without Assad going first and that is a position we should support. It is impossible for any observer of these events to see President Assad ever again being able to unify or govern the country, so we say he should go, but the opposition has offered to negotiate and that is the right thing to do.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is clear that the House shares the sense of humanitarian urgency that the Foreign Secretary has articulated so well, but many are also concerned that that urgency should not entail a working disregard for the true character and real agenda of some of the opposition forces. May I acknowledge the particular principles expressed by the Foreign Secretary today? Our foreign policy is inseparable from upholding human rights, protecting lives and supporting international law; we must assist the genuine moderate and democratic forces who are in dire need of help and who feel abandoned by the international community; and we cannot look the other way while international law and human rights are flouted. When will we see those principles manifested in the Government’s engagement in other situations, including Palestine?

[Mr Hague]

They are, but that question might take us rather wider than the subject of Syria—indeed, it is absolutely intended to do so. I welcome in general what the hon. Gentleman says and that is the objective of our foreign policy more broadly. We are heavily engaged in conflict prevention or conflict resolution in Somalia, Yemen and Sudan and are working to promote an arms trade treaty and to pursue my initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. The United Kingdom, under successive Governments, has had a strong record in conflict prevention that is true to the principles that the hon. Gentleman cited, and that continues under this Government. We must always uphold that tradition.

Blood, Organ and Bone Marrow Donation (Education)

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

13:55

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a duty on schools and colleges in England with pupils aged 16 years and over to enable pupils to gain greater understanding of the processes and benefits of blood, organ and bone marrow donation; and for connected purposes.

The Bill aims to address the stubborn shortfall in blood, organ and bone marrow donors, which is a particular concern among ethnic minorities. I commend the work of NHS Blood and Transplant, the charity Anthony Nolan and all those involved in the National Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Transplant Alliance in addressing that deceptively difficult task.

Every 20 minutes in the UK, someone is diagnosed with a blood cancer such as leukaemia. It could happen to any of us or to any or our family members, young or old. As I speak, 1,600 people need a bone marrow transplant from a suitable matching donor to treat blood cancer or a blood disease. A matching sibling donor does not always exist and for 70% of patients the kindness of a stranger on a register of volunteer donors is the last hope of life. For half those in need, that match will not be found. Although bone marrow donation provides no guarantees, the five-year survival rate following a bone marrow transplant stands at 40%.

The problem is more acute for ethnic minorities. White northern Europeans have a 90% chance of finding a bone marrow donor, but that falls to just 40% for people from BAME backgrounds. A person’s bone marrow tissue type is based on 10 genetic markers, which must closely match those of their donor. Among ethnic minority populations the range of these markers is great, resulting in a greater range of tissue types and a reduced chance of a successful patient and donor match.

There are volunteer programmes to encourage donors, but a more comprehensive solution is needed. Meeting the donor shortfall can be accelerated by educating young people in how they could save a life, a true example of how our education and health services can join up in a very simple way to solve a national problem. That was the belief of Adrian Sudbury after whom the call for this law, Adrian’s law, is named. Adrian was a 25-year-old journalist when he was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2006. As he learned about his treatment, he discovered that young people were not regularly informed about becoming donors and realised that many more people like him could be helped if donation was far better understood.

Adrian campaigned alongside friends and family for an education project to equip 16 to 18 year olds with the facts about bone marrow, blood and organ donation and to bust the myths around those donation processes. That campaign became “Register and Be a Lifesaver”, the education project managed by Anthony Nolan and NHS Blood and Transplant that started shortly after Adrian’s death in 2008. The programme has been run with the support and drive of Keith and Kay Sudbury, Adrian’s parents, with Keith’s background as a head teacher being invaluable. I pay tribute to Adrian’s parents and his sister Carrie for their work.

In a short, flexibly delivered training session that needs to last only 30 to 40 minutes, pupils learn that 7,000 units of blood are needed every day and that each one can help three people. They learn that 90% of people think organ donation is a good idea, but just 31% are on the organ donor register. They also learn that bone marrow donation is much like giving blood, for the most part. Once given the absolute facts, young people can decide for themselves their potential to help someone in need, and decide they do. In October 2012 Anthony Nolan changed the joining policy governing its bone marrow donor register to allow young people from the age of 16 to sign up. In the five months since that change, over 1,800 young people decided to join the bone marrow donor register after learning the facts. Indeed, since the whole project began in 2009, more than 1,400 young people have joined the organ donor register and 5,000 have signed up to donate blood.

But this is not just a numbers game. Reaching more young people, and quickly, will help us find matching donors and reduce the number of people who die while waiting for that lifesaving match. There is also the question of donor availability. A clinician prefers a younger bone marrow donor for their patient, as a younger donor is less likely to have any health conditions that prevent them from donating or that delay donation.

The need for donors is clear. The solution is also clear. Anthony Nolan has asked young people, who make the best donors, to consider the power that they have to save a life, and they have answered that call. Education on citizenship is heralded as a means to embed our responsibility to our communities, creating a generation committed to volunteering, so why not, by the same measure, consider education on donation as a means to ensure a healthy future for those who need blood transfusions and organ or bone marrow transplants? We have a responsibility to uphold access to the best possible care and speedy treatment at a time of need. Adrian believed that young people would take on their responsibility when informed of the opportunity to help, and early Register and Be a Lifesaver results from the 424 schools so far reached show that he was correct.

In conclusion, I thank all the hon. Members who have shown such support for this Bill, in addition to all its sponsors. I would like to mention in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).

I call on the Government to take action to bring in this duty for schools and colleges, and to take the simple step of making education on donation available to everyone over 16 in schools and colleges—a measure that would make a radical difference to the health care of so many in Britain and abroad.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Seema Malhotra, Angela Smith, Glyn Davies, Sir Peter Bottomley, Mr Dennis Skinner, Mr David Lammy, Lyn Brown, Luciana Berger, Sir Bob Russell, Mark Tami, Jim Shannon and Mr Virendra Sharma present the Bill.

Seema Malhotra accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April 2013 and to be printed (Bill 145).

Estimates Day

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[3rd Allotted Day]

supplementary estimates 2012-13

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Department for Work and Pensions

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Universal Credit

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Documents: The Third Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, Universal Credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants, HC 576, and the Government response, Cm 8537.]

Motion made and question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £507,034,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £97,653,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £2,133,672,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Swayne.)

14:04

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

On 22 November last year I was privileged to launch in the Chamber a Work and Pensions Committee report entitled “Universal Credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants”. That day I was the only one officially allowed to speak. As a result there are a number of hon. Members who are—I was going to say frustrated—itching to speak. I hope they will have the opportunity to do so now.

That day showed that there was huge interest in various aspects of universal credit and its implementation, so it is excellent that we have the chance to have this debate today, especially as the Government have now published their response to that report and we can look in more detail at the issues raised by the Select Committee. I expect hon. Members will also raise their own issues that we did not examine. It is a good time to revisit the findings of our report to see whether, three and a half months on, the Government have made progress in addressing some of our concerns. This has become more urgent because the first claimants in the pathfinder areas will begin to be assessed for universal credit in just over a month, and the roll-out for new claimants begins in October this year.

Universal credit is the Government’s flagship welfare reform. Everyone of working age who claims one or more of the many income-related benefits will, over the next four years, be moved on to universal credit. Some 8.3 million households will be affected once it is fully rolled out. Not all of them will be on the new universal credit, but they will be affected in some way, so if universal credit does not work in the way that it is designed to do or if the IT fails to deliver, it has the potential to cause a great deal of stress and anxiety in families who depend on the state for some or all of their income.

The size of the Government’s ambition in introducing universal credit became clear to the Select Committee as we began to receive evidence. Such a large-scale reform of the benefits system has so many aspects to it that we realised we would not be able to cover all the provisions in detail. We did not have time to explore fully all the incentives and disincentives to see which families would be better off and which would be worse off, who would lose money and who would manage to survive. Other questions were raised with us that we did not deal with in as much detail. Would families with high child care costs be better or worse off, for instance?

We did not have time to interrogate properly how robust the Government’s often repeated assertion is that under universal credit all people would be better off in work than not in work under all circumstances. Some doubt has been cast on whether that will be true. We know that under the system there will be notional losers, although the Government have promised that there will be some cash protection. We were aware, for instance, that second earners in the family may not mean that the family is better off under universal credit. We were aware also that families with particularly high child care costs might not be better off once those are factored in.

The reason it is often very difficult to reform a complex welfare system, of the kind we have in this country, is that there can often be unintended consequences, and I am sure UC will be no different. I am fairly sure that Ministers will admit that that is bound to be the case. Even if everything goes incredibly well, there will be unintended consequences. The real test for the Government will be how adept and quick the Department for Work and Pensions is in dealing with the inevitable blips; how it irons out the kinks, how it ensures that families do not face difficulties while it sorts out any problems and how quickly it responds when the inevitable difficulties arise.

It would have been impossible for the Committee to give detailed consideration to every aspect of universal credit, so we decided to concentrate on its implications for vulnerable claimants, which explains the report’s title. Not all benefit claimants are vulnerable; far from it. It is worth remembering that most people of working age who receive benefits are in work and are not dependent on the benefits system for all their income. However, it is probably true to say that all vulnerable people are benefit claimants. It is therefore imperative that the Department takes account of that and does not design a system that can be accessed only by people who can manage their lives fairly well. It must also be easy to navigate for someone who finds life a struggle. I mean someone who struggles to pay their bills, struggles to follow basic written instructions, struggles with poor health, struggles to use public transport, struggles to heat their home or struggles to put a nutritious meal on the table—someone who just struggles with daily living. Those are the people who face a complete overhaul of the benefits they receive. It was to those who might find the introduction of universal credit a real challenge that the Committee paid most attention.

The biggest barrier a vulnerable claimant might face is making a claim in the first place, because the Government are determined that universal credit will be an online benefit—“digital by default” is the phrase they use. The application will be made online, any change in circumstances or other information will have to be reported online, as will any change of earnings, but the sting in the tail is that the information might come from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so obviously the information has to get from HMRC to the DWP computers.

The most important aspect of universal credit’s delivery will be the IT. If it goes wrong, the whole system will grind to a halt. However, a digital system, in order to work, requires users—in this case the claimants—to have access to, and be able to use, the internet. There is still great concern that the people who need to apply for universal credit will not have access to the internet, or indeed to a computer, in order to make the claim in the first place and that, for those who are not computer literate, there might not be sufficient help for them in the right place.

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

The hon. Lady makes an important point about accessibility. Does she share my concern that 36% of low-income households in Scotland do not have internet access at home?

[Dame Anne Begg]

The figures the Committee received vary greatly. We were told that as many as 80% of claimants might struggle with some of the IT and that as few as 20% would not have internet access. Although some people might be able to use Facebook and other social media sites, that is quite different from making a claim that, by its nature, has to include very personal information. Many people who do not have a computer at home might not be able to use computers in the public domain, such as those in internet cafes, because of security issues. There are many questions about access to computers and IT.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the difficulties that people in extremely rural areas might experience, because their rural deprivation will be compounded by the introduction of the IT system?

[Dame Anne Begg]

Perhaps the Minister would like to answer on that point. The Government said in their response to the Committee’s report that there will be a telephony system, which is good to know, although I understand that there will be no paper application form, so no one can phone up to request one. They expect about 45% of initial claimants to use that system to complete their claim. However, the person at the other end of the line will be using the same interface that online claimants see, so it will have to be designed in a way that works and is easy to understand. Access to a computer is one thing, but the customer-facing interface must also be easy to understand.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular concern for those in rural communities who might not have the necessary access to broadband and therefore do not have internet access, which will place them at an extreme disadvantage?

[Dame Anne Begg]

That is a problem in rural areas, but some urban areas, such as Glasgow, do not have superfast broadband either. Around 50% of claimants will be claiming at home on the internet, so that is really important.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

The Committee, of which I am a member, identified those real concerns, but does the hon. Lady not agree that there are also opportunities? In my constituency, where English is a second language for many, digital by default offers the opportunity for translation and other services that will in many ways make a digital interface easier to use than a paper form.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The Government’s whole point in doing this is to make the system easier, so hopefully it will be. If it is not easier at the end of the process, we really will have got everything wrong. In the process of introducing this fully, the Government will obviously have to address some of the concerns that hon. Members have raised.

The Government’s response indicates that they expect only 50% to claim online and about 5% to get face-to-face interviews, which means 45% will claim through the telephony system. Perhaps the Minister can explain the wording in the Government’s response. It states:

“Our target is that 50% of claims which can be made online will be made online in October 2013 when Universal Credit is launched nationally.”

I am not sure that I understand that sentence. Does it mean 50% of the total number of people who will make a claim, or 50% of those who can make it online, which will not be everybody. I am not exactly sure what proportion the Government are talking about.

The Government’s response mentions face-to-face interviews, which is good, but they are still for only 5% of cases, and they give not a hint about where the interviews might take place and what proportion of them are likely to be home visits. After all, a large number of people in the universal credit cohort will have severe disabilities. They might receive other benefits that they have claimed previously, but they will also be in the universal credit cohort.

I am also glad to see that jobcentres are to have IADs—internet access devices—which sounds great. The Government response trumpets the fact that there will be computers in Jobcentre Plus offices. However, if we divide the number of computers by the number of Jobcentre Plus offices, we find that it works out at about three terminals per office, and I am not sure whether that will answer some of the questions about access to computers. Also, it appears that wi-fi is not yet available in Jobcentre Plus offices, although that is planned, as it should be available. Many people do not have a computer at home and will need to access their claim form through a public-access computer, whether in Jobcentre Plus or not. They will need help, and the Government’s response is not very clear about that. It does say that staff will be available, but it is very vague: it does not say how many or how much time they will have. Jobcentre Plus staff are already overworked. Will they have the time to sit down alongside someone until they have filled in their whole claim, or will they just get the screen up and leave them to it? For many people, that would not be enough help.

The Government say in their response that they are liaising with local authorities to supply help. However, we all know that local authority budgets are already being squeezed year on year, and that a lot of welfare rights officers, where councils have them, are disappearing, if they have not already done so. There is also a squeeze on organisations such as Citizens Advice. This is such a big undertaking that it is incumbent on the Government to make sure that this help, of the necessary quantity and quality, is there and that people know how to access it. It has occurred to me that as some local authority staff will no longer be employed in administering housing benefit, they might be an experienced resource that the Government could call on to act as advisers in providing the help that many people will need to make an online claim.

Another big area of concern about UC is that it will be paid once a month into a single bank account for each household. The Government’s response says that the Secretary of State has powers to vary the frequency of payments, but this would be time limited. It also says that the Department for Work and Pensions will try to identify claimants with, for instance, mental health or addiction problems who might not manage monthly payments, but suggests that help will be provided for only a limited period. The Government seem to think that a drug addict will somehow be able to learn how to budget properly after a couple of months. The essential problem is that getting a whole month’s money in their hand at once might be too tempting. I do not think that what the Government describe as “transition to monthly payments” after

“getting help with monthly budgeting”

is going to work in practice. Will the Minister clarify that?

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

As the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend knows, but I suspect that other people do not, that we have been hearing evidence about the apparent lack of information held by Jobcentre Plus about people’s circumstances in relation to being placed in the Work programme. Jobcentre Plus may therefore be unaware that people are homeless or have other difficult circumstances. What confidence does she have that it will be any better for the purpose of working out which people need this additional help?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I am worried that the Government say bluntly in their response to our report that they are not going to provide a definition of a vulnerable claimant. Without that, it will be difficult for Jobcentre Plus to identify the individuals who need help. This is our biggest area of concern. We do not know whether someone will need to get into trouble before they can get help rather than already having been identified as needing it.

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

I do not know about my hon. Friend or other right hon. and hon. Members, but I get paid monthly and my main outgoing, my mortgage, is taken on the day that my salary goes into my bank account. I think that I have had that arrangement ever since I first had a mortgage. Most banks and mortgage companies tend to arrange things with their customers in that way. They ask on what day people are paid and then arrange that that is the day on which they take the mortgage payment. Has the Select Committee considered whether there is anything the Government could do to help landlords, particularly social landlords, to collect rent in that way on the day that universal credit is paid?

[Dame Anne Begg]

We did not specifically consider that, but my hon. Friend has placed it on the record as something that the Government need to address. We do not know, either, to what extent they will allow direct payments into landlords’ hands. I hope that they are still considering that.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that many of the people we discussed when we exercised our inquiries in the Select Committee have no access whatever to bank accounts, so that issue does not arise? Is it not also the case that social landlords are already extremely reluctant to accept housing benefit claimants, and that the idea that they will not be paid directly will reduce even further the already lamentable stock of affordable housing?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I thank my hon. Friend. I was about to come to some of those issues.

In our report we drew attention to the lack of suitable bank accounts. Again, there is not much detail in the Government’s response as to what progress has been made in persuading banks that they need to cater for this part of the market. Perhaps they need to be able to have some kind of direct debit facility. That would deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about people being able to manage payments, particularly the bulk of money that needs to come out of their account every month. Also, the payment must come out on the day after the money goes in, not the day before; that is another potential problem. Banks will need to be sensitive to this market. So far they have been very reluctant to provide products that will cater for these people, simply because there is not a lot of money in it for them. I hope that they do have a social conscience and will realise the importance of this, but the Government will need to do a bit of prodding.

The monthly payment regime involving almost the whole of a household’s income makes it imperative that the Government get the delivery right. If something goes wrong with a claim or there is a delay, that could lead to real hardship for anything up to a month, or perhaps even longer. For some families, only child benefit and council tax benefit will sit outside universal credit, and all other payments will depend on the right amount of UC being paid at the right time into the single bank account.

The move away from paying housing benefit directly to landlords and to the claimant instead is causing a great deal of alarm among social housing providers, and it may be acting as a barrier to the social rented sector renting to people who are on UC. This, alongside the introduction of what has become known as the bedroom tax, could mean that many housing providers will have a large shortfall in their rental income.

In its response, the DWP says that it does not intend to define “vulnerability” in case someone with complex needs falls outside the prescribed definitions and so does not get the help they genuinely need. Instead, full guidance will include

“financial vulnerability factors that would trigger a conversation with a claimant about their budgeting needs”.

I do not know how that is going to work in practice. We fear that the person who is struggling will be picked up after they have begun to struggle and are already in debt rather than at the early stages of their claim—or, rather, before the claim is made. There is a good chance that the people who struggle with their monthly payments will be the same people who find it difficult to pay their rent in full and on time, who do not have access to a computer, who are not computer literate, and who need face-to-face help in making a benefit claim because they do not have basic literacy. The DWP is unwilling to provide a definition of who is a vulnerable claimant, yet there is a whole list of things that would act as a pointer to the fact that someone may be vulnerable. I am really concerned about the danger that claimants will get into financial difficulties before any help is provided.

It seems from the Government’s response that the first solution will be budgeting support, rather than an alternative payment method. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that. How long will somebody have to wait before their rent is paid directly to the landlord or their benefit is paid more frequently? For how long will those solutions last? I understand that the DWP is running six direct payment demonstration projects that are due to run until June 2013. How are those demonstration projects going and how will their findings be incorporated into the roll-out of universal credit?

Our report points out that there is a need to decide how passported benefits will be dealt with under UC. I do not think that things have moved on much. Apart from the temporary solution for free school meals, the Government do not seem to have any ideas about how they will deal with that matter. Again, the Minister might be able to shed some light on that today. It is important that passported benefits operate effectively because for many people, they make the difference between a bare income and one on which their family can live.

One of the problems with passported benefits is that the Government have not managed to iron out the cliff edge that might be involved. The whole point of universal credit was to smooth away all the cliff edges. However, once passported benefits are put into the equation, a lot of the cliff edges come back.

It is important for other Departments to know how passported benefits will operate. They have always used the payment of social security benefits as proxies for certain qualifications, which has made it much easier and cheaper for them to administer their benefits. If there is nothing in universal credit that signposts a claimant as someone who should receive other things, such as free prescriptions, it could land the Department of Health, the Department for Education, other Departments and local authorities with a large administrative burden in order to work out who qualifies for other benefits.

[Glenda Jackson]

Free school meals are linked directly to the pupil premium. If there is a reduction in free school meals, it is entirely possible that there will also be a reduction in funding for schools. The implications of universal credit are infinitely greater than just the effects on the actual claimant.

[Dame Anne Begg]

That is why it is important that the Government get it right. I appreciate that it has been very difficult, but before the first claimants go on to UC, which is in just over a month, they need to start answering these questions. They certainly have to have an answer before it is rolled out to other claimant groups in October. They do not have very long.

This morning, when the Select Committee was taking evidence on the Work programme, we heard that universal credit has implications for the Work programme. There are questions about how people will be labelled when they go into the Work programme because the predecessor benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance, will disappear under universal credit as people move on to the single benefit.

There is one benefit change that flies in the face of all of this and undermines what UC was intended to do. The localisation of council tax support will add complexity back into the system and introduce local variations, which could undermine the withdrawal rates that should make work pay. I have already talked about computer programmes. I have said that the customer-facing screens must be right and that, behind that, the programmes must calculate what a claimant should get and pay it into the bank. Those computers will have to speak to the HMRC computers so that the real-time information can be fed in. However, because of the proposals on council tax support, they must also interface with the local government computer system, which apparently is called ATLAS. I do not know whether that just applies to England and Wales. That is another potential IT difficulty that could cause problems for people. On top of that, it will be more difficult for claimants to work out whether they will be better off in work than it would have been if council tax support had been included in universal credit. That will rely on working out the tapers and the disregards.

To come back full circle, the delivery of universal credit will depend on the smooth delivery of the IT—not only the IT controlled by the Department for Work and Pensions, but that controlled by HMRC and local authorities. That is a big ask. My final question to the Minister is: how is that going?

14:36

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee and to speak about the report. This is the first report that I had the pleasure of working on when I joined the Committee. I feel slightly guilty in that I missed all the evidence sessions because I did not join the Committee until it started to write the report. I therefore missed the hard work and did the fun bit at the end.

I should probably start where the Chair of the Select Committee finished—the complex IT system. Those of us who have followed the news of new, large IT systems from the outside over many years would be brave or foolish to be entirely optimistic that a new, super IT system will work flawlessly from day one. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that that will be the case, that the IT has worked in the various tests and trials, and that it will work when we switch over to having live feeds of millions of entries from HMRC.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I, too, am concerned about putting all our eggs in one IT basket. Would it not be sensible to retain the staff in local authorities—in my constituency, they are about to be laid off—so that there is a back-up, at least until it is proved that the system works?

[Nigel Mills]

I see the sense in that, but it would involve a large cost.

Speaking as someone who still does the weekly payroll for a small charity with six employees, I am looking forward to the time when I have to input the data into the HMRC system weekly or monthly, rather than making the PAYE payment that is due once a quarter. I think that the system will work quite successfully for large employers that are used to operating PAYE systems, where they can hit a “submit” button every month and the data transfers over on the right date. However, for a lot of small employers, this will be a big change in their procedures from having to give the payroll data to the Revenue once a year. That will be a test.

Perhaps the Minister will update us on how confident he is that the systems will be able to interact and that the millions of entries will make their way to the right place at the right time, so that all the people who will be relying on it for their universal credit payments will receive the right amount on the right day, especially as the system rolls out and more people keep being added.

It is worth saying, as the Committee noted in its report, that there is broad agreement with the principle of a single payment that makes it easy for people to move in and out of work, with their income going up or down so that they get the right benefit at the right time. We all want that to work. Clearly, if it does not work, it will leave people in a whole new mess.

That is not to say that people are not in a mess now. We all have constituents who have struggled with the existing system of multiple claims. There are people whose tax credits have gone wrong, perhaps because their income has changed during the year and they have forgotten to notify HMRC or HMRC has lost the notification, who have ended up with a large bill at the end of the year that they were not expecting and did not have the money left for. We are not trying to reform an ideal system or even a good or acceptable system; we are trying to move from the existing pretty poor and complex system to a system that is easier to understand and easier to deal with. However, there are clearly issues with any new IT system.

The report was right to recognise that the new system, which we all broadly welcome, will work for the majority of claimants who are IT literate, understand the system and can update their circumstances and check what is going on. It also considered those for whom that is not the case and who will struggle with the new system—perhaps because they are not IT literate or, for whatever reason, have not got a bank account—and struggle to manage their own affairs. However, such people will probably already be struggling with the existing system in which they have to make multiple claims and try to manage the situation. We are not talking about people who are fine with the existing system but will suddenly have problems with the new one; they will already be experiencing some of those problems.

I will not do a wide sweep of all the issues mentioned by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee because that would be pointless repetition, but I will pick up some of the main themes. I support a system that, by default, is accessed electronically rather than on paper—that has to be the right way forward. At some point, the system must be accessed via IT by default and not choice, and now is probably the right time for such a transition. Statistics state that 78% of working-age people who claim benefits already use the internet, and about half of those use it every day. There is not a huge number of people with no IT access at all, although the 22% who are not regular users of the internet will need some support.

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

I am also a Member of the Work and Pensions Committee. As my hon. Friend will recall, we discussed the development of specific apps that will make it even easier for those who are IT literate and can deal with a claim on their phone.

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, that is recommended in the report and I think the Government promised that by 2014 there will be a separate app for universal credit. Currently, 92% of jobs advertised require some level of IT skills, so encouraging people to become more confident and use computers to claim their benefits is a move in the right direction. I agree that we must give the right support to those who cannot do that or have not done it previously, and I hope the Minister will explain to the House how that will be done.

The Government’s response to the report mentions computer terminals in jobcentres. I am not sure whether I have yet seen that on the ground and how we will get enough computers in jobcentres for people who need to claim, or how people will deal with the regular monitoring of their benefits. Universal credit is not a once-only application in which a person can sit with someone who does the form for them and that is it. The entire system relies on updating that will require regular IT access, not just a one-off.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman may not know the answer, but does he have any idea how long it will take to make a claim on average, particularly with regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) about filling in the form on the phone? If it will take more than half a minute or so, it is unlikely that people will be able to cope with that on the phone, and they may struggle to do it online at all.

[Nigel Mills]

It would be very optimistic to assume that the application form will take half a minute. I have not seen the form, but I have not seen any Government form that takes half a minute for a long time—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to answer the question?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I think we must be careful and not underestimate where people are at the moment. The vast majority of claims for jobseeker’s allowance are made over the telephone and an increasing proportion are made online. We are not entering uncharted territory and I am surprised that Opposition Members seem keen to keep us in a luddite past. We need to tackle the digital divide, and this is a very good way of doing it.

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to the Minister although I am not sure we got an idea of how long the application form will take to fill in. Perhaps we will get that later.

[Hywel Williams]

Speaking as a non-luddite, I want everyone to be able to partake of the system. I am not a member of the Work and Pensions Committee but perhaps I can ask the hon. Gentleman—or even tempt the Minister—to say whether any attention was given to applications in Welsh in Wales, where Welsh is to be treated on the basis of equality with English? Perhaps the Minister will leap to his feet and reassure me on that.

[Nigel Mills]

Despite what some people think, Amber Valley is not in Wales so I am afraid that the use of the Welsh language is not an issue I have to worry myself or my constituents with. I will leave that point for the Minister.

The next area of concern is the single monthly payment per household, and making that replicate what most people in work receive as a salary is a sensible step. We are not talking about people who only receive benefits; people in work will receive universal credit on top of that, and we are trying to encourage them to work more hours and get more money, at which point their benefit will drop. In an ideal world, a single monthly payment that matches timing with salary must be a step forward. We are trying to help people get back into work and not face extra barriers created by the benefit system. Clearly there are issues, however, and some people will not be able to cope with one single monthly payment. We must consider how we will help them through that, deal with the exemption system, and find out that they are not coping before they get into so much debt that they cannot get out of it. It will be interesting to see the progress on new bank accounts, especially the jam jar system, although we have not yet heard how many providers are willing to offer such a system.

[Jane Ellison]

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned jam jar accounts because they are important. We have spoken previously about this issue, but it is one on which we are all urging the Minister to give the banks a really good kick. As I said in a previous speech, such accounts are one demonstrable way that the banks could make amends for what the public perceive to be a pretty poor show over the past few years.

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We need to know soon how many providers are interested in that system and what the Government’s proposals are. People will be rolling into universal credit soon, and we must understand what their bank accounts will look like to ensure the system works. I have heard lobbying groups present interesting ideas about the real advantages of the jam jar system. People can choose to have their rent payment moved into a separate account so that it goes out on the right day and they cannot accidentally spend it on something else. Applications that use payment cards or jam jar bank accounts can produce useful solutions. Perhaps we can introduce a system under which people have the chance to choose their preferences. People must choose to set money aside for certain bills, rather than be forced in some draconian state-controlled manner and told how to spend their money, but an update on the issue would be useful.

I also want to consider the impact of this system on people who are self-employed. It is clearly right that they state each month what profit they have made so that any benefit they are due can be worked out. It is equally right that we encourage them to work hard and make a minimum level of profit and not somehow get round the system that applies to people looking for paid employment. I am a little concerned that we will end up with two different reporting and accounting systems. For universal credit people will have to report their monthly profit or income based on some kind of calculation, yet for tax purposes they will have to use a completely different calculation. That could leave them with two different sets of books and calculations which could be hugely complicated and they may end up with some true-up at the end. Hopefully, people can get some assurance that what is expected for universal credit is the same as HMRC expects at the end of the year. It could be nice and simple—people could hit a “total” button on the universal credit system and it will say what their annual profits have been.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Despite that complexity, presumably my hon. Friend would welcome the change to allow businesses that have become insolvent not to be written off, so that effectively over a five-year period they can come back without all the penalties that exist in the current system.

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, we want to encourage people to have another go if they wish—that makes perfect sense.

In conclusion, this system has been generally welcomed and we hope it is a real step forward. We are concerned, however, that for some more vulnerable people in society some of the changes will prove too much. We must ensure that we do not leave a whole load of people behind in a difficult situation, and that when the system goes live, the Government have plans in place to ensure that a worse situation does not develop.

14:49

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said that 92% of jobs advertised require some computer literacy. I do not know what the requirements are on that side of the House, but on this side computer literacy is not a requirement to be an MP, for which I am extremely grateful because I frankly admit to being an IT illiterate.

Before I continue, I wish to apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to both Front Benchers, because I have a previous engagement and will not be here for the wind-up speeches.

I do not wish to re-rehearse what my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select so succinctly detailed as the bedrock of the Committee’s examination of these issues. With all due respect to the Minister, he—like every Minister from the Department who has appeared before the Committee to answer questions on these issues—has been overwhelmingly over-sanguine about how easy this process will be for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. That is the central issue for me.

The Department has failed to come anywhere near defining what will be meant by “vulnerability”. We have had representations, for example, from the organisations that campaign for and on behalf of specific groups of vulnerable people, not least the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the British Deaf Association. Many of the mental health organisations have also campaigned with us, because it may be possible for a person suffering from a mental illness to be capable of doing everything on one day—probably even running the country—but the day after they can be incapable of getting out of bed, and they certainly would not be able to access a claim. We all have cases—even before this system is introduced—of people failing to meet the requirements of the recent changes made by the Department, such as the need to attend an Atos examination.

My overriding concern is that some people—for a variety of reasons, most of which they do not have any control over—will be allowed to drop through the net. They could end up with no support and, even more frighteningly, no one would know that. I have had occasion to raise individual constituency cases with the Minister. I also remember raising with the Secretary of State the case of an individual who is agoraphobic. He has not been outside his house for 35 years. His elderly mother is responsible for maintaining and caring for him, but she is not going to live for ever. The Secretary of State said—I paraphrase—“Oh well, we’ll have house visits, we’ll ensure that someone can treat with that individual.” That is all very fine and good, but it does not happen.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said in her opening remarks, 8.5 million people will be affected by this change, and many of them will never have had any contact with a piece of IT equipment. That is my first concern.

My second concern is the security of the individual’s claim. They will be expected to access terminals in internet cafes and public libraries or use their phone. We are all warned to hide our phones because they could be stolen, and heaven only knows how long it would take to fill in the form over the phone. I am especially concerned that it would be more than possible for someone to steal an individual’s details to defraud the benefits system. I have asked whether someone could be validated to make a claim on behalf of an individual, and I have to say that I did not get a categorical answer that calmed my concerns. I know of cases under the existing system in which someone who regularly claims benefit has a lot of friends on the day the money is paid, but they disappear with the money about half an hour later. This is already happening to some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and this obsession with all claims being made online will only increase the possibility of people being cheated in that way.

All hon. Members broadly welcome the idea of universal credit, but the details of its delivery to the most vulnerable in our society are a long way from being defined by the Department. Those who have spoken in the debate so far have mentioned the need for additional resources. We all know about the work force in our local jobcentres being reduced, and that the voluntary organisations that have been of such wonderful assistance to our constituents—such as citizens advice bureaux, voluntary organisations and local authorities—are seeing a big diminution in staff numbers, so even fewer people will be able to afford advice to someone who simply cannot handle what happens when they look at a monitor. Added to that is the possibility that the Department’s budget will be drastically slashed. If the Ministry of Defence makes its case for money to come out of the DWP, the resources to assist claimants could be greatly diminished.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Does the hon. Lady agree that if the new scheme makes claiming easier and simpler for the majority—say, 75% or 80%--it should mean that the resources that exist, albeit potentially diminished, will be more than adequate for the individuals who are vulnerable and need the help?

[Glenda Jackson]

I would like to be able to say yes, but I am old enough and cynical enough to be able to say categorically, “No, it never, ever works like that.” If 75% are sailing along on the crest of a wave, the 25% are always, in my experience, left paddling in the shadows, and nobody notices when they are waving. I am very concerned about this for the reasons that I have already elucidated.

I am also concerned about the possibility of the Department having to slash its budget even further—I have already mentioned the MOD rolling its tanks on to the Department’s lawn. The Secretary of State is already saying that because of the supposed invasion of these shores by new citizens of the European Union he will have to address the whole issue of welfare benefits all over again. I suspect that has a political basis and has nothing to do with the delivery of benefits, but if there are to be reductions—no one has argued that the Government have managed to tackle the issue of our as yet far from booming economy—these issues will come into play further down the line. There will be more and more complexities for many people who already find every single day of their lives a struggle, from the minute they open their eyes in the morning until they go to bed at night. Those are the people on whom we need to concentrate and I hope that the Department will do just that.

14:57

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

It is to the credit of the Secretary of State and the Government that, as we have seen so far today, the issue being debated is not whether we should try to introduce universal credit into the welfare equation. The level of the debate has been fascinating, and I commend the Chair of the Select Committee on her contribution. I was particularly taken by her succinct and well made observation that whichever political party brings in the change, there will be unforeseen consequences, and the issue is the Department’s ability to deal with those consequences. We cannot do much more about them—by their very nature they are unforeseen—but the House will rightly look to the Department to work as assiduously and quickly as possible, because they will affect people’s real lives.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). I have yet to agree with her on anything, but she touched on the subject of individual fraud. I do not wish to alarm her, but I calculate that the bank account running the universal credit system will be one of the largest in the world. I hope our security systems and advice are up to scratch, because that would be an expensive fraud for all of us. I am not making light of it, but individual applications may be a smaller part of the problem if our security advisers have taken care of that one. I am sure that they have and that there is nothing the Minister needs to lose sleep over.

It is to the credit of the House that, in discussing whether universal credit is a good idea, we have not entered into yah-boo politics. However, while the House rightly focuses on vulnerable citizens who may be caught up in the changes, it is important that we do not reduce the issue to a denominator that means we should not press ahead with them. We should all aspire to change, and not hold back because of a fear that smaller groups have the potential to lose out. Of course, they must not lose out as a result of some of the issues I will come on to talk about.

It is important that we distinguish between vulnerable people and those who presently do not have skills. I am not sure that someone who cannot complete an online form is vulnerable, but I argue that they are unskilled. Our goal surely must be for 100% of benefit claimants to be able to claim online, notwithstanding the hon. Lady’s self-declared inability to do so, something I understand perfectly and empathise with. It must be our goal. It would be more economical and user-friendly once people are conversant with it.

In my constituency, if I accept the statistics suggested for those unable to complete a claim online, 600 out of 3,500 claimants may not be able to do so. However, I would rather find a system that suits the vast majority of people, and then work hard to bring others up to scratch. It is good to see the use of computers and advice being available in jobcentres. Three computers in each jobcentre may not be enough—although I suspect we will probably have more in areas of greater need, and fewer in areas with less need—and it is right that the telephone service will be in place for a considerable time. However, I want us to aspire to better systems and not be held back. It is crucial to seek to get everyone online not just to meet the needs of universal credit, but for the development of personal skills. We cannot run from the digital age. It is here and we will all have to use it whether we like it or not. Whether we are luddites or reformers, it is here and that development must be one of the fringe benefits of what we are trying to do.

On direct payments to landlords, my understanding—I am very happy to be corrected if I am wrong—is that under the Government’s pilots the majority of people are meeting their rent payments in full and on time. My understanding is that in the first four months, from more than 6,000 social tenants who were paid their housing benefit directly, rent collection rates stood at 92%. If that is accurate, it indicates that the pilots are travelling in the right direction. Of course, that means 8% are not doing well. However, I support the view taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who argued that we will be able to invest more time to bring that 8%—if that is what the figure turns out to be—the care and attention they need. I recognise the cynicism mentioned by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, but that is what we are here to deal with. We should not allow ourselves to repeat the mistakes of the past. We should learn from the past and be able to put extra time and resource into looking after those people so that they become more self-reliant.

On self-reliance, in the past decade or 12 years or so, approximately 2 million children were brought up in households where no one was working. No Government ever set out to achieve such a thing; it has happened for a number of reasons. However, it has contributed enormously to creating a state of mind whereby so many people look at what they cannot do, as opposed to what they might aspire to do. From a life of dependency, I am sure that they would prefer to move to a life of independence. I welcome the inherent measures in universal credit and the wider welfare reforms, because they enable people to move towards taking responsibility for improving their own lives, finances and skill sets. The state will never be able to do everything for everyone—that philosophy is wrong. We have almost empowered a generation to believe that the state will provide them with an answer to their problems. That is not the case in the real world—we know that. I therefore welcome the measures warmly, as they will provide a step-change for people towards independence and taking more control over their lives.

I listen carefully to the members of the Select Committee, who have been extremely thoughtful in discussing potential areas of weakness. As a constituency MP, like all of us in this House, I inevitably attract people who are caught up in grey areas. We have a duty—indeed, a passion—to help advise Government where those grey areas are and to make recommendations for changes. Sometimes we fight the bureaucracy that can so often stifle individuals, many of them vulnerable, into almost giving up hope of receiving the help that we have decided they deserve. I fully anticipate that there will still be work to do, but I engage constructively in that process, because I recognise that any system that is introduced is bound to create a grey area in which some people will be trapped. However, that is not a reason not to proceed; it is simply a reason to be flexible and to move forward, advise and gain consent to deal with those issues.

I conclude by saying that the House is at its best when it is arguing about detail and trying to highlight potential flaws. I welcome the cross-Chamber support for the big idea of this reform. The shadow Secretary of State has been characteristically robust on many occasions, and I am sure he is being so on Twitter right now. Some of his public remarks predicting complete doom and gloom for the system are perhaps uncharacteristic, because the mood of the House seems to be, quite sensibly, “We are behind this. The Government may not have got everything right and we will watch them on that score.” That is probably the right way to go and I hope that he genuinely believes that this is the right thing to do.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we support this idea in principle, but we have grave and growing concerns about implementation. He will have seen reports in The Guardian that prompt questions about whether there are IT personnel or contractors at Accenture, Atos Origin, Oracle, Red Hat, CACI or IBM UK who have been stepped down, or in any way notified by the Department, that they are to “suspend work”. We hope the Minister will be able to return that in his remarks.

[Nick de Bois]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point.

[Mr Hoban]

rose—

[Nick de Bois]

I will give way to the Minister, who no doubt will want to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point, in a moment. I do not want us to set a tone that will undermine our overall goal, but of course if the shadow Secretary of State has concerns, he should raise them. I am sure the Minister is keen to answer them.

[Mr Hoban]

The shadow Secretary of State has been touting this story for months. [Interruption.] No, it has been longer than that. The last outing was in today’s Guardian. I want to make it clear that nobody has walked off the project; all the contractors are in place and the project is on schedule to be delivered at the end of April. Now, if he thinks the idea is good in theory, it is about time he supported it. It is working and the contractors are in place, doing the job and ensuring that the pilots will be up and running at the end of April.

[Nick de Bois]

I am glad to have spirited into being some Front-Bench dialogue.

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend is right that we must be conscious that these are vulnerable people, which is what the Committee report was about. Exaggerating for political purposes the possible problems, which we have all acknowledged, runs the danger of most alarming and leading astray the people we most want to help.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend makes extremely well the point I made so badly.

The shadow Secretary of State knows the history of Government IT systems. Given that history, it is inevitable that there will be some genuine concerns. When I was rolling out IT systems in my company, it filled me with horror; I knew we would end up exceeding the budget and that the timetable would come under threat. In those days, we dealt with it by shadowing the new system with the old system. I give credit to the Government for not having gone for the big bang effect and for seeking to roll out the system gradually. Had I been in their position, I would probably have made the same decision, but the proof will be in the pudding. Nevertheless, they have learned from previous mistakes. I was delighted to hear the Minister’s confident assessment, which I have no reason to doubt, and I think they have taken every reasonable step. Will there be problems? I am certain of it, but I do not think that they will be insurmountable.

15:12

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I acknowledge the good work that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, has done on benefits and the implementation of universal credit, particularly the impact on vulnerable people. The Committee highlighted the fact that vulnerable people are usually benefit claimants and so will be subject to the overhaul of the benefits system, and that many communities, and particularly those who will need it the most, will be deeply impacted by the online universal credit—admittedly, a telephony service will be available—because they will have great difficult accessing it.

It is important that the DWP can implement the IT system. Back in 2008, in my former life as Minister for Social Development in Northern Ireland, I introduced a parallel system for household fuel payments. It was outside the benefits system, but it required the help of the DWP and was an extremely difficult job. There were people who fell outside it who should have been eligible, but because of the nature of the IT system things proved difficult. I say that by way of warning. Also, owing to topographical difficulties, some claimants might not have broadband access, which raises issues about payment methods, and then there is the question of passported benefits.

My party has been against the introduction of universal credit from the outset. It is a misguided and draconian change to the benefits system that will neither save money nor encourage people into employment nor protect the most vulnerable. We are for welfare reform, but not for unfair reform. We recognise the need for a simpler, more accessible benefits system, but these reforms are an attack on the most vulnerable and will actually end up costing the taxpayer more through transition and administration costs.

I am extremely concerned about the long-term impact of the tone that the Government have taken throughout this and previous debates on welfare reform. The persecution of those on welfare—labelled “skivers”—is socially divisive and acts to marginalise and ostracise many people suffering disability, illness and impairment. It is casting down the very people whom the Government claim to be encouraging into work.

As the Minister will be aware, social security provision is devolved to Northern Ireland and implemented under a separate system known as parity legislation. In a previous life, I had to implement some of it. Under that system, we normally have little scope for variation, which means that we will be subject to the worst elements of these measures. I welcome the flexibility arrangements the Government introduced in Northern Ireland enabling split payments—two payments a month, rather than one—and payments to be made directly to landlords, rather than to the claimant, but the core of the changes remains and will be extremely damaging for our people and economy.

We need additional flexibility, owing to our high level of disability—a throwback to the troubles, which left people scarred by violence and terrorism—and higher percentage of people dependent on benefits. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to work with the Minister for Social Development in Northern Ireland to introduce that flexibility. Earlier today, I asked the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office about this subject in Northern Ireland questions, but his reply left me aghast: he said we should be getting more people into work. That is fine and laudable, if the work opportunities are there, but they are not, so let’s get real. We need to support these people, not marginalise and persecute them. These measures are likely to push more people into poverty and, in doing so, increase the welfare budget.

[Jane Ellison]

I am clearly not as familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland as the hon. Lady, but I do not recognise her description of persecution, marginalisation and ostracism. The Committee accepted that there were definitely some people about whom we were far more worried than others, but we took the general view that the system had a reasonable chance of working for the majority of people, even allowing for implementation issues. I just do not recognise her description of the system.

[Ms Ritchie]

I was saying that there were particular circumstances prevalent in Northern Ireland that perhaps did not exist in other parts of the UK because of the higher number of people who were more vulnerable and dependent on benefits. We are coming out of a conflict situation and, as a result of that legacy of conflict, more people rely on benefits and are, through no fault of their own, unable to access or find work. Those job opportunities, which might exist here in Britain, are not there.

[Jane Ellison]

rose—

[Ms Ritchie]

I would like to finish this point and move on. The third report by the Work and Pensions Committee states:

“We consider that the implementation timetable is ambitious and that there is significant further work to be carried out to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable claimants can be met.”

Let me turn to the cost of universal credit. The rationale given by the Government is that the legislation is about making work pay and helping people into work. However, the driving motivation appears to be cutting costs, with those on welfare easier to scapegoat than the tax avoiders in society. Moreover, the figures suggest that, rather than saving money, the changes will increase the welfare budget. The Government’s own impact assessment suggested that £2 billion was set aside to fund the transition to universal credit in the 2010 spending review period and that net transfer payments from the Government to households would be around £0.3 billion higher once universal credit was fully implemented and transitional protection exhausted, while the Institute for Fiscal Studies has valued the long-run cost of universal credit at around £1.7 billion in 2014-15 prices. Furthermore, it has been stated that £18 million—£13 million in resource and £5 million in capital—will be delivered to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to cover the costs associated with implementing universal credit

That suggests that the new system will be not just ineffective, but expensive. Experience suggests to me that the costs of such a project are likely to go up rather than down, once the projections meet the reality, as was the case with the change from incapacity benefit to workplace capability assessments. That has been a difficult issue in Northern Ireland and a traumatic experience for those who have been put through it. The resulting volume of appeals—a high proportion of which were successful—illustrates just how ineffective the changes were. I feel—I suppose I say this with a certain level of temerity—that the Government do not seem to be heeding that lesson. I fear that there will be an even more catastrophic impact when universal credit is fully introduced.

I have made it clear that I am against the substance of this welfare reform and its introduction, and I am dubious that it will actually save any money, but I also feel that there are likely to be a number of technical and administrative issues that could be extremely problematic and that we could run into financial problems as the system is rolled out in Northern Ireland in April 2014. I ask the Minister to look at those. I would also ask the Chair of the Committee to look into this and perhaps work with the Social Development Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly to see whether these issues can be worked through. The project has already been delayed because of IT problems, and I have had very little reassurance that that will not happen again.

[Mr Hoban]

Just to be clear, the project has not been delayed because of IT problems. That is a complete red herring. The hon. Lady should not read the stories that the shadow Secretary of State puts in The Guardian.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the Minister for his intervention.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: the project has been delayed. Ministers told us for a long time after the announcement of universal credit that all new applications for out-of-work benefits would be treated as universal credit applications from October this year. It is now absolutely clear that that date will not be achieved. It might be a year later, or even some time after that, but the project has certainly been delayed.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention; I absolutely agree with him. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I disagreed with him, because experience has taught us these things.

I seek clarification and an update from the Minister on the implementation of a computer system for the social security system in Northern Ireland to administer universal credit in line with the flexibilities that will be implemented there, notwithstanding—because of our special circumstances—the other flexibilities that I hope will be introduced. I understand that these are currently subject to negotiation and discussion between the Minister for Social Development and the appropriate DWP Ministers. What feedback will there be and what facility will be employed to use the lessons from the initial pathfinder areas in England to inform subsequent roll-out in Northern Ireland?

Governments do not have a great track record on implementing new IT systems, as seen with the Child Support Agency, the e-Border programme and the health service. The new universal credit system will likely require an even more complex system, incorporating real-time processing from pay-as-you-earn records. The Committee’s report makes it clear that there are significant concerns about the system’s capacity to operate between local and central Government. I fear that this will be even more challenging in the devolved Administrations. How satisfied is the Minister that there will be no more significant delays or cost overruns for the new universal credit payment system? Can he say with certainty that he will not be back before the House a year from now, explaining away delays and expensive setbacks?

Added to that, universal credit is to use digital self-service by default. That might sound good, but I have had little reassurance about the fact that the most vulnerable in society—particularly the elderly—are less likely to have access to computers or to be as proficient with newer technology. Reference has already been made to that issue in this debate, as well as to access to the internet and broadband, so I will not dwell on it further. However, notwithstanding our position on welfare reform and universal credit, I say to the Minister that it is important that the delivery of this benefit does not impact further on the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community. It is important that the right systems are in place to ensure delivery is enabled, so that the most vulnerable can live a good life with some degree of benefit.

15:19

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I am delighted to take part in this debate, although I feel like something of an interloper. As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in the previous Parliament, I hope that the Chair, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), and her colleagues will be happy that I am contributing.

Let me start by paying tribute to the Committee and the Chair for the hugely important work they continue to do. It is quite right, because of the hugely significant nature of these reforms—we can all absolutely agree on that—that they should have the full and continual expert scrutiny of the Work and Pensions Committee, involving both the MPs and the staff. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, and that is quite right.

One of the big, thorny issues that we discussed on a number of occasions in the Committee in the previous Parliament was the over-complexity of the benefits system, which we said needed to be addressed. The report that we published in July 2007 said that

“our current benefits system is stunningly complicated…simplification should be a key priority for the DWP…We believe there are opportunities for merging some benefits, aligning the rules of eligibility and, where means-tests are necessary, the information required from claimants.”

Therefore, while praising the Committee for its scrutiny, the issues it has rightly raised and the points on which it has rightly challenged the Government, we can be in no doubt that, when scrutinising the Government in the past the Committee was clear that there had to be reform. Indeed, Ministers including the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) told us during that Parliament that they agreed that there had to be some simplification and that the issue had to be addressed. I think that we all can, or should, agree on the principle. Of course, the devil is always in the detail and it is right that any reform—not just one as significant as this—is fully and properly scrutinised. That is why I welcome the information that the Government have provided in response to the Committee and the fact that we are having this debate and that the Committee will continue to push until its concerns are satisfied.

We have to remind ourselves that the reform is designed primarily to simplify the benefits system, which has to be done. The other big issue that we continually raised in the Committee during the previous Parliament is that we need to do more to incentivise people to work and to make work pay. There was cross-party agreement and, indeed, ministerial agreement from the previous Government that it was essential to ensure that benefits were sensibly targeted.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South will remember our trip to the university of York, where we sat through a number of interesting and detailed presentations. We looked at mind-bogglingly complicated graphs of the current benefits system and the tapering. We were told by academics who were more expert on this than we could ever be that, without significant change and proper tapering, the cliff edge would continue and too many people who want to work hard would find that it did not make sense for them to do so when they could earn similar amounts from benefits, which is a choice that they do not want to have to make. That is the thrust of what the Government are addressing.

It is also important to say that this is not a cost-cutting measure. As the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) has said, it will not save money for the Department for Work and Pensions, but it is not designed to do so. The Government estimate that it will cost £2 billion more to ensure not only that universal credit supports the people who need support—which is, of course, the primary purpose of any benefits system—but that it has smooth and transparent incentives to work. It will, however, lead to longer-term savings for the taxpayer, because it will make work more financially beneficial. That will also benefit the Treasury, because those people will then pay their taxes and be part of society by contributing in the way that they would wish.

The Committee has been right to challenge the Government on the issue of those who will gain more and those who will receive less as a result of universal credit. Ministers have made it clear that they believe that 3 million families will be better off and that 350,000 children and 500,000 working-age adults will be taken out of poverty, while acknowledging that 1.4 million people would see a drop in income were it not for the transitional protection, which is why that protection is so important. The Institute for Fiscal Studies also estimates that 2.5 million people will be unaffected.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that there will always be a system for looking after those people who actually need help with this benefit?

[Greg Mulholland]

Absolutely. During the previous Parliament, there was consensus on the Committee, in the House and, indeed, among Members on both Front Benches that we need to do more to ensure that the benefits system is targeted on those who need it most and that it makes financial sense for those who can and want to work—whether that be full or part time, as appropriate to their other commitments—to do so. No one is suggesting that that is an easy challenge—it certainly is not, as the Committee fully acknowledged during the previous Parliament—but it has to be taken on and I am delighted that the Government have chosen to do so. It is also crucial to ensure that lessons are learned from the pathfinders. I remember looking at some of the pilots in the previous Parliament. It is essential that, during the implementation stage, the Department always takes full heed of the lessons and then makes changes as appropriate.

I want to comment briefly on a few of the issues that the Committee has rightly focused on. We can all agree that it is essential that universal credit works for everybody—for all claimants, not just the majority. It would not be a success if a group of people were significantly disadvantaged by its introduction, which is clearly not the Government’s intention.

On the move to a single monthly payment, I do not think anyone would disagree with the principle that it makes sense for people to have a sense of the money that they are given, to enable them to pay their rent and buy food, and that it is helpful for them to budget, as that will equip them to do so when they find work, as we all hope they will if they are able to do so. The Committee was right, however, to raise its concern that the switch to a monthly payment presents a significant challenge for people and families on a low income, and the Government have rightly responded to those concerns.

The biggest concern, which also involves landlords, relates to direct payments. That is not to say that the arrangements will be a terrible thing in all circumstances. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South will remember that we had exactly the same conversations when the local housing allowance was introduced. We must accept that, although the arrangements will work for some people, there must be a swift acknowledgement in cases where they are not working, before huge arrears can build up. Will the Minister clarify that such a safeguard will be put into the system, so that if things start going wrong, alternative arrangements can be made as swiftly as possible? Those could involve direct payments to the landlord, fortnightly payments or the splitting of payments. I will be interested to hear a reinforcement of the Government’s response to the Committee on that matter.

On the digital question, I believe that it is perfectly sensible to move to an online benefits system. That is happening throughout the welfare system and throughout many parts of the public sector, and it will result in a welcome reduction in costs, as long as we get the IT right. I am now a member of the Public Administration Committee, and this is a matter that the Committee will be looking at, following the publication of its critical report on the disaster of the NHS IT system.

People have rightly expressed concern, however, about those who do not have access to the internet. Many of those on low incomes might not be able to afford the necessary technology—a PC or a smartphone, for example—and older working people who are approaching pension age might never have had any experience of that technology. The Committee has therefore rightly pushed Ministers on this point, and alternative provision has been made, including contact by phone or in writing, or through a home visit. It is right that that should be spelled out so that we can be clear what will happen to those people who cannot reasonably access the internet. I urge the Minister to keep that matter under review, particularly when the pathfinders begin.

My final point relates to information. Any change in the benefit system will lead to anxiety for people even, ironically, when the changes could have a positive effect on them. It is therefore essential that they should be provided with clear, simple and adequate information, and signposted to where they can get advice. That also applies to MPs, because we have all had people asking us for advice on the effect that the measures will have, and we should have at our fingertips all the knowledge we need to advise them as the changes come in.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who is also a member of the Select Committee. He regrets being unable to be here today for family reasons, but he is very much here in spirit. He was keen to take part in the debate. He also chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Citizens Advice. The citizens advice bureaux clearly have a role to play in this context, and he and the group have called on the Department for Work and Pensions to work with Citizens Advice to produce an information leaflet on universal credit. It is the ideal organisation to do that. I understand that, having written to the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend has now been told that the DWP will indeed pursue the matter with Citizens Advice. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is the case, because that would be a positive development.

In conclusion, this is a huge challenge, but one that would have to be confronted whichever Government were in power. This is a principle on which we can, I think, all agree, without necessarily having to agree on all the detail. I welcome it, but it is crucial to get it right between now and October. I urge the Government to keep the matter under review and then to be flexible if the pathfinders show that further changes are necessary to make it work in the way that, in the end, we all want—to support people who need it and to encourage people to get back into work when they are able to do so.

15:40

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this estimates day debate on universal credit, and to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) for ensuring that we had this debate, as it is a really significant one that affects millions of our fellow citizens.

I shall concentrate entirely on the issue of online applications, in respect of which I think the Government are heading for some really big problems. The Department for Work and Pensions has been far too sanguine about the extraordinarily ambitious target to get 80% of people online by 2017. Shelter, in looking at the issue, says that it is

“not convinced that half of our current face-to-face service users could fully transfer to our digital services”.

I am convinced that the DWP will not be able to transfer them in the way suggested by the Minister. Let me explain to him why I take this view.

First, according to Booz & Company, which did a report for Go ON UK, 10.8 million people in this country do not use the internet. The D-E social group has the lowest percentage of households accessing the internet, with more than 40% of them unable to do so. According to Go ON UK, the group brought together by the industry to promote online skills, more than 16 million people lack basic online skills. They might have used the internet at some point, but they do not know how to do all the different things necessary to fill out an online form.

It is often assumed that it is simply older people who do not use the internet. In an interesting study in the Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, however, Dick Stroud has conducted a thorough and forensic exploration of who these people are. I urge the Minister and his officials to look at this opinion piece published last year. It shows that, of the digitally excluded, 1.2 million people are young and excluded—in their early 20s and earning less than £10,000 a year. Another excluded group of 1.5 million people who earn less than £20,000 range in age from about 25 to 50. Then we have a group of 2.2 million people in late middle age who are uncertain, but open to persuasion that going online would be a good idea. These are large numbers of people, and they are precisely the people who will be making applications for universal credit. The crossover between the digitally excluded and the universal credit applicant is absolutely huge.

Furthermore, the Minister should converse with his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Ofcom has reported today that 10% of the population—2.6 million households—cannot access broadband speeds above 2 megabits per second, and those are mainly in the countryside. The picture of the digitally excluded shows not people scattered evenly throughout the community, but people concentrated in particular socio-economic groups and geographical areas.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady is making a very astute point. Some of my constituents do not have access to the internet, and those who do so often end up paying significantly more for it because of their geographical position. However, it is low-income families, wherever they live, who find it hardest to justify an internet connection in their homes, and at a time when libraries are being closed in areas of all kinds, it is increasingly difficult for those with low incomes to go online.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Lady echoes precisely my own thoughts. I urge the Minister to make a plan, and to look at the geography. He might then begin to be in a position to make a more accurate assessment of the problems that the Department will face, and to develop a more effective strategy for dealing with them than the Government seem to have at present.

Of course there are questions to be asked about whether the Government’s IT system will be up to scratch—we all remember the problems that arose with child support and tax credits—but the question in this instance relates to the capabilities of the population, and that is the other issue that the Government are completely ignoring. The last Labour Government spent more than £400 million on digital inclusion. Between 1999 and 2003, £396 million from the capital modernisation fund and the New Opportunities Fund was spent on enabling people to go online, and in our latter years in government we invested £30 million over three years in UK online centres, which enabled a further 1 million people to do so.

If 5 million or 10 million more people need to be enabled to go online, the Government ought to consider investing serious resources in a digital inclusion programme, but the DWP is spending £1.5 million, as are the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the NHS. There are 5 million or 10 million people whom we need to help, and we have a budget of £4 million—just for 2013-14; it does not cover later years. Given the rate at which this seems to work, that will help about 125,000 people. The level of resources and the extent of the focus on the problem are not remotely commensurate with the scale of it.

I am glad that today is an estimates day, because I want to ask the Minister about the motion on the Order Paper. How much of the £507 million “for current purposes” will be spent on extra support in jobcentres to help people who are not skilled, and how much of the £97.5 million “for capital purposes” will be spent on the computers that will be in the jobcentres to help people who do not have computers at home? I have tabled a number of written questions to DWP Ministers, but I have not had any clear answers. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), merely said that his

“survey of working age benefit and tax credit recipients found that 78% already use the internet.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 491W.]

There is clearly a mismatch between what the Minister is being told by his officials and what people in the technology sector are saying. I have also written to the Minister’s noble Friend Lord Freud asking about the Government’s strategy, but I have still not received a reply.

If we are to help those who are digitally excluded, we need to think about why they are excluded. Is it because, like 2.5 million households in the countryside, they cannot get broadband, or is because they are “self-excluding”? According to the surveys that have been conducted, about 50% of people say that they are not interested. Perhaps Ministers think that their “digital by default” programme will enable them to make people interested and to motivate them. I can hardly think of a worse learning environment than someone facing the stressful situation of their family’s income depending on whether they succeed or fail in the test. I can hardly conceive of a worse way of motivating people. People learn best when they are relaxed and are enjoying themselves in a friendly, warm environment. That is not what Ministers are doing. They are going to put extremely vulnerable people under this pressure.

Another issue is cost. Some 25% of people who do not use the internet say that is because of the cost. Half of them say it is because of the cost of access. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, an internet connection costs between £3 and £5 a week. People on jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance will be receiving a benefit of £71.70, and after the bedroom tax they will be left with £23 a week; we know that because it is what our constituents tell us. The Minister is looking puzzled. That is what they will be left with once the cost of all their utilities has been stripped out. Based on what my constituents tell me utilities cost them, I have taken away £20 for heating, £10 for electricity, £6 for water rates and £4 for bus fare. That leaves them with £23. I have not included any money for a mobile phone or telephone connection or for a television licence. They also have to pay for things like washing-up liquid, loo paper and perhaps a pair of shoes once a year—a pair of trainers from Sport Direct.

These people will be forced to live on tiny amounts of money once the bedroom tax is introduced. If someone’s food budget is £18 a week, which is what my constituents are facing, I submit they will not want to spend £5 a week on an internet connection, as that would not be compatible with their way of life. There is also the cost of equipment. The cheapest equipment people can get costs £150. Ministers are therefore setting up a lot of people to fail. This is not a reasonable way to treat them.

I urge the Minister to look again at this. Exactly where across the country does he think the problem is going to arise? Will he publish a strategy? What kit is he putting into jobcentres? How much time is he expecting his staff to be offering people to support them? As Members have made clear, filling in one of these forms will take at least half an hour. In my constituency about 3,000 people will be eligible for universal credit. Although it is being phased in so that things will not happen all at once, if we say half of them can manage on the new system but the other half cannot, we will end up in a couple of years with 1,500 people needing help. If the Minister has put three computers into the local jobcentre and they are all operating for 50 hours a week, which would be an amazing feat, it would take 10 weeks for all those people to get their online applications made. The resources Ministers seem to be putting into this are not commensurate with the number of people who are going to need help.

I urge the Minister to look again at this. The Government are heading for a very significant train crash and, unfortunately, those on board the train will be the most vulnerable people in the community.

15:53

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. From what I have heard, there appears to be a general consensus, with which I agree, that there is room for the universal credit system. Its aims are laudable; our welfare bill is too big and we have to tackle this problem. I think all Members across the House will agree that this bill cannot continue to grow. It is simply unsustainable. My view, which I am sure many share, is that for too long the poor and vulnerable have been trapped in a welfare mire. How often have we heard our constituents say, “There is no point working a bit longer because if I do that I will lose my benefits”? So clearly we have to examine the system and make it fairer, encouraging those in this trap to put in the extra hours as that will be beneficial for them.

I support the universal credit in principle; it will reward effort and will be responsive to changes in circumstances—if it works. Many hon. Members from both sides of the House have highlighted the word “if”, and I hope that my adding to the ifs will not be to the Minister’s chagrin. I have listened at great length to Mr Kevin Hodder, the chief executive of the East Boro Housing Trust; we debated this for a couple of hours. He has been in this business for many years and has shared with me, for some time now, his extensive knowledge and understanding of the benefits system. He has done so for my benefit, so that I can understand my constituents’ concerns. One or two of them—I suspect there will be many more—have come to me with their worries about the introduction of this new system.

The first risk, which has already been highlighted, is the reliance on one computer system. There are 8 million or 8.5 million claimants—we have heard the latter figure cited—so if the system goes wrong, the risks are obvious. There is no room for error or delay because we are talking about the most vulnerable in our society, and if the money does not arrive on the day they expect it, they will face serious problems. As far as I know, no Government national computer system has worked; I remind Members of the armed forces payments system, the NHS single patient record system, the tax credit errors and the collapse of the Child Support Agency—all of us get many constituents complaining about that. The problems were, in the main, the result of computer glitches. The risk of relying on one gigantic system is that failure would be catastrophic. Mr Hodder’s wise suggestion is that universal credit software could be circulated to the local authority housing benefit departments so that consistent rules are applied.

[Stephen Timms]

I am listening with great interest to the important argument the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that the situation is rather worse than he says, because this involves not one great big computer system but two? The parallel real-time information, pay-as-you-earn system in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is also involved, and the two systems have to interlock perfectly for universal credit to work.

[Richard Drax]

I agree with the shadow Minister. When I was a soldier, the great cry was, “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.” I am a little concerned that, on this policy, the worst has perhaps not been prepared for. Will the Minister, when he sums up, reassure us that there is a system in place that will cope?

In dealing with the inevitable snags, community care grants and crisis loans could be administered by the local departments if this computer system were rolled out to them. The local housing benefit departments in my constituency are already running down their offices, yet their local knowledge could be invaluable in administering universal credit. In the world of IT and computers, how often have our constituents rung a telephone number and got a disembodied voice saying, “If you want flowers, press 1. If you want somebody else, press 2. If you want to go to heaven, press 3. And if you don’t want to bother us at all, press 4.”? At that stage the person wishes they had slammed the phone down and they give up the will to live. Although I welcome IT—I am not a luddite in that sense—I am a great believer in the human touch. Nothing beats eye-to-eye contact with constituents, including, as in this case, the many who need help. If people lose that contact with human beings—leaving aside the distress that will be caused if the computer system goes down—there will be an awful lot of concern, particularly among the elderly, many of whom do not understand the system in any case.

[Mr Hoban]

May I point out to my hon. Friend and to one or two other Members that universal credit is a working age benefit and will not affect the elderly?

[Richard Drax]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but many people who are not of pension age are, like me, middle aged—shall we put it that way?

As we know, universal credit is also intended to go online. As we have heard from many Members on both sides of the House, that will be unfeasible for many and could result in many incomplete applications. Again, local offices equipped with universal credit software might be a great help at least until the system is up, running and proven.

Another of Mr Hodder’s concerns is about the receipt of a single lump sum payment once a month. Although most of the population—75%, I believe—receive their salary once a month, and although we want to treat everyone in this country in an adult fashion, it is pragmatic to realise that many of the people who will receive quite a lot of money in one blow are not necessarily in a position to handle it and have not been accustomed to it. Welfare recipients are currently paid out of many pots and money comes in at different times of the month, possibly to different accounts and different partners. For example, child benefit is often paid to the mother.

Management of a single lump sum payment is likely to prove challenging for many, at least at first. Mr Hodder suggests, and I concur, that payments should be split into two a month to lessen the stress of managing day to day. He also points out that that would make recipients less of a target for payday loan sharks, as the monthly benefit salary would not be so large. I believe that there will be a rise in the number of those sharks, who will prey on those who get their money one month, spend it and then want more money to pay off their bills. The problem will therefore be increased. The money will also often go to one member of the family. If the husband is abusive, for example, there will be a problem if the wife does not have access to the money and it all comes in one lump.

Mr Hodder’s main concern is the proposal to include housing benefit, which was once paid to landlords, in that monthly lump sum. Mr Hodder’s view, with which I agree, is that there is a “huge risk” of non-payment to landlords—I think that that is a pragmatic and realistic fear—because of wilful non-payment or the inability of the tenant to manage funds over a month. He says that the impact on his association and others will be a rise in arrears and collection costs. They will need more staff, the cash flow will be reduced and there will be less investment in social housing. Private landlords are already saying that they will not take on tenants who get their money first, for obvious reasons, so that could also shut the door on the private rented sector. Further down the line, arrears could lead to more evictions, more clogged-up courts and more families being thrown on the mercy of local authorities, which are charged with accommodating them in emergencies.

In my view, those are all unintended consequences, but the human cost means that they matter even more. This ambitious shake-up is bound to cause some problems and I think we all accept that there will be some. Mr Hodder, I and many people to whom I have spoken believe that they could be mitigated by careful forward thinking.

The intention of universal credit is to make the benefits system more streamlined and efficient. I think that we would all agree with the principle that incorporating some of Mr Hodder’s suggestions would give it the best possible start. I hope to hear from the Minister that some of those concerns, expressed by Members on both sides of the House, will receive some answers. I also hope that the Government will consider very carefully all that has been suggested.

16:04

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

When the Welfare Reform Bill was in Committee, the Minister’s predecessor was fond of the bookcase analogy. We were constantly told that what we were dealing with at that time was an empty bookcase, which would shortly be filled. Ministers and some Government Members who have intervened in the debate today, rather than those who have spoken at length, tend to feel that because most commentators, interest groups and parties think a unified system that will take people from unemployment to employment is in itself a good thing, that somehow means we should not be critical of the policy or its contents.

We have reached a point where some of the books have appeared on the bookcase, but there are still large gaps, some of which may not be filled until the roll-out takes place. We should realise, and the Minister should appreciate that, as I understand it—he may correct us—the initial pathfinder will deal only with very simple cases and people who do not have any complicated family situations, so it will test only some elements of the system. After that, more books will doubtless appear. However, one can have the same bookcase as someone else yet disagree radically about what books to put in it. We need to have that debate.

We must be careful not to oversell the reform. Although we talk about universal credit as though it will be simple, in reality universal credit will have lots of arms and legs. It is an umbrella, so to speak, with lots of arms and legs, because there will be different categories of people who fall under this umbrella, who will have to meet different eligibility criteria, who will receive very different payments and elements of payments, and who will be subject to very different conditions in order to get their benefits.

There will be a series of different types of universal credit. I would not be at all surprised if, in a couple of years, for convenience, particularly those who work in the field will refer to employment support allowance universal credit applicants or unemployed universal credit applicants. Otherwise it will be difficult to explain the situation. Universal credit will not be and perhaps cannot be simple. We on the Opposition Benches have said repeatedly that simplification is not the be-all and end-all when one is dealing with people who have complicated lives.

We have to put the financial capacity to deal with monthly payments in place. The Minister may remember that during his previous incarnation in the Treasury we had a debate about basic bank accounts. One of the issues I raised with him in his previous role was the need to extend basic bank accounts and to make it compulsory for banks to provide them. He resisted that move at the time. He may come to regret that in his new role in the DWP because it might have been better if there were a better raft of basic bank accounts that people could access. The number of banks offering basic bank accounts has not grown in the past nearly three years; it has diminished. Where will people be able to have the moneys paid to? Will they be able to get such bank accounts? There are people who cannot access basic bank accounts, either because there is no bank in their vicinity that offers them, or because they are not allowed to have such an account for one reason or another.

[Dame Anne Begg]

There are indeed difficulties getting a basic bank account, but does my hon. Friend accept that there are also people who have had a bad experience with banks, particularly with direct debits, and found themselves overdrawn and incurring lots of charges, and who therefore do not want to use a bank account to manage the money they get through universal credit?

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend raises another important aspect. People have run up large bank charges, often inadvertently, on a very limited income. They might decide not to use the bank account any longer because that is easier, or the account may even be suspended.

Many warm words have been spoken about credit unions, but if we are honest about it, in most parts of the UK—the situation might be slightly different in Northern Ireland—credit unions are pretty small and cover only a relatively small part of the population. If we seriously wanted to increase their use, we would have to fund that properly and give them some ability to expand to the extent required. I would be more than happy to direct constituents in that sort of difficulty to a credit union, but I know that the credit union serving the local area currently has very limited capacity to expand. We have to think about that extremely seriously.

Another question considered today was that of the direct payment of rent. There are six demonstration projects, and indeed a report was published some time ago, but it was what the researchers called a baseline project report. In other words, it effectively looked only at people’s attitudes and capacities before the project got going; it proves nothing about whether it is working. Further data published by the DWP in December 2012 showed that in four months 8% of rent had not been collected. At that stage, 316 tenants had already been switched back to direct payment to the landlord, and the range of collections was actually greater than the 92% would suggest. In one project in an Edinburgh housing association, 63 of the 1,832 tenants were switched back to direct payments in the first four months, which I think is a substantial portion in a relatively short period.

It also appears—this will have to come out in the research very clearly—that some of the pilots have excluded some of the people most likely to fail. The pilot in Oxford apparently excluded those considered to be vulnerable, and the one in Wakefield excluded those who did not already have a bank account, so some of the difficult cases have not been included. That is fair enough in a pilot, but those cases must be taken into account before it can be claimed that all will be fine when this is rolled out more fully.

Members have spoken at length about the “digital by default” approach. I am not a luddite. I think that moving towards online claiming, wherever possible, is a good idea. In fact, when I was the convenor of housing on City of Edinburgh council we started a choice-based lettings system. It was possible to apply through a newspaper, people could fill in a form in the more traditional way, or they could apply online. Some people, including tenants’ groups, told us that we could not do it online because people would not be able to access it. We replied that we were giving people the choice. The online take-up was actually higher than many people had feared. Some of them will be getting help to do that, and that is the distinction we have to see.

There is a problem with the top-line figure, which is constantly quoted, of 78% for the proportion of claimants who already use the internet. It is drawn from research done for the DWP. It revealed that 78% have used the internet, but only 48% said they used it everyday, and that includes people in work, on tax credits and right across the whole spectrum. When we break the figures down, we see, for example, that 60% of people who are in receipt of incapacity benefit said that they had used the internet, but only 31% used it every day. There are some important distinctions within these groups.

If the new system frees up more adviser time, that can only be a good thing, but we need to know that that is really going to happen and where it is going to happen. The current situation appears to be quite stressed already. I have been told, and claimants’ experiences tend to back this up, that in Jobcentre Plus in my city people barely get four minutes with an employment adviser. Time is very stretched as it is.

[Helen Goodman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another problem is that the voluntary sector advice agencies are also suffering from a shrinkage of resources? For example, the citizens advice bureau in Spennymoor in my constituency has only a third of the level of resources that it had two years ago.

[Sheila Gilmore]

There is undoubtedly a reduction in resources. Many of the advice agencies that I have contact with are having to tell people that they cannot get an appointment for three weeks, or even four.

[Dr Whiteford]

Does the hon. Lady welcome the fact that in Scotland Citizens Advice has had an increase of £5.7 million in recent weeks to cope with that situation?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly do, although I rather regret that that money was so long in the coming given that it was available to be paid out some couple of years ago—but better late than never.

Finally, I want to discuss a particular group—single parents. Some of the problems I am going to consider do not necessarily result from universal credit as such, but they will not be cured by universal credit and may even be made worse. For many single parents, getting back into work is not easy. There is a great deal of evidence that many of them, when they do find work, find that it is low-paid and low-skilled work. There is a high level of churn because of the type of work or because of the practical difficulties that can arise. They may find that arranging child care is unexpectedly expensive or difficult—for instance, when they run into the summer holiday problem. All these things can lead to a single parent who wants to work finding a job and doing it for a period, but then having to leave and go back to the beginning again. Skilling up is particularly important.

Over the past few years, including under the previous Government, there have been several changes to the rules for single parents, particularly about their registering for work once their children reached certain ages. Considerable flexibilities were built into the system whereby, for example, a single parent would not be required to apply for a job, go for a job interview or take a job where it would not fit with their child care responsibilities. There are several such flexibilities, none of which, bar one, are in the new regulations that have been produced for universal credit. They are in guidance, but the problem is that guidance is not legally binding and these matters are at the discretion of an individual adviser.

There are currently 12 flexibilities, only one of which has been migrated into the new regulations in its entirety; the other 11 are not there or have been very much qualified. For example, under the regulations a single parent is still able to restrict the hours they work, but only if they can demonstrate that there are jobs with those hours available locally. If there are not, they cannot have that flexibility, so presumably they will have to look for a job that does not accord with their child care responsibilities or look for one outwith their area, which creates a whole new set of difficulties. Anyone who has had to pick up their child from nursery at a fixed time and has experienced the reception they get when they arrive back late because the bus has been delayed will know that working a long distance away is not easy.

It is not at all clear why these changes are being made. They might make it more difficult for single parents to get back into work. If the flexibilities are not there, the other problem that arises is sanctions. If people do not have those flexibilities, they may be required to take on a job—or to refuse a job—that does not meet their needs. If they refuse to take the job, they can be sanctioned. The level of sanctions was increased substantially in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the number of people who are being sanctioned is increasing. We are all seeing those people already. I would like the Minister to explain why the decision has been taken not to put the flexibilities for single parents into the regulations.

Gingerbread, which represents single parents, feels that getting skilled has been made more difficult of late. Again, there does not seem to be anything in universal credit that will help that situation. Previously, a single parent with a very young child who was on income support got a fee remission if they did a college course. That fee remission has been removed, so although a single parent with a child under five can still do a college course if they can fit it in around everything else that they are doing, they have to pay for it. When they hit the requirement to sign on for JSA, they will get fee remission for a course, but if a job offer comes up that they have to accept, they will either have to drop the course, which they might be part-way through, or continue the course and be sanctioned. That is not the way to upskill people. Gingerbread has proposed that a single parent who is undertaking a further education course, up to and including level 3,

“should be treated as fulfilling work search and work availability requirements”

until their youngest child reaches the age of seven or the course ends. That is a practical proposal.

There is serious concern that the structure of universal credit, far from enabling single parents to work, will not be of great assistance and might even be harmful. The Gingerbread report, “Struggling to make ends meet”, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, points out that a single parent who is earning the minimum wage cannot expect their disposable income to increase by much once they start working 10 hours or more. We are talking about very short hours. For anyone who does not understand, we are not talking about 10 hours a day, but 10 hours a week. Somebody who works only three, four, five, six or seven hours a week will be better off under universal credit, but because of the structure of it, once they are working 10 hours a week or more, they will not be much better off. For all that has been said about universal credit making people much better off and encouraging them to go into work, the structure is not quite as good as has been made out.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that problem. Does she agree that it is therefore especially unfortunate that in-work conditionality will propel that lone parent to increase her hours or, in other words, propel her into diminishing returns for her work?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The concept of in-work conditionality, which is new to the UK, needs to be fleshed out considerably as universal credit rolls out. It is not at all clear how it will work. It appears to mean that if somebody is working a low number of hours, they will be expected to look for more hours or for a different job in which they can work more hours. It will be open to the DWP to tell people that they have not made enough effort to do that and to sanction them for it. That is supposed to make people better off; it is supposed to be good for them to go through such a process, but if it does not make them better off, it feels more like punishment than assistance.

The report also looked at single parents who are not on the minimum wage but earn a median salary, and it was calculated that they would be worse off working full time than part time. They would not simply be no better off, they would actually be worse off as their hours increased. Again, that undermines the Government’s pledge to make work pay. Part of the reason for that concerns things such as child care costs. The cap on reimbursable child care costs has not been increased, and those costs are rising rapidly in many places. That has a marked effect on whether working longer hours and increasing earnings makes work pay.

Single parents are just one group that will be involved in this massive upheaval that will either create something completely different, or might lead to something that does not look very different at the end of the day—I am not sure which. There will still be many different categories of people, and the problems that we know about such as eligibility, and issues such as employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment that we have frequently discussed in this House, will not go away with the introduction of universal credit but will be tucked inside it.

I urge the Government to look at some of those issues and not simply to sit behind a general statement that universal credit will make work pay and that people will be better off. They think that if they keep asserting that and say it often enough it will happen, but it will happen only if we get the books right on the bookshelf.

16:26

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

We have had an interesting debate and I congratulate the Work and Pensions Committee, and its Chair, on the report. I share the Committee’s support in principle for universal credit, as well as its frustration that in responding to the report, Ministers gave so few answers to the telling questions that it raises.

The Committee raised the timetable for implementation, and as the hon. Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) pointed out, it was always clear that there would be a problem with the IT. We warned the Secretary of State about that simply on the basis of how long it took the same officials to implement much more straightforward changes under the previous Government. The Secretary of State was good enough to meet me in November 2010, and I wrote to him on 16 November 2010—well over two years ago—and warned of

“a serious risk that it will not be ready for new applicants by 2013”.

He replied on 31 January 2011:

“I am confident that I can offer reassurance on each of the points that you raised.”

On 18 April I wrote back to the Secretary of State:

“I remain deeply sceptical of the feasibility of the current implementation timetable…the Department should recognise that the timescale will slip”,

and he replied on 11 May 2011:

“I recognise that we may not share the same overall assessment of the issues”,

which indeed we did not.

In the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, I said to the Minister’s predecessor that

“the system will not be ready by October 2013”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 28 April 2011; c. 596.]

but the Minister replied that I was “wrong to be pessimistic.” I warned about the problem again in another debate in Committee on 8 June 2011.

Today it is reported that contractors have been told to down tools. The Department has denied it, as has the Minister, but I have no doubt that the reports are accurate. They come from people who have received these instructions, and I have no doubt that before long the position will become clear. The Secretary of State claimed yesterday, and the Minister has repeated today, that

“the implementation of universal credit…is proceeding exactly in accordance with plans”.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) was right to say that it is certainly not proceeding according to plans. It is genuinely a mystery to me why Ministers deny what is clearly the case.

The Government’s initial timetable for universal credit had all new applications for out-of-work benefits being treated as universal credit applications from October this year. We now know that hardly any new applications will be treated as universal credit applications in October this year and everybody else will be treated as applying for existing benefits. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—only applications submitted in one jobcentre in each region will be deemed to be universal credit applications, so that is only nine jobcentres. Even then, it will only include people with the most straightforward applications, because the IT will not be ready to handle the rest.

I want to ask the Minister a specific question. For two years, Ministers said that all new out-of-work benefit applications would be handled as universal credit applications from October 2013, and all new in-work benefit applications from April 2014. What is his current estimate of those two crucial dates? Just how far have those milestones slipped? Does he have any dates now that he is confident enough to give the House for when those milestones will be reached?

It is not just I who am worried. The Minister has bigger problems than that. Four times at the regular press conference this morning the Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked to express confidence that universal credit would be delivered on time and on budget. Four times he refused to give that assurance.

It is not just the IT that is in trouble, but the policy too. Ministers have failed to make crucial decisions, as set out in the Committee’s report. The Secretary of State told the Welfare Reform Bill Committee in February 2011 that he would have proposals for entitlement to free school meals before the Bill left the Commons. He did not deliver, and two years later we are still waiting for those proposals. As the Select Committee politely pointed out, the Government

“now needs to make decisions”.

Actually, they should have made decisions a very long time ago, but we certainly need them now. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee pointed out earlier, the pupil premium is also dependent on this, as well as whether universal credit will deliver. The Government’s response assures us that the Department

“has committed to working with other Government departments and Devolved Administrations to ensure that the issue of passported benefits both in the short and long term is approached from a wide perspective and any changes are simple, fair and easy to understand.”

It burbles on in that vein for a page or so, but the Minister must now decide. What is the policy? He cannot keep ducking the issue. It is all supposed to start in October. When will he tell us?

It is not a minor issue. The solution adopted on free school meals will have a fundamental impact on whether universal credit has the intended effect of making it worth people’s while to be in work. If—as is widely suggested—the Minister and his colleagues introduce a crude income threshold for eligibility for free school meals and other passported benefits, they will create the most enormous disincentive for people to get jobs and increase their income—far worse than any of the cliff edges in the current system of which they have been so critical. He really cannot delay these fundamental decisions any longer. He cannot keep putting them off.

The Committee also raises the crucial issue of supporting and funding exempt accommodation. It makes this point:

“DWP must urgently finalise and publish the details of the revised arrangements so that providers have the certainty they need to plan ahead and maintain their service provision.”

I raised this with the Minister in Committee when we debated the regulations on 11 February. I pointed out that Women’s Aid estimates that more than half the domestic violence refuges in the country are not covered by the exemptions in his regulations. The problem is that the regulations use an out-of-date definition. I am absolutely sure that the Minister does want such accommodation to be exempt, but it will not be achieved by his regulations. What is he going to do about that? His response to the Committee does not give an answer. The National Housing Federation makes this point:

“It is vital that the Government ensures the regulations exempt the full range of supported housing by using a definition of supported housing that reflects the set up of refuges, hostels and specialist schemes for disabled people.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was absolutely right to ask the question that was also raised by the Committee: what is going to happen to people who do not have a bank account? How are they going to be paid universal credit? We still do not know. In the pathfinders starting next month in four local authority areas in the north-west, people without a bank account will not be able to claim universal credit. How long will it be before the system is able to cope with people who do not have a bank account? The Committee’s report states:

“The DWP has been unable to present us with any clear plans for how the Universal Credit service will be delivered to those people who cannot make an online claim.”

The response from the Government does not give us that clear plan.

Unison is right to draw attention to a host of basic issues to which we still do not know the answer. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) raised some of those issues, too. How will somebody apply locally for universal credit? The response to the Committee reassures us that

“we will offer claimants the option to claim…in person”.

What does that mean? Where will they apply? Will they go to the town hall, or to the jobcentre? What documents will they need? How does somebody get face-to-face advice if they have a problem? This is all supposed to be up and running from October and we do not know who is going to do this. We do not even know what the online application process will look like in the pathfinders that are supposed to start next month.

One of the Government’s worst errors in the whole project—the Chair of the Select Committee has already drawn attention to it—was leaving council tax benefit out of universal credit and devolving it with a 10% cut. The Committee’s report was right to point out the problems that that will cause. It works against simplification, it undermines work incentives, and it makes it much harder for people to know whether they will be better off in work. It has, as the Committee stated,

“the potential seriously to undermine the objectives of Universal Credit.”

We have heard about a lot of other problems in the debate. Problems relating to digital access were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) was right to draw attention to the problems emerging in the direct payment demonstration projects: the National Housing Federation tells us that rent arrears in the demonstration project areas are up by 60%.

It is, I am afraid, universal chaos: fundamental policy decisions have not been made; obvious gaps have not been plugged; where precise answers are needed we just get vague flim-flam; key milestones have gone back by a year or more; IT contractors are reported to have been told to stop work; and the Minister blithely assures us that it is all proceeding exactly in accordance with plans. It is too late for flim-flam. These crucial decisions cannot be delayed any longer. It is time now for the Minister finally to give us some answers.

16:38

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I commend the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), for the way in which she opened the debate, and for the balanced way she set out the issues in its report. I thank the Committee, too, for its work. Often, people outside the House underestimate the important role that Select Committees play in scrutinising policy development, but the report is a very good example of the excellent work they do to highlight the issues and to get the balance right.

Balance was what was missing from the speech by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I think there was a 10-second acceptance at the start that universal credit was a good idea. He then spent the rest of his speech trying to conjure up reasons why it was not a good idea. [Interruption.] No, that is absolutely true. I will give some examples. He and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) have been touting for some months now the story that people have been walking off the project and that the project is in chaos. We saw it in today’s Guardian—an article that perhaps should be seen in the context of today’s debate—and the right hon. Member for East Ham said just now that he expected contractors to walk off site. What a load of rubbish we have heard! In a statement today, HP, one of the big contractors, said that it remained committed to supporting the DWP, to the universal credit pathfinders going live in April 2013 and to subsequent releases. It also said that it would continue to work with the DWP and our other suppliers on this major programme of welfare reform.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wishes to apologise for scaremongering.

[Stephen Timms]

I can reassure the Minister that the source of the report came from the companies concerned. But let me ask him this: the initial plan was for all applications for out-of-work benefits to be handled as universal credit applications from October this year. Is there a new date for that milestone, and if so, what is it?

[Mr Hoban]

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman needs to get some perspective. We have always made clear our plan for a progressive roll-out of universal credit, for exactly the reason that hon. Members have mentioned, which is that previous Governments have launched unsuccessful big-bang IT projects. We have been clear, therefore, that we need a progressive roll-out—pilots, lessons learned, consolidation and then next-stage roll-out.

That is the best way to ensure that universal credit is rolled out correctly and it is a significant change from how previous Governments have handled IT projects, including the disastrous tax credits system when, of course, the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister. We have made clear our plan for a gradual roll-out for new claimants from October 2013. We have always said that the progressive roll-out of new claims across the country would begin in October 2013. That is a simple restatement of what we have always intended to do. I respect the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he has overreached himself on this argument.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

No, I only have a relatively short amount of time in which to respond to quite detailed questions from hon. Members. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] No, I want to make some progress.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

No, all the right hon. Gentleman is doing is scaremongering, which is not the right approach. Someone made the valid point that misinformation undermines claimant confidence in the system. I want to address some of the concerns that people have expressed in this debate and demonstrate how the Government are tackling the issues highlighted in the Select Committee’s report.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I am not going to give way. The more often the right hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene, the less time I have to engage with the substantive discussion.

I will remind the House of the aims of universal credit. It is designed to avoid universally recognised problems in the current flawed system, which traps people on benefits and makes them dependent on the welfare state. It will ensure that work remains the best route out of poverty and benefit dependence for those who can work, and is intended to be radically simpler than the complex web of tax credits and benefits it replaces. We made a deliberate choice here. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) was right to highlight a previous Committee report on the complexity of the welfare system. Rather than replicating the current system, in all its complexity, we are seeking to design a system that is easier for claimants to understand and creates better incentives.

Crucially, universal credit brings together in-work and out-of-work support into a single monthly payment for those out of work or on low earnings. At present, there are separate systems for out-of-work and in-work benefits administered by different national and local agencies. A move into work therefore entails a recalculation of entitlement, multiple communications and possible delays and gaps in payments. As a result, many people are not prepared to take the risk of moving into work.

This is not just about those who are out of work, however; it is about those who are in work as well. One of the rigidities built into the tax credit system is the 16-hour-a-week rule, which means that people offered work have to ask themselves, “Is it worthwhile my taking on this additional work?” Many people have to go to the jobcentre to make a better-off-in-work calculation. We cannot have barriers in place preventing people from wanting to earn more, take on more hours and look after themselves and their families.

With universal credit, we are aiming above all to achieve a fundamental change in attitudes to work, helping people to see more clearly that they are better off in work and encouraging and supporting people to move into work or to increase their hours.

As I said earlier, too many people are trapped into working 16 hours a week by a system that means there is no point in extending their hours because they would be worse off. I have even heard of people turning down bonuses from their employers because they are concerned about the impact on their benefits. What a tragic situation we are in, when a system of benefits traps people in low incomes. What we need to do—I hope Opposition Members will reflect on this—is find a system that helps people to get back into work. That is one reason why it is important to have in-work conditionality, to help people move up the income scale and find ways to increase their earnings by getting new skills, getting promotions and increasing their hours. In focusing on how we resolve some of the exceptions in the system, Opposition Members are in danger of losing sight of the reason for doing this: to free people from a complex system of benefits that has trapped so many out of work.

[Stephen Timms]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He was not able to give a date for the earlier milestone; he is now setting out the advantages, as he sees them, of universal credit for people who are in work. To begin with, all new in-work benefit applications were going to be universal credit applications from April 2014. Can he tell us when that new milestone will be reached?

[Mr Hoban]

We have always said that there would be a progressive roll-out of the system. I am not going to give a running commentary on the timetable at this moment. We have been very clear—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] No, we have been very clear that we would have early implementation in April 2013, and we are going to see that in the Greater Manchester and Cheshire area. That will enable us to test the end-to-end process in advance of the progressive national roll-out of universal credit from October. Once a pathfinder has happened, we will continue to adjust the exact timing and sequence of the migration process in the light of experience, including the operation of the pathfinder service in the Greater Manchester area. That will be done exactly to avoid the problems that previous Governments have faced with big-bang system changes falling over.

I would also point out to hon. Members who continue to question the Department’s ability to deliver significant system changes that we have launched the latest generation of the child maintenance system on time and on budget. We have also successfully launched the universal jobmatch service, which is helping more than 1 million jobseekers find work and get into employment more quickly. That we have been able to do those things demonstrates the Department’s capacity and capability to deliver programmes on time.

[Kate Green]

Even if things work entirely to plan and universal credit proves to be easily accessible and simple to use for the majority of claimants, we know that some of the most vulnerable claimants will be unable to make claims unassisted. They will go to an independent advice agency such as Welfare Rights or Citizens Advice for help. Can the Minister assure me that those agencies will be able to contact the Department easily with queries? They already struggle in the present system to find a dedicated helpline that can help them as advisers. Can the Minister confirm that that will be put in place and will work effectively for adviser agencies under universal credit?

[Mr Hoban]

I want to return to the question of support and advice agencies, because the need to support people on to universal credit is an important issue that has been raised. Before I do that, let me talk about a couple of other issues that people have raised in this debate.

A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of online access. We should recognise that digital exclusion is a major issue affecting communities and individuals. It acts as a barrier to employment, as well to claiming universal credit. We need to lift that barrier and make it easier for people not just to claim universal credit, but to get the online and digital skills they need to get into work. Universal credit gives us an opportunity to move people online.

[Dr Whiteford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I have only just started making this point, so let me make a bit more progress.

Research suggests that 92% of advertised vacancies require applicants to have basic IT skills. Therefore, those without such skills are considerably limited in their employment prospects. By using the digital channel as the default, we will be able to identify individuals who are struggling to manage or who lack the basic skills to use online systems. In doing so, we will be able to target support so that they can learn these essential skills, thus improving their prospects of finding work. Work done by the Cabinet Office on internet usage demonstrates that 78% of existing benefits and tax credits recipients already use the internet. Our latest figures show that more than 51% of jobseeker’s allowance claims received by the Department are now made online. I think that that demonstrates that people will be able to do it. We need to encourage more people to go online and find ways to give that support. For those who cannot use the internet, telephony and face-to-face access will be available. Rather than accepting that people cannot use the internet, we should try to help them get on to it and use telephony and face-to-face access as a fall-back mechanism.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said that 10% of people do not have access to superfast broadband with a speed of more than 2 megabits per second. She will be pleased to know that people will not require broadband at that speed in order to access universal credit and make claims.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The Minister might not know the answer, but will there be a real person at the end of the telephone, or will people have to enter all their details by pushing buttons and never get to speak to anyone?

[Mr Hoban]

I assure the hon. Lady that a lot of real people answer telephones at the Department. I am sure that she has visited some of our contact centres and seen them in the flesh. It is important that that human support is available either locally or over the telephone.

[Dame Anne Begg]

In my experience of the disability living allowance, it takes some time to speak to a real person because the caller has to push lots of buttons, and that in itself acts as a barrier.

[Mr Hoban]

Indeed, but we also need to triage people so that they can get to the person with the right expertise and ensure that we focus our resources on the more difficult and challenging enquiries, which requires some triage through the telephone system.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I have about 15 minutes left and am keen to deal with some of the other points that have been raised.

On advice and support, the advice sector is key to ensuring that we deliver universal credit effectively. We work very closely with the stakeholder organisations to ensure that their expertise is utilised. This is a moving picture and several things have happened since the Government published their response to the Committee’s report. On 11 February, we published the local support services framework, which addresses what support UC claimants need, including those with complex needs, and how we will work with the third sector and local authorities to provide that support in the most effective way.

At the heart of the framework is a partnership approach, which emphasises the need for close working between DWP, local authority managers and service providers such as social landlords and charities to agree on the services that will be needed at a local level. By encouraging close partnership-working between agencies, we will provide a more joined-up, holistic service for claimants with complex needs and a single claimant journey towards greater independence and, wherever appropriate, work readiness for claimants.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked about access. We have not decided yet whether there should be specialist advice line for welfare rights advisers, but we will try to bring together all benefits guidance in one place—I think it is a legitimate criticism to say that it has been fragmented in the past—and provide a much more simplified resource for relevant information. I hope that will make life easier for advisers in the third sector. I take on board the hon. Lady’s helpful point.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of monthly payments, including the Chair of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). Universal credit is designed to reflect a world where 75% of employees are paid monthly. Paying universal credit monthly will not only reflect patterns that people who fall out of work are used to, but help smooth the transition into work and encourage claimants to take personal responsibility for their finances. For the first time, we will be able to identify those claimants who struggle to manage on a monthly salary, and will provide support to help them develop the necessary money management skills to remove barriers that prevent some of them from moving into work.

We recognise that a move to a single monthly household payment is a significant change to the way in which many benefits are currently paid and that some claimants will require support to help them manage that change. Money advice will be offered to all claimants when they make a claim, and given to those who have a clear need for it. There will be different levels and types of money advice, based on need. Some claimants will be signposted toward an online service, some might be offered a single session over the phone, and others might be offered an intensive face-to-face session with follow-up calls. We also recognise that some clients might need money advice for only a short period, while others will need it for longer. We are trying to create a service that can be tailored to the needs of individuals, rather than a one-size-fits-all service.

On 11 February, we published guidance giving details of the factors that advisers should consider when discussing alternative payments with claimants. Those factors include drug and alcohol dependency. For most claimants, alternative payment arrangements will be time limited, and offered alongside further budgeting support and help to move towards managing a standard monthly payment. I mentioned that drug and alcohol issues were one of the factors that should be borne in mind. Others include learning difficulties, mental health conditions, those in temporary or supported accommodation, perhaps including people who are homeless, those who have severe debt problems and those who are the victims of domestic violence. So a range of factors will be taken into account to determine whether a monthly payment should be made, or whether an alternative, more frequent payment would be in the claimant’s interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) made the point that this is all about boosting aspiration. It is about enabling people to manage their finances and to get into work, and we need to ensure that we have a system that meets mainstream needs but also supports the needs of more complex cases, rather than a scheme that is designed entirely around the needs of the exceptions. It is important to get the balance right.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I just want to say something about basic bank accounts. We have set aside £145 million to stimulate new financial products for universal credit claimants, and we are working closely with financial providers across the private, social and third sectors. We are continuing to consult those providers and other stakeholders about the arrangements for those products, and we will announce our detailed approach and requirements in due course.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) referred to the fact that we had discussed basic bank accounts when I was in my previous role. There is a real challenge involved. One of the final pieces of research produced by the financial inclusion taskforce identified that many of the people who did not have a bank account were those who claimed benefit, and that many people who had had bank accounts had ceased to use them. It is important to ensure that we put the right financial products in place, but we must also give people the support they need to manage their money so that they can remain banked, rather than dropping out and becoming unbanked.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister mentioned people in supported accommodation. Does he have a response to the concern that I raised about women’s refuges and other supported accommodation, given that the definition in the regulations does not seem to be quite right? Can he give me any reassurance about continued support for people living in such accommodation?

[Mr Hoban]

The definition in the regulations will be the one that is in the existing regulations, and it has worked well so far. We are talking to women’s refuges and others to try to understand what has changed, and why the existing definition no longer gives the desired results. That is a matter that we want to continue to discuss.

We need to be careful when we talk about the direct payment of rent, because the vast majority of people have no problem paying their rent or their mortgage. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has raised this matter. In one of the pilots, 92% of people paid their rent on time. Among the other 8%, some were underpayments and some were mis-payments, but not all were wilful non-payments. We have an obligation to try to move that 8% so that they can pay their rent on time and meet their obligations. Also, this change will encourage social landlords to think about the broader needs of their tenants—how they can find the necessary skills to get work, and get the necessary financial and budgeting support to manage their money more effectively—rather than just thinking about collecting the rent.

We need to ensure that the new system does not remove personal responsibility from everyone, while recognising that we will need to do something for those who are facing the greatest problems. We are working on that, and the pathfinders will help us to gain that knowledge. We want to make sure that the risks are managed and that landlords can request that the housing element is paid to them when the rent arrears trigger has been reached. These arrangements will be in place for some high-risk claimants from the outset until there is improved financial capability. In effect, we will start the shift to direct payments for claimants with the easier cases and then progress to the more difficult cases. The approach that runs through the roll-out of universal credit is to pilot things and understand the lessons to be learned to ensure we avoid mistakes in the future.

I am sure that I have already spoken for far longer than I should have done, but I think our debate has been important. I end by echoing the words of my hon. Friends who have contributed. We are talking about a change in culture. It is not just a benefit replacement exercise; it is about helping people back into work—making sure that they know that it is better to work than not to work, that it is better to work longer to earn more than to work fewer hours and earn less. We need to tackle some of the barriers to getting people into work, not just in respect of the complexities of the benefit system, but by enabling people to manage their money and to take responsibility for their finances and for their future.

Universal credit is a huge step forward in encouraging self-reliance, but we recognise that a number of people—not the vast majority of people—will need more support. The measures we have set out today and the way in which we have developed them, even from when we submitted our response to the Select Committee’s report, demonstrates this Government’s serious commitment to get universal credit right. It is by getting it right that we will have the best chance of getting people out of poverty.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Dame Anne Begg seeks the leave of the House to make a short response to the debate. With the leave of the House, I call her to speak.

17:03

[Dame Anne Begg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to today’s debate, which has been extremely worth while in teasing out what the Government have done and the questions they needed to address. Some fairly meaty questions are still to be answered—not least the one about passported benefits, which I noticed the Minister did not answer, probably because it remains a thorny issue.

I suspect that the Select Committee will return to this subject in the coming months or years—depending on which side of the House is believed on the timetable for the roll-out. Issues will arise once things are up and running and once real live people are claiming the benefit. Because so much about the universal credit will depend on behavioural changes, it is impossible to say at this stage which side of the argument is correct as to how people will behave when people are faced with the reality of claiming the new benefit. On behalf of the Select Committee, let me say that this debate has provided a great opportunity for us to explore what we thought would be the most important challenges for the Government in the future.

17:02

Question deferred until Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54)

department of health

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Medical Implants (EU and UK)

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Documents: Fifth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, on Regulation of medical implants in the EU and UK, HC 163, and the Government response, Cm 8496]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department of Health—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,244,626,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,

(2) the resources authorised for use for capital purposes be reduced by £1,000 as so

set out, and

(3) the sums authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £472,479,000 as so set out.—(Greg Hands.)

17:03

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak to the Select Committee’s report today. I start by paying tribute to my fellow members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology who work extremely hard on very technical matters such as this one. I particularly want to pass on our thanks to staff of the House, such as Committee Clerks and specialists, who have done such a wonderful job supporting the Committee in this Parliament.

I would like to focus on the health issues considered in our report on the regulation of medical implants in the EU and UK, which was published in October last year. It was prompted partly by the scandal over PIP breast implants and the less publicised but equally concerning problem with metal-on-metal hip implants. In addition, the European Commission has drafted proposals to revise the medical devices directive, and we hope not just to influence but to assist the Government in developing a strong negotiating position on that directive.

Under the directive, a medical device is used in health care for diagnosing, preventing, monitoring or treating illness or disability. The definition does not include medicines, which have their own regulatory structure. Nevertheless, medical device regulations cover a wide range of products, from pacemakers to spectacles. Devices are classified according to the risk that they pose to patients. A device such as a stethoscope or a dental filling is a class I or a class II, while medical implants are always class IIb or class III. The classification determines how much assessment is required.

Medical implants must be verified by a notified body before they can be placed on the market. Notified bodies are overseen by a competent authority in each member state. I use the word “competent” loosely, because there are some questions about that. In the United Kingdom, the competent authority is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which oversees six notified bodies. They are private organisations which assess high-risk devices and ensure that an implant complies with the essential requirements specified by the directives—the main one, of course, being the medical devices directive.

When an implant has been given the stamp of approval, the manufacturer places the CE mark on the device, and is free to put it on the market in all European countries without further controls. I should emphasise that point, because it shows how crucial it is to get the pre-market approval process right. Once the implant has been approved by one notified body in one EU country, it can go on the market anywhere in the EU. Manufacturers can approach a notified body in any member state to get approval; what is more, if a manufacturer has previously approached a regulator who has said “That device is not up to scratch”, and then approaches another and gets approval, the first part of the information is, ridiculously, regarded as commercial in confidence. That must clearly be changed.

There are more than 70 such notified bodies in Europe. I am pleased to say that the Committee heard no evidence criticising those in the United Kingdom, but we did hear concern expressed about the possibility that those in other countries might not apply the same high standards. Such differences are open to exploitation, as a manufacturer can choose to approach a notified body that is more likely to provide approval, a practice that is sometimes described as forum shopping. There is a real lack of transparency, and we simply do not know how widespread the problem is.

A useful insight was provided on 24 October last year by The Daily Telegraph and the British Medical Journal. Notified bodies were approached to approve a metal-on-metal hip implant that was known to be faulty. Shockingly, bodies in Slovakia and the Czech Republic were prepared to approve it. Many Members will remember the names of the authors of the article in The Daily Telegraph, because they have previously been involved in stings affecting Members of Parliament, but on this occasion they did an extraordinarily important job. I have gone on record as giving credit to those journalists for uncovering what I think was a trail of deception. I hope that, in his negotiating stance, the Minister will ensure that we have a mechanism that avoids that kind of risk in the future, and I intend shortly to illustrate to him a way in which procurement can be developed to avoid it.

I am pleased that the Commission has recognised the need to improve the scrutiny of notified bodies. For example, it has been proposed that manufacturers should be unable to apply to more than one notified body at a time. Our report made a number of recommendations about notified bodies, chiefly calling for a record of all approaches by manufacturers and supporting the Commission’s proposals to use teams of experts from member states to oversee the designation of notified bodies.

These notified bodies also audit manufacturers, and that includes an assessment of their facilities. In the PIP implants story, it was the inspection of the manufacturer’s facility that led to the discovery that an unapproved implant filler was being used. Although the PIP scandal was a case of deliberate fraud, not of the failure of the regulatory system, it demonstrated the importance of inspections and audits. We were therefore supportive of the Commission’s proposals to enforce unannounced audits of manufacturers and we further recommended that audits should take place at least annually.

Another key flaw in the current system is the overuse of equivalence data in approving implants. We now come to the key difference between medicines and medical devices. Every new human medicine has to go through rigorous clinical trials to test for efficacy and safety, but medical devices do not. The clinical data that the manufacturer must provide can come from clinical investigations of that particular device or from equivalence data, which are clinical data on another device that is similar. That may sound reasonable, and in most cases it probably is reasonable, but the problem is that even a small change to the design or material of a device can radically change how it behaves in the body. Also, if we keep approving devices on the basis of equivalence but with a small change each time, we will end up approving devices that are very different from those originally envisaged.

It is not practical to demand a clinical investigation of each and every device, as there are hundreds of thousands of devices in the EU, and doing so would not necessarily pick up the problems of wear and tear that happen over a long period of time or take account of how patients interact with their implants, but we were unimpressed by the extent to which reliance on equivalence data appeared to be acceptable for high-risk devices such as implants. We concluded that revisions of the directive should draw a clear distinction between where equivalence data are and are not acceptable.

Before moving to the second half of the regulatory system, which is the post-market surveillance, I want to make a point about the transparency of clinical data. Very little information about a device is public. Clinical data are generally not published, which makes clinical decision-making and informing patients difficult. I think we would all agree that patients have a right to know what is being put inside them and the associated risks. The Commission proposed to make manufacturers of high-risk devices publish summaries of safety and performance with key pieces of clinical data. We did not think that went far enough and called for all clinical data to be made available for both new implants and those already on the market. Similar transparency issues are being explored in our current inquiry on clinical trials, which starts very soon.

I said I would offer the Minister a practical solution to address the challenges of what is a very complex regulatory structure. We need to ensure that both doctors and patients have the fullest possible information about any product that is being used and inserted in a person as a medical device. It seems to me that the answer lies very much with the Minister. I had this discussion when some of his support team came to see me recently with Sir Bruce Keogh, who is doing the work on some of the medical implant devices, particularly those relating to cosmetic use. It strikes me that there is an obvious way forward, and it is a way in which other countries operate European procurement rules. Whoever sets out the procurement process—in whichever trust or at whichever level in the NHS—should simply make a requirement that anyone bidding for the contract must provide the fullest and most transparent data about the trials that have been conducted, the design of the product and the regulatory processes it has gone through, including the ones where there has been a failure. That is a perfectly reasonable regulatory requirement for the Minister to impose on anyone seeking to sell products that are to be used in the NHS.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

It is worth saying that the Committee also saw the importance of ensuring that negative data are released and made available. We often find that similar products are available and if something is failing in one product, there will often be a similar problem in another product. If we do not produce those negative data to show where problems are with some products, we may miss problems with other medical implants.

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman, who works hard on the Select Committee, is absolutely right in what he says. I stress to the Minister that not only was this report unanimously endorsed by the Committee members, but we were angry at the lack of available information. That was no fault of the Minister or his predecessors; it resulted from a system that had grown, as the use of implants had grown, into a mechanism that was not fit for purpose. The Minister is rightly participating in the process of revising the directive, but some urgent requirements mean that he has to take a proactive approach and encourage—indeed, instruct, if he has that power—procurement offices of the NHS to set a new standard. They should simply require anyone tendering for a product in this category to provide, as part of the tendering process, totally transparent information about the process and the regulatory regime it has gone through.

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

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will elaborate on some of the positive examples that the Committee found, which included the groups of orthopaedic surgeons who voluntarily shared information on different hip replacement devices and could contextualise the outcomes. The implant itself is not always responsible for the outcome—that could result from other factors to do with the medical condition of the patient or all sorts of other circumstances—but these people were able to contextualise that information in large enough sample sizes to help other surgeons to come to the right decisions about the right implants for their patients.

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Lady, another hard-working member of the Committee, is absolutely right and that could take us on to a much more complex debate about how we move from where we are in today’s medicine to future developments in stratified medicine and so on. The way in which our medical profession works in such a strong collegiate manner helps to maintain standards at the highest level. Lessons can be learned in that regard that underline the importance of the NHS as the lead body in this area.

Post-market surveillance is a crucial element of the regulatory system and is technically the responsibility of the manufacturers. However, the notified bodies also have some oversight through auditing. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency investigates adverse incidents once they have been reported. Again, we called for greater transparency by recommending that manufacturers publish the results of post-market surveillance studies. We proposed that a system such as the MHRA’s black triangle system, which flags up new medicines approved on limited clinical data, should be adopted for devices approved on equivalence alone. We found some evidence that clinicians under-report adverse incidents, so we wanted the Government to consider making reporting mandatory.

One place to keep post-market data is a registry. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales—meaning joints in the body, not joint between England and Wales—is a success story. It collects data on all joint replacements in the NHS and the private sector and is the biggest such register in the world. The NJR provided data on the DePuy metal-on-metal hip implant, which was then recalled worldwide in 2010.

Registries do not always succeed. Between 1996 and 2003, we had the national breast implant registry, but that failed, partly because of the unwillingness of patients to give follow-up information. Nevertheless, our colleagues on the Health Committee called for Sir Bruce Keogh to pursue the creation of a register of breast implants in his review of PIP implants. I hope that the Government will put in place measures to ensure that any new registry learns lessons from the NJR’s successes.

I recently went through a minor medical procedure and was asked to provide data as part of a broader clinical dataset and to allow them to be used. The form started off by saying how to opt out of providing that data, rather than explaining to me as the patient why it was beneficial for those data to be collected. When such registers are produced, I hope that the Minister will agree that the starting point should be that the authorisation form should not start with the negative procedure of how to opt out but start with positive information about why such data are beneficial to the individual and to society more broadly.

[Stephen Mosley]

The NJR is a fantastic resource that is very well used, but it might be worth while pointing out that problems with metal hips were first detected in Australia in 2007 because there is a registry there that allowed them to be noticed. The metal hips were withdrawn in Australia in 2009, but it took until 2010 for the problems to be noticed by the British registry and they were withdrawn in the UK. Although it can be a good system, it is not perfect and it needs people to monitor it and ensure that any problems are picked up.

[Andrew Miller]

You will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman has just taken the next paragraph out of my speech. He is absolutely right, but the interesting point is that the Government told us that the Australian regulator did not communicate its data to the MHRA or other international regulators and the MHRA first learned of safety concerns in April 2010. Although it is not necessarily the MHRA’s job to keep an eye on adverse incidents worldwide, we must remember that over those two or three years many risky implants were put into patients, with some devastating consequences. The hon. Gentleman’s observation is spot on.

The European Commission and the UK Government must seek to improve the speed of reaction to incidents such as the two adverse ones that were picked up outside the EU and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s suggestions about how that can be achieved. I believe there is general agreement between the Committee and the Government on the broad principles of the system and what needs to be changed. I hope hon. Members will agree that our inquiry shed some light on important issues affecting UK patient safety.

In conclusion, I will sum up our inquiry on the regulation of medical implants in the EU and the UK as a call for two things: better use of evidence in implant approvals and more transparency throughout the system. I hope we can find a way forward.

[Stephen Mosley]

The hon. Gentleman has gone through almost the entire checklist of points that I wanted to make. However, one aspect that he has not covered yet is self-reporting by patients. We heard examples in Committee and we suggested that it would be good practice if patients self-reported, which might allow problems to be picked up earlier than they are through the formal channels. Does the hon. Gentleman have any comments on self-reporting?

[Andrew Miller]

I have some ideas about how that can be developed. That angle, although not central to the inquiry, is important for the development of a registry. I gave an example of people being invited to opt out of a registry before anything else is put to them. What needs to be explained to them are the health benefits of working in a more collegiate way and sharing data, and they should be encouraged both for their personal health and for broader societal benefit to self-report. That is a hugely important area that we need to develop through better engagement between clinician and patient at the point when the procedure is about to start.

This is a complex subject and I do not envy the Minister his task in negotiating on it. Unfortunately, some regulators have demonstrably not maintained the standards that occur in most of the 27 countries, but in the interests of patient safety and the advancement of medical science it is vital that we work together and solve the problems that the report has highlighted.

17:27

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to break some new ground in this debate on estimates day by talking just a little bit about the estimates. We have quite a lot to agree to. I do not know whether hon. Members have studied the papers for the day. We are agreeing to an extra £1.2 billion of expenditure in the revenue account and a reduction in the consolidated fund draw-down of £472 million. In previous debates we have debated similar figures for the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Communities and Local Government and so on. At the end of the day we will vote through £213 billion of Government expenditure and probably talk about none of it at all.

There is a reason for my raising the issue at this point. There is an odd gap between what we are notionally doing and what we are actually doing. A few months ago we had another estimates day when we voted through similar huge amounts but talked about Turkey. The nation’s finances were relatively undiscussed. It is odd procedure that the one thing we do not talk about on estimates day is numbers or estimates, but does it matter? It does in a funny sort of way, because Parliament is supposed to scrutinise the nation’s accounts and it clearly does not do so. I think the Government are aware of it. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and I were tasked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury with looking at how we scrutinise the nation’s accounts on occasions like this. It was announced at the Dispatch Box—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am giving the hon. Gentleman a little leeway but the matter under discussion is as on the Order Paper, so I would like reference to be made to that, rather than a general debate.

[John Pugh]

I am coming to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. In a way, that illustrates my point, because what we are actually debating is the supplementary estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and I were tasked with looking at how the House debates supplementary estimates, and the answer we came to was this: not very well. Our report, a copy of which is in the Library for hon. Members to consult, testifies to that finding, and we produced adequate evidence for it, because the report was co-ordinated to some extent by the Treasury, which keeps a close eye on these things. I am suggesting that the work of examining the nation’s finances is boring, dull and, at times, anorakish, but it certainly needs to be done, and it probably should be done by Parliament, and on occasions like this.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

On that point, which the hon. Gentleman is making very well, can he recall when the House last divided on an estimates debate?

[John Pugh]

I certainly cannot. There are occasions when we talk about general topics, but I think that I am right in saying that the reasons we have estimates days is so that Parliament, as well as the Treasury, can scrutinise the nation’s accounts. I regard that as highly desirable in this age of austerity, when we need to count every penny and record the overspend, underspend, virement and so on.

I will now turn to the subject that appears to be the subject of this debate but is not actually on the Order Paper: medical devices and implants. I would like to make a few observations on what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) calls post-market surveillance, which we agree needs to be improved. That is obviously wholly desirable because it will eliminate problems, improve patient security and so on. I would not disagree with a single word voiced by him or his Committee. I agree that there should be more transparency and more feedback from patients and clinicians so that devices are safe and do exactly what they are supposed to do. However, we can improve regulatory vigilance. The MHRA has done a good job so far, but it obviously could do better. There is clearly a role for increased manufacturer responsibility. That is all very important.

The simple point I want to make about implants—I am not allowed to talk about the huge sums of money we are voting through—is that detecting failings is quite a complex matter. It is not as simple as it was with the breast implants, which was a case of the wrong substance being provided, which is fraud. I will illustrate my point with a real-life example. I am familiar with a case in Nottingham involving a number of unfortunate episodes that followed heart surgery in which a particular type and brand of stent was used. A number of people were called back for second operations because the stents leaked. I believe that there were a number of deaths and some litigation. Initially it was thought that the device was at fault, because it looked as though the people who had the device experienced certain problems and complications, and there had been other problems with it elsewhere. It was subject to a court case and prolonged investigation. Ultimately, the blame was attributed—this bears out the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton)—to the surgical procedure, rather than to the device itself.

Therefore, there is a particular problem when it comes to post-market surveillance. Is it the equipment or how it is used that is responsible, because the equipment is only as good as its user? That is a particular issue in surgery, because surgeons up and down the land are very particular about what bits of kit they use and what type of equipment they work with.

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is making a perfect case for a proper registry. If a proper registry were maintained, one would be able to see whether the patterns of failure related to a location, which would mean it was a surgical failure, or a particular type or brand of product. He is underlining one of the Committee’s key recommendations.

[John Pugh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to his Committee for the work it has done. My simple point is that post-market surveillance is complex, because devices need to be judged alongside the patient experience and the clinician experience, and that gets more complex and difficult if the market for a particular device is relatively small. In the Nottingham case, the patients could not get fully informed feedback because it was neither in the manufacturer’s nor the surgeon’s interest to incriminate themselves. There was the added problem, as there is often is, that the manufacturer was in a different country from the user of the device. That is partly why products that have been found over time to be faulty in one country can still be used in another country because its regulatory body has not picked up on the problem.

This is not an easy matter, and I applaud the Committee’s efforts to get things right. I am slightly disappointed that we cannot have a wider debate on the nation’s finances. I hope that the Minister will explain what the £1.2 billion of expenditure that we are agreeing is all about, because that will be a blessing to the House.

17:35

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I do not serve on the Committee and I do not have the knowledge of the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and for Southport (John Pugh) on this subject, but I want to bring a couple of matters to the House’s attention, including some that are of importance to my constituents.

My first point relates to recommendation 29 on transparency of evidence. It is very important to have that recommendation in the report for the sake of those who have had breast implants over the years. Some of my constituents unfortunately found themselves on the wrong side of the PIP scandal when the companies that had been involved in doing the operations then went bankrupt or disappeared from the market. There were also some cross-border issues in relation to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Ladies who had put aside substantial amounts of money for the operation, which in many cases they probably could not afford, found themselves at the cold end, if I may use that terminology, of what happened. I am very pleased to see in the report the transparency that the Committee has sought to achieve.

Will the Minister confirm for the record that all the proposals in the recommendations will apply to Northern Ireland? I am ever mindful that health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and I want to make sure that the recommendations, which are very well put, will apply there in the same way as on the mainland. I am ever mindful, too, that in many parts of the world people can buy almost any items online—not implants or hip replacements, but almost every drug for almost every condition, including cancer, heart conditions, epilepsy and depression. There is always someone out there who will try to take advantage of someone else’s unfortunate health issues.

My second point relates to help for small companies. Recommendation 12 is very important, and I quote it for the record:

“We are not fully convinced by assurances provided by the Government or Commission that this would not hinder small companies bringing products to market. The Commission and Government should explain how they intend to support small, innovative companies in the medical services sector if pre-market approval becomes prohibitively costly.”

Small companies in all parts of the United Kingdom hold the key to the employment opportunities that arise, as the Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister have said. That is certainly true in my constituency. T. G. Eakin is a pharmaceutical business outside Comber that produces some of the most excellent medical products, including a high-quality skin protection product for use in stoma and wound care that it exports all over the world and for which it has received numerous awards. The company is renowned for its quality and expertise.

I want to underline the point that we should import such products only when it is not possible to produce them ourselves. We must fight for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When we do import such products, it should be highly regulated. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how we can provide more opportunities for small businesses to manufacture these types of products in the United Kingdom. T. G. Eakin provides jobs for some 80 people in my constituency and is planning a factory expansion that will produce about 20 more jobs.

In conclusion, there is a high level of expertise in some companies in the United Kingdom. Recommendation 12 of the report plays up that point. Perhaps the Minister could respond to that recommendation. There are massive opportunities for the United Kingdom to do more in this area. Why do we import when we can produce quality products at home and produce jobs off the back of it? That is what we should do. We can lead the world with our expertise not only in the manufacturing of products such as those produced by T. G. Eakin, but in our universities. Queen’s university Belfast and other universities across the United Kingdom explore all the medical matters and ailments that affect society. That provides opportunities. Recommendation 12 could perhaps help us to make the most of those. I would like to know how we can do that across the United Kingdom. If we can do more, let us do it.

17:41

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

The report of the Science and Technology Committee was produced under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). I congratulate him on the work of the Committee and on an excellent report. He is known in this House for his diligence and attention to detail, and the report illustrates those instincts. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Southport (John Pugh) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who have made telling and important contributions.

The House has demonstrated not only a shared understanding of the issues before us in this brief debate on medical implants, but a welcome unity of purpose. The House is at its best when it acts in such a fashion. Debates like this allow us to break through what actors call the “fourth wall”. I hope that anyone who is watching this debate can see that, as should always be the case, we are not making by-the-numbers political arguments, but are making a sincere effort to address the issues before us for the benefit of the people who send us here.

In health care regulatory systems, medical implants and devices hold a unique status. The synthesis of new medicines and other pharmaceutical products is done through highly precise chemical processes, whereas implants are developed largely through an iterative engineering process. As we can see from the Committee’s report, that presents unique challenges. The bulk of the regulatory framework for medical testing focuses on the side effects and efficacy of new drugs. Although the emphasis is on medicines, there need to be mechanisms for the effective regulation of safe medical implants, given the fundamental differences between implants and medicines.

As the Committee’s report highlighted, there are weaknesses in the current regulatory system. As Members have mentioned, those have been highlighted by the recent PIP breast implant scandal and by faulty metal-on-metal hip replacements. In looking at those high-profile scandals, we must recognise the role of criminal activity, especially in the PIP scandal. In that case, it quickly became apparent that the company that manufactured the implants was engaged in a clear case of fraud. There is no reasonable and workable system that could prevent such cases. That fact is recognised by many in the industry and, I am sure, by Members across the House.

Although the PIP scandal was caused by criminal activity, it presented the opportunity for us to take a deep look at our regulatory framework and to assess its strengths and weaknesses. The system is obviously not perfect, as I am sure Members across the House will agree, and improvements need to be made. The case of the DePuy metal-on-metal hip implants shows that faulty products have been certified under the current system.

There is a fine balance to strike when debating the regulatory framework of medical impacts because it is essential that all products are safe, and that they bring only benefits to patients and are not harmful. It is also necessary for access to products to be improved and expedited. The ideal is to bring safe medical implants to patients in an efficient and timely manner, and that is the sole purpose of a regulatory system in this context.

We must be increasingly aware of how the regulatory system can affect the entire health economy. To emphasise the importance of that let us consider a condition that poses enormous public health, policy and financial questions, as well as questions of patients’ rights and expectations: type 1 diabetes.

I declare an interest as a type 1 diabetic who was diagnosed through diabetic ketoacidosis just two weeks before the 2010 general election—ideal preparation, I must say. I raise the issue not to bore the House with my personal interests but because figures released this week by Diabetes UK show that the number of people in the UK who have been diagnosed with diabetes has reached 3 million for the first time. That is an increase of 132,000 over the last year and a further 850,000 people are now believed to suffer from undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. Each year an estimated 24,000 people die from diabetes-related medical conditions and the situation is expected to worsen—I know the Minister is aware of the figures. Barbara Young, the chief executive of Diabetes UK, has called the situation a “public health emergency”, and she is right.

It cannot be stated enough that type 1 and type 2 diabetes are different conditions and differ in many ways. Type 2 diabetes is often the result of lifestyle circumstances or choices, but type 1 diabetes is a genetic, sometimes hereditary auto-immune condition that is not related to the lifestyle of an individual. The latest breakdown of figures that I have comes from 2009. Research undertaken by the university of Birmingham and the National Institute for Health Research showed that at that time, 488,089 people in England and Wales had type 1 diabetes, some 15,000 of whom were children and young people between nought and 24 years of age. In 2009-10, 27,200 hospital admissions and 96,651 bed days were due to type 1 diabetes in England. To be blunt for a moment, apart from concerning ourselves with the needs of the patient, that is costing the NHS a fortune.

Also this week the US-based Diabetes Research Institute announced details of its research into what it describes as a “quantum leap” towards a biological cure for type 1 diabetes with the development of its BioHub—a bioengineered “mini-organ” that mimics the pancreas. It contains real insulin-producing cells that can sense blood sugar and release the precise amount of insulin needed in real time. In short, if successful, such a treatment could transform the lives of 500,000 people in England and Wales, save the NHS a fortune that could be spent elsewhere, and help begin to meet the challenge of the public health emergency we face. With that case study we see that the improvement of a system that expedites access and demonstrates the safety of medical implants for patients could not be clearer or more important.

The report covers four main points, and I will take each one in turn. First, I will discuss the system of pre-market approvals and the difficulties surrounding them, before looking at transparency in the regulatory system, post-market scrutiny of products and international co-operation. Pre-market scrutiny of medical products is the minimum prerequisite when it comes to health care products, whether medicines or implants, but there are fundamental reasons why there is no one-size-fits-all system for testing them. With medicines, doses can be reduced and increased to test for side effects and efficacy, but, as I am sure all Members will recognise, it is impossible to change the dosage of a hip replacement. Furthermore, once an implant has been placed, it is difficult to remove it.

Similar issues present themselves with clinical trialling procedures. Medicines pass through the body relatively quickly, meaning that medicinal trials can be conducted within a reasonable time frame. A hip implant is typically designed to last over 10 years, and to obtain reliable clinical data that can withstand proper scrutiny, trials on those implants would have to last a number of years, which in many cases is simply not practical. A system has therefore developed that uses different types of clinical evidence to assess safety and efficacy. Where possible and practical, clinical trials on products should take place, but for implants, regulatory bodies will take what are known as equivalence data as the basis for their decision making. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and is covered extensively in the report. These are data obtained from similar products. As I have said previously, products are developed in an iterative process and these data can be from earlier iterations that may have been available to patients for a number of years.

There are a number of issues with this method. First, the British Medical Journal has argued that, owing to the progression of new products and advances in this field, regulators may have difficulty assessing which products, and therefore data, are equivalent. This difficulty is, to some extent, surmounted by the differing regulatory requirements of different classifications of medical devices. Most medical implants are categorised as class 2b and class 3. These are the higher risk categories and this ensures that extra safety checks are in place.

Class 2b manufacturers are subject to annual detailed assessments of their facilities, practices and staff training levels to ensure they are performing to a high standard. With class 3 products, notified regulatory bodies also have access to technical documentation to ensure safe practices. So the difficulties inherent in the pre-market assessment of medical implants mean that post-market scrutiny and surveillance of products are essential in maintaining standards in the industry and in improving future regulatory regimes.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and other groups agree that this is one of the most important tenets of a regulatory system. It is almost impossible, and certainly not accurate, to predict the medical performance of devices after a considerable number of years. Continued, randomised testing of devices should form part of the regulatory processes and should make a keen contribution to assessing the efficacy and safety of products.

Looking at the level of international co-operation when it comes to regulating medical devices, it is crucial to realise that this is now a global industry. The EU Commission has recommended greater co-operation between member states in this field. It recommends that there should be a European body responsible for dealing with notifications of devices prior to market entry. I understand the Committee’s report does not accept this recommendation as it would lead to another layer of bureaucracy and delay. However, greater harmonisation of practices to ensure high standards are met by manufacturers throughout the world is interesting, and this is an issue that needs to be looked at in greater detail.

[Sarah Newton]

Another important reason we decided it would not be in the national interest to support that recommendation is that we believe that it contained the potential for a race to the bottom. Other European countries do not regulate as well as we do, and effective regulation is really important. We felt that a lowering of standards in other European countries might mean that implants could get in through the back door.

[Mr Reed]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The Committee’s thinking on that point is clearly justifiable and robust. It also raises another issue. We all need to ensure that the industries we are talking about have a predictable, stable and safe environment in which to operate so that they can innovate, attract investment and continue the advanced manufacturing processes we need to secure advances in treatment and more.

It is important, however, that the focus upon constant improvement should be one of the core underpinnings of any regulatory framework and this is sadly lacking in the system at present. The key to improving the regulatory framework—and in many ways the key theme of the Committee’s report—is transparency. The BMJ acknowledges that there are

“many vested interests that disincentivise manufacturers and clinicians from highlighting problems”.

Commercial confidentiality is another stumbling block. This need not be the case as a more open system, with more published information and greater access to assessments of products, will foster greater trust in the system, which will then translate into wider public trust of the industry and of manufacturers within it.

An article in The Lancet from June 2012 argues that patients and medical professionals should have a greater role in reporting adverse effects from their devices. Who could disagree? It should be clear to everyone that the fairest and safest way of assessing medical products is to allow experts access to as much information as possible. The Committee’s report makes it clear that the default position on information should be transparency and openness, and should be confidential only in extreme circumstances. It is right that the MHRA has a specialist committee to assess the safety of products: the committee on the safety of devices. What is totally wrong, however, is that it works in secret. The Select Committee expressed its disappointment at not being able to evaluate the work of the CSD, and it seems impossible to evaluate the system as a whole when such a key part of it appears to be shrouded in secrecy.

The Committee’s report does not advocate widespread changes to the system, but it rightly recommends a significant improvement in the transparency of information available to medical professionals. In medicine, negative data, as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) said, are as crucial as positive data in assessing what is right for a patient. I assure the Minister that the Government will have the support of the Opposition if they wish to make quick progress on improving transparency in the system.

17:55

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

I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) for the clarity with which he presented the Committee’s findings, and I thank the Committee for its valuable work.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), made some interesting points about the challenge of diabetes. I note his diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and the impact it has had, particularly in the run-up to the general election. It beggars belief that he had to cope with that in the middle of a campaign. He made a point about the potential power of science and devices to make a difference to patients’ lives and to save the system money—a double win that we are all after.

Before I go on to talk about points raised in the Committee’s report, let me deal with the specific point about Northern Ireland, which was raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Most issues relating to the regulation of medical devices are UK-wide, and the MHRA operates across the UK. Some issues are devolved if they relate to the operation of the health service, and officials at the MHRA work closely with their counterparts in all the devolved Administrations. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

I will set out briefly what is currently being done to improve the regulatory system for medical devices. In October 2012, the Government began negotiations with other EU member states to revise the regulatory framework for medical devices, including implants. That will mean completely overhauling the regulatory system that has been in place for more than 20 years. The changes will take effect in 2017 at the earliest. In the interim, member states and the Commission are tightening up the most critical aspects of the current legislation. On top of the legislative changes, member states are implementing a voluntary programme of action that takes on board the lessons learned from the PIP scandal, which was mentioned earlier. However, we are not merely relying on the EU. The UK is taking its own action, including putting in place the recommendations of Earl Howe’s report, which was published in May last year. In addition, Sir Bruce Keogh’s review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions is due to report later this month.

Let me now turn to the issues raised in the Committee’s report. First, I would like to talk about the requirements on clinical data for medical devices. There are legitimate concerns about the quality of manufacturers’ clinical evidence, as well as about how rigorously notified bodies then evaluate the evidence they are presented with. The Government’s response highlights how the Commission’s proposal will address those concerns. In particular, we consider that the requirement on notified bodies to have in-house clinical expertise will be a big and important step forward that will ensure that notified bodies really scrutinise and challenge manufacturers on the quality of their clinical evidence.

I am pleased that the draft legislation requires manufacturers to comply with clear rules on clinical evaluation. It is also much clearer on when manufacturers can use clinical data from an equivalent device when conducting their own investigation—one of the issues discussed during this debate. None the less, by the end of the negotiations, we should have legislation that goes even further to ensure that notified bodies have access to high-quality clinical expertise. We do not have any detailed proposals, at this stage, but one idea is to establish an approved list of clinical experts that notified bodies must consult when assessing clinical evidence.

In addition, clinical data must be transparent, so that the procurement of devices is based on solid evidence. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised concerns about this point. Current practice in the NHS means that clinicians take into account several factors before using a device, including the clinical evidence provided and the track record of the manufacturer. In the light of issues identified with some brands of metal-on-metal hips, the chief medical officer and the NHS medical director wrote to all NHS trusts in England last March asking them to ensure that there was sound clinical governance of procurement decisions about joint implants—this is the important point I want to make in response to what he said. I would expect these principles for the procurement process to apply to all medical devices used in the NHS.

It is worth highlighting how the UK is taking action, over and above the requirements of EU legislation, to support the safe introduction of new hip and knee implants into the market. Manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson, Stryker and Biomet, have applied to participate in a pilot scheme that will give surgeons earlier and more accurate data on how well new hip and knee implants performed. This project involves close co-operation with clinicians, the NHS and the UK’s national joint registry. The MHRA is currently considering how this pilot could add value to other categories of device.

[Andrew Miller]

Will the Minister confirm that it would be perfectly reasonable, as part of the regulatory process a device must go through, for a procurement officer to ask to be notified of any failed applications to other countries?

[Norman Lamb]

It would be absolutely in order for a procurement officer to do that. The more searching their inquiries, the better, given the importance of what we are trying to achieve. We welcome the hon. Gentleman’s opinions on this issue and will consider how the system can be further strengthened. He makes a valuable contribution to our considerations.

The Government agree with the Committee about the need to improve the environment for clinical trials in this country, and we are doing a lot of work on that already. Things such as the life sciences strategy are making it easier for patients to get involved in research, and we have also set up the Health Research Authority, which is simplifying the approval process for ethical research.

To return to a point made by the shadow Minister, we wholeheartedly agree on the importance of transparency, which brings numerous benefits. I have always strongly believed that it empowers patients, informs and liberates health care professionals and builds trust in industry, notified bodies and public authorities. The proposed new European regulations will increase transparency, giving the public, patients and clinicians access, first, to clear information on the safety and performance of devices; secondly, registration information on devices and the companies that make, distribute and use them; and thirdly, information on the electronic traceability system for devices.

Furthermore, the outcome of peer reviews between different national authorities—reports from each member state on how they have monitored their notified bodies and statements from notified bodies on their independence and impartiality—will also be made public. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port—I apologise for abbreviating his constituency—drew attention to concerns about the quality of different authorities across the EU, so this is an important step. The UK is already pushing for improvements in transparency in negotiations with other member states. For example, as we highlighted in our response, we would like to see clinical data from post-market surveillance published, so that the available information on the safety and performance of devices always remains up to date. We can do more as well. The Government’s public consultation on the proposed regulation closed on 21 January. It provided us with a lot of useful ideas, which we are currently considering in detail.

Let me turn to the issue of notified bodies and pre-market assessment. Strengthening the quality of notified bodies is absolutely one of the most important ways to improve the regulatory system. The Government agree with the Committee’s recommendations in this area. We are pleased that the Commission’s proposal goes a long way towards addressing the current weaknesses in the system. Competent authorities will review each other and share ideas on how to improve the way in which they monitor notified bodies. The Commission can take action in response to a member state’s concern about a particular notified body. There is significantly more detail on the criteria that notified bodies must fulfil, and teams of experts from different competent authorities will audit notified bodies every three years. The Government agree with the Committee that a new layer of European bureaucracy is not the solution to problems with notified bodies. We need to focus not on who carries out pre-market assessment, but on how it is carried out.

Regardless of all that, we cannot just sit back and wait for the revised legislation to come into place—it is some way off yet. As I outlined previously, we are acting before then to ensure that notified bodies improve as soon as possible. Interim action is being taken across Europe. It includes, first, joint audits of notified bodies on a voluntary basis. The first of these took place in the UK in January and many more are planned for 2013. Secondly, all member states are auditing the quality of their notified bodies that assess high-risk devices. Thirdly, rules on notified bodies and how they audit manufacturers, including undertaking unannounced inspections, are being put together.

While we strengthen the pre-market assessment of devices, it is equally important that adequate post-market surveillance and vigilance procedures are put in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) entertained us and educated us on some important issues. He drew attention to the complexity of identifying the cause of a problem and whether it is the equipment or how it is used. That is not always easy, and the court action he referred to very much drew attention to the complexity of these issues. I am afraid that I am unlikely to be able to satisfy him on the £1.2 billion, but I liked the effort on his part.

[John Pugh]

I hope the Minister did not think I was being awkward in any way, but the original purpose of estimates day was clearly not to discuss medical implants. However, I have now learnt not only that we do not talk about estimates on estimates day, but that we are not allowed to talk about them.

[Norman Lamb]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have never known him to be awkward; it is not in his nature.

While we strengthen the pre-market assessment of devices, it is equally important that adequate post-market surveillance and vigilance procedures are put in place. The Committee recommended setting up a black triangle scheme for medical devices approved with equivalence data. I recognise the Committee’s rationale for that recommendation, but we do not think it is the best way forward. A national scheme would place potentially disproportionate costs on industry and risk a loss of competitiveness for the UK. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly drew attention to the enormous potential we have in the UK for generating new business in this area and the importance of giving businesses every opportunity to start up and develop. We do not want to impose disproportionate costs on UK businesses and put that potential growth at risk. Instead, recognising the importance of the point made by the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, we are considering what we can do at the EU level. For example, notified bodies could require manufacturers to carry out post-market studies for certain devices.

Finally, the Committee recommended that the Government consider making the reporting of incidents by health care professionals mandatory. Increasing reporting is clearly critical to ensuring that the regulator has a full picture of emerging problems with devices. Mandatory reporting is an option that the Government are continuing to consider, although it cannot be the only solution. The MHRA is currently leading work to improve reporting and has been working closely with the General Medical Council and the medical royal colleges to consider how to strengthen professional responsibilities in this area.

In conclusion, the Government attach great importance to strengthening the regulatory system for medical implants. I am immensely grateful to the Committee for its work and recommendations, just as I am to everyone who has contributed to this debate or at some other time. I am confident that the work being undertaken now and to improve the European legislation will make a real difference to safety and transparency.

18:11

[Andrew Miller]

With the leave of the House, I thank the Minister for his response and thank the Members who have contributed to this short but important debate, which has underlined the value of our Select Committee structure. We have produced a report that has genuinely informed the House and that has, I hope, helped progress some difficult areas of negotiation being undertaken by the Government.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made an important point about small businesses. Next Wednesday, he will be interested to read the Science and Technology Committee’s next report on bridging the “valley of death”, which is such a complex issue for many of our high-tech businesses. The same can be said about any of the businesses described by the hon. Gentleman, which find it so difficult to grow organically in a complex business environment.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) for his kind comments and for adopting the same spirit as we did in trying to deal with the issue in a collegiate way. Although UK plc is sometimes renowned for being the awkward squad with regard to matters European, this is an issue on which we are in a very strong position, and many of our European partners—I use that word deliberately—recognise the value of what we have done to maintain standards. We have worries with regard to only a minority of European countries.

My only concern with the Minister’s response was in respect of the black triangle issue, but perhaps we can deal with that offline at a more convenient time. I thank him and other Members who have contributed to the debate, and once again thank my Committee and its staff for their contribution to this important discussion.

Question deferred (Standing Order No.54).

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You, of course, are the guardian of good debate. You will have heard the comments of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) about not being clear about what is and what is not in order to discuss on estimates day. Do you have any advice for Members on how we can stay in order when discussing estimates?

[Mr Speaker]

On that particular matter, the Liaison Committee made a determination, which the House approved. On the basis that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with the determination of the Liaison Committee and with the fact and terms of its approval by the House, I cannot imagine that this will be a matter of doubt or uncertainty in the mind of any hon. or right hon. Member, and certainly not in the mind of a Member so demonstrably perspicacious as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). In one respect, and one respect only, the hon. Gentleman has erred, however understandably. He suggests that I will have heard the comments of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). I have not yet experienced that joy, but a study of Hansard will disclose the necessary to me, and I look forward to that, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine, with eager anticipation.

Sittings of the House (22 March)

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. To move the motion, I call the Leader of the House.

18:15

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

I beg to move,

That this House shall sit on Friday 22 March.

On 18 October 2012, I published the full parliamentary recess calendar to 6 January 2014. The whole House will recognise the benefit to Members, staff, the House authorities and the House service of giving as much certainty and notice as possible of future sitting days. It enables effective scheduling of hon. Members’ work in their constituencies and allows the House authorities to plan major work projects as effectively and efficiently as possible. On 17 December 2012, the dates I had announced were put to the House in the form of a motion. The House agreed, without a Division, to the dates that had been proposed. Indeed, I do not recall any debate on the matter, or any objections being received from Opposition Members.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the motion was put to the House on 17 December. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the date of the Budget by then?

[Mr Lansley]

From memory, no.

[Mr Spellar]

I want to help the right hon. Gentleman with this, so that he can construct his argument more effectively. My understanding is that the Chancellor had on 11 December announced the date of the Budget in March.

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly check my recollection, of course. My recollection is that the date of the Budget was announced in the new year, but I will gladly check that point. I am not sure that it is germane to the argument, however, because whatever the position might be, I had at that point already announced—on 18 October 2012, as I said—the calendar for the year ahead.

[Mr Spellar]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman is standing. I think he is presuming that I am going to give way to him a third time.

[Mr Spellar]

I can develop my argument in my speech, but it might help the right hon. Gentleman if I do so now. The reason why it is relevant whether the Chancellor had already announced the date of the Budget is that the Leader of the House would have put the dates to the House in the knowledge that the Budget was going to be in March and knowing how many days it would require, and therefore knowing how it would fit in with his sittings pattern.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

So why did you support it on the 17th?

[Mr Lansley]

I hear an astute point being made from a sedentary position by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), who says that if that had been the case, surely the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have raised the matter on 17 December. I do not think that they did so. I see no difficulty with this.

As I said, I clearly set out the planned dates on 18 October, and the resolution then provided Members with confirmation that the House would rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 26 March 2013 and return on Monday 15 April 2013. Following the publication of the calendar, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the date for the budget as Wednesday 20 March 2013. The motion on the Order Paper today adds a further sitting day to those already agreed by the House and does so within the framework of recess dates set out in the calendar.

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

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for being courteous, and I would expect no less. Am I right in thinking that last year the Government published the Fridays on which we were planning to sit—again, it was beneficial to the House, the staff and others—and, if so, why did the Government not publish the sitting Fridays for this year?

[Mr Lansley]

What is clear, as I said, is that in order to facilitate the House, the shape of the recess framework is the most important characteristic. We want to enable hon. Members and the House authorities to structure their future activities around relatively established dates for major recesses.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I give my right hon. Friend 10 out of 10 for publishing his original timetable well in advance, as that is a very good thing, but what has he got against Wednesdays? My view and that of my constituents is that we want to hear from the Prime Minister, especially at the start of a recess period. Why do Sessions always end on a Tuesday?

[Mr Lansley]

I will come on to that point in a moment, if I may, when I address some of the issues that the shadow Leader of the House raised at business questions.

The motion adds a further sitting day and its effect will therefore be to allow the four-day Budget debate to take place, as well as to accommodate the opportunity for the Backbench Business Committee to schedule business, including the traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate, on the last day before recess.

Sitting on an additional Friday would allow a continuation of the Budget debate but it would not be its last day, so there would be no requirement for Members to vote on that day. That is the best option to provide the balance between the certainty requested by the House, which the publication of the calendar in mid-October permitted, and the disposal of business before it, including providing the Backbench Business Committee with access to the debate opportunities that it would expect.

It may be helpful if I remind the House that there is a precedent for the proposal to sit on a Friday to allow the continuation of the Budget debate before a recess. Just last year, the House agreed to sit on Friday 23 March to continue the Budget debate, and I am not aware that any issues were raised following that sitting. The precedents go further back than that, as another occasion occurred under the last Administration on 11 April 2003.

As you said, Mr Speaker, an amendment in the name of the Opposition has been selected, which seeks to amend the motion to produce the effect that the House would sit not on Friday 22 March, but on Wednesday 27 March. I fear that the Opposition, in tabling the amendment, might just be thinking back to their time in government and imputing similar motives to this Government. I think they are wrong in that.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

What a gross calumny!

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady set out her reasons during business questions on 7 February. I addressed her points then, but it may be helpful for me to recap. Her first reason was that Members might already have made arrangements in their constituencies for Friday 22 March. This is valid up to the point that Members are just as likely to have made arrangements in their constituencies for Wednesday 27 March—the date proposed in the Opposition amendment. It is important to bear in mind that only those Members who wished to speak on that day in the Budget debate would be affected. Others might have commitments in their constituencies that they regard as inescapable, but on three other days they would have the opportunity, subject to catching the Speaker’s eye, to contribute to that debate. It is not a case of “speak on that Friday or lose the opportunity”.

There is a choice here, but my preference—and, I believe, the preference of Members—would be to sit on that Friday and not on the subsequent Wednesday. While the calendar is always issued with the proviso that it is subject to the progress of business, the Government are conscious that having announced dates, Members and staff might have made arrangements for the Easter recess, which it would now be inconvenient, to say the least, to change. Indeed, as I have said, the Friday would not involve the prospect of voting, and I can add that we do not intend to arrange ministerial statements for that day. Those with necessary constituency business will still be able to deal with it, which might not be the case were the House to sit on Wednesday.

The second reason given by the shadow Leader of the House was that if the House rose on a Tuesday, there could be no Prime Minister’s Question Time during that week. I do not think that anyone could accuse the Prime Minister of avoiding his duties in the House. [Interruption.] I must tell the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) that his view is contradicted by the facts. The Prime Minister has made more statements to the House per sitting day in the last Session than his predecessor, spending more than 30 hours at the Dispatch Box in so doing. He also gives evidence to the Liaison Committee, and he takes all his responsibilities to the House very seriously.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) should take a look at the 2013 calendar that I published. It shows six occasions on which recesses have been proposed. There is the February recess, which we have already had, and there are the Easter, Whitsun, summer, conference and Christmas recesses. The plan was for the House to rise on a Tuesday on two of those occasions, on a Thursday on three of them and on a Friday on one of them. No pattern is involved; it is simply a matter of trying to ensure that each of the recesses has the right balance of time overall. A simple examination of the parliamentary calendar will show that there are no grounds for the supposition that we have avoided a Wednesday sitting.

[Mr Hollobone]

My right hon. Friend is making some very good points, and this is not a black-and-white issue, although I must add that I think that, when the rising of the House on a Tuesday can be avoided, it should rise on a Wednesday or a Thursday. However, this is not just about Prime Minister’s Question Time; it is also about all the other business of the House. It is about all the Select Committee meetings and all the sittings in Westminster Hall that take place on Wednesdays. All that business is, in effect, lost when the House rises on a Tuesday.

[Mr Lansley]

It is a matter, overall, of the number of days on which the House sits. My hon. Friend may take the view that it should sit more often. As it happens, I suspect that at the end of this year it will have sat for more days than it sat in any of the preceding four calendar years. I also think that before, for example, the Easter recess, it is preferable for us not to continue our business until Maundy Thursday.

I know that the Opposition are keen to ensure that the Government are held to account, and that is to be expected, but they really ought to focus on the substance rather than the processes. When it comes to the mechanisms of accountability, the Government are achieving greater and more meaningful scrutiny than has ever been achieved before. Let me name just a few positive developments. There is more pre-legislative scrutiny, there are many substantial debates via the Backbench Business Committee, there is the work of Select Committees and their elected Chairs that we discussed in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago, and there is extra time for scrutiny during the Report stages of Bills. Those are major changes that have shifted the balance from the Executive to the House.

I understand the Opposition’s intentions—I understand them very well—but I assure them that any fears that they may have, in reality, about lack of time for scrutiny are wholly misplaced, and I commend the motion to the House.

18:28

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

This may seem a dry issue on which to take up the House’s time. After all, recess dates are rarely the subject of much contention; they are rarely, if ever, noticed, and much less often divide the House. So what is the problem with the sittings motion, and why are we trying to amend it?

We decided to table our amendment because, after two and a half years of experience, we have begun to perceive a pattern in the Government’s behaviour, and especially in that of the Prime Minister. We have realised that he does not much like being accountable to the House at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and that he therefore arranges for the House to rise on Tuesdays as often as he thinks that he can get away with it. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) made that point from the Government Benches. That way, the Prime Minister avoids Prime Minister’s questions, which take place on Wednesdays. In contemplating this emerging trend, I thought it might just be one of those random patterns that occurs by accident, until I noticed that our Prime Minister seems to be anxious for the House not to sit long enough for him to have to face Prime Minister’s questions, especially after a Budget.

That is the crux of the issue before us today. For the second year running, the House has been asked to sit on a Friday to accommodate the debate we must have on the Chancellor’s Budget, and to allow the recess date therefore conveniently to fall on a Tuesday, thus letting the Prime Minister off his Prime Minister’s questions duties.

[Stephen Mosley]

Was the hon. Lady listening when the Leader of the House explained that this year we will be breaking up on a Tuesday twice out of six occasions? That is a ratio of one in three, and therefore a minority, so this is not a trend; it is completely the opposite in fact.

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman should hear me out, because I have a few other things to say about the trends we on this side of the House have perceived. Perhaps when he has listened to me he might form an opinion, rather than having an opinion before he has heard what I have to say.

Both last year and this year the Government decided to sit on a Friday and begin the recess on a Tuesday, and this year that means the Prime Minister will next have to appear at Prime Minister’s questions and justify the Budget to the House fully 28 days after the date of the Budget. Perhaps it takes him 28 days to plough through all the Budget documentation, but the rest of us have to react instantly, and so should he.

Let me readily acknowledge that when the original sittings motion suggesting this arrangement was put to the House on 17 December last year, the Opposition did not vote against it, and before any Member on the Government Benches leaps up to point this out, I also acknowledge that six days earlier, on 11 December, the Chancellor had announced that the date of the 2013 Budget would be 20 March. I must confess that I was perhaps guilty of feeling a little too much pre-Christmas spirit towards the Government and might even have been lulled by the season into a false sense of security that they were not being Machiavellian with the parliamentary timetable. I now know I was wrong to be so generous to them.

I often worry about the adversarial nature of our parliamentary system putting people off politics, so I considered the possibility that the observation I have made about our current Prime Minister’s strange aversion to the House sitting on Wednesdays might just be partisan criticism on my part.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Would it not be perverse of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to avoid Wednesday questions when he is so much better at them than the hon. Lady’s right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

[Ms Eagle]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a matter of opinion, and he and I may disagree about the judgment he has just presented to the House.

I wondered whether this strange aversion to Wednesdays might be randomly generated happenstance or unsupported by any evidence. I was even beginning to chide myself a little for developing such unworthy thoughts about Machiavelli or anybody else, so I decided to check the evidence. I looked back at the record to see how often the House has risen for recesses on Tuesdays, and it turns out that during the period when Tony Blair was Prime Minister the House rose on Tuesdays 22% of the time, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister the House rose on Tuesdays 29% of the time, but since 2010 while the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) has been Prime Minister the House has risen on Tuesdays a whopping 58% of the time.

These figures prove that this Prime Minister is categorically no heir to Blair in his desire to be answerable for the actions of his Government in this Chamber. They prove he truly has an aversion to Wednesdays and a reluctance to let the House sit on Wednesdays if he can possibly avoid it. What on earth can the Prime Minister be scared of?

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Did not Tony Blair reduce the number of Prime Minister’s Question Times from twice a week to once a week?

[Ms Eagle]

The length was not reduced; as hon. Members may recall, Tony Blair put the two sets of 15 minutes together into one half an hour. The figures that I have just given the House are unaffected by the changes that were made to Prime Minister’s Question Time, because the half-hour, one-day-a-week session is common to all three figures. That point does not address the pattern of avoiding Wednesdays which the statistics demonstrate we are dealing with in this debate.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not understand the point the shadow Leader of the House is making. She says that when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister the House rose for a recess on a Tuesday on 29% of occasions. She can see from the calendar that I published that the House is intended to rise twice on a Tuesday out of six occasions, which is 33.3%. Is the whole strength of her argument really the difference between 29% and 33.3%?

[Ms Eagle]

If one takes into account all the recesses since this Government have been in office, the figure goes up to 58%. That is a difference and it rather proves that this Prime Minister has a strange aversion to the House sitting on Wednesdays. That is what we are dealing with in our amendment.

Why on earth can the Prime Minister be frightened of Wednesdays? Last year’s Budget was enough to put the frighteners on anyone, let’s face it. It certainly set the bar high in standards of incoherence and incompetence, which even our part-time Chancellor will find hard to match this year. Let us remember that we had the granny tax, the churches tax, the charities tax and the pasty tax. The Chancellor had been so busy swanning around Washington in search of President Obama’s coat tails that he had forgotten to pay enough attention to one of his day jobs.

Last year’s Budget was unravelling even before the Chancellor had sat down. It was so disastrous that it spawned its own new word—omnishambles—which became the “Oxford English Dictionary” word of the year. There was open revolt against Budget measures on the Government Benches. Nine Tory MPs and four Liberal Democrats voted against the pasty tax, in defiance of their Whips. Sixteen Conservatives and one Liberal Democrat voted against the caravan tax, with two Liberal Democrat Ministers strangely missing the vote completely. No lesser person than Lord Ashcroft was moved to observe:

“The main problem is not so much that people think that the Conservative Party is heading in the wrong direction, it is that they are not sure where it is heading. And that includes me.”

[Mr Spellar]

Does this not speak to a greater truth, which also affects the issue before us, given that the Budget date had already been announced prior to the motion being put to the Commons? If my hon. Friend has read analyses of how Budgets have traditionally been made up properly, under Labour and Conservative Governments, she will know that many of the proposals in the last Budget had been proposed a number of times before by the civil service and had been batted back. What we have with this Government—here is the relevance to this debate—is a failure of process: a failure to attend to detail and a complete failure to attend to proper parliamentary and governmental process.

[Ms Eagle]

I agree wholeheartedly with the points that my right hon. Friend has made. As a former Treasury Minister, I can attest to the fact that some of the more disastrous bits of last year’s omnishambles Budget had indeed been put to Ministers for their consideration prior to their adoption last year and had been batted back for the nonsense that they were.

Because of the Government’s cynical manipulation of the recess dates, it took 28 days after that botched Budget for the Prime Minister to find himself back at the Dispatch Box to account for it. By then we had also had the fuel strike scare and the jerry can scandal to add to the chaos. Understandably, he was so unnerved that, red-faced and angry, he started attacking his own side. The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) was wholly unfairly ticked off for having a sense of humour failure by a rattled Prime Minister who was demonstrating to the House just how easily he seems to be able to channel his inner Flashman. The memory of this omnishambles is obviously still raw. According to samizdats emerging from the 1922 Committee, the Chancellor has admitted to Tory Back Benchers that last year’s Budget was a disaster. Why else would he have been seen nodding vigorously as he was being exhorted, in language so earthy that I cannot repeat it here, not to—how can I put this politely and stay in order—mess it up this time?

Perhaps the Prime Minister’s reluctance to appear at the Dispatch box the day after the Budget debates to answer for his Chancellor’s omnishambles is an understandable human failing on his part, but it is not one in which this House should be assisting or that we should allow him to repeat this year. However, that is precisely what the motion will do unless our amendment is accepted. The Budget will be on 20 March and the Prime Minister is not due to appear at the Dispatch Box to answer questions until 17 April. Once more, that is 28 days after the Chancellor’s Budget statement.

If the Prime Minister finds it impossible to appear before the House to answer questions on the Budget before 28 days have elapsed, he could do what all Prime Ministers in the past have done and let his deputy do it for him. After all, we are told that the Liberal Democrats are intimately involved in all of the decision making about the Budget. We know that they are so central to the Government’s inner core that they make up two of the “quad” who, we are told, make all the final decisions. They are so closely involved in Budget decisions that they leaked most of it in advance last year so that they could take credit for all of the nice bits and distance themselves from the nasty bits. The only thing left for the poor Chancellor to surprise us with was the granny tax, and that was all he had to take credit for. No one seemed to benefit—unless of course they happen to be a millionaire awaiting their huge tax cut this April while everyone else feels the pain.

In the spirit of being a team player and recognising the Liberal Democrats’ acts of selfless sacrifice on tuition fees, why does the Leader of the House not just accept our amendment, change the sittings motion and let the Deputy Prime Minister step in and help out with Prime Minister’s questions straight after the Budget? Surely the Prime Minister trusts him to do a good job.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech—unfortunately, she has made some political remarks, but parliamentarily it is a very good speech. However, I have not heard her move her amendment yet. Does she intend to do so?

[Ms Eagle]

Yes, we intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Surely the Prime Minister cannot have taken to heart the content of last December’s leaked Liberal Democrat memo, which urged senior Liberal Democrats to spread the message that

“The Conservatives can’t be trusted to build a fairer society”

and to remind voters that the Tories only want to look “after the super rich”. I am sure, given those comments, that the Deputy Prime Minister would be welcomed to the Dispatch Box the day after the Budget to support all its content. Perhaps he might also be asked by the Tories on the Government Benches why the Liberal Democrats keep sending out press briefings criticising the Government’s tax policies just after the Chancellor has finished announcing them.

Last December, for example, the Liberal Democrats were caught out saying:

“The only tax cuts the Conservatives support are ones for the very rich. At the General Election, their priority was to cut inheritance tax for millionaires. In the Coalition, Liberal Democrats have blocked these plans.”

After all, just this week the Business Secretary has expressed his

“deep disappointment at the lack of capital investment in the economy”

while declaring himself the shop steward of the newly formed “National Union of Ministers”, fighting cuts to his own departmental budget openly in any TV studio and newspaper that would have him. I can see why the Prime Minister might be reluctant to let his deputy fill in for him at the Dispatch Box given that level of loyalty, so perhaps he should just bite the bullet and do it himself.

If our amendment were carried, all it would do is restore a status quo that has been long experienced in this Parliament: the Prime Minister comes to this House regularly to be held accountable during Prime Minister’s questions for the policy and the behaviour of his Government. That is even more vital after major Government announcements, such as Budgets. It cannot be acceptable that we are expected to put up with a month-long gap between the Budget and the next appearance by the Prime Minister to answer questions at that Dispatch Box.

If the Government resist the amendment to the sittings motion, it will become emblematic of their wider disdain for parliamentary accountability and even for democracy. After all, they have had no democratic mandate for the economic policy that they have pursued since June 2010, because the Liberal Democrats fought the election espousing a completely different economic policy from the one that they now support. The Government have had no democratic mandate for their disastrous top-down reorganisation of the national health service. They explicitly ruled it out during the general election, but now they pursue it with the certainty of zealots and the competence of Mr Bean.

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

Would the hon. Lady remind me what democratic mandate Tony Blair had to take this country to war in Iraq?

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

A vote in the House.

[Sarah Newton]

That was the very same Prime Minister who did not even allow a debate in the House on a votable motion. It is preposterous for the hon. Lady to deny that from the Dispatch Box and say that our Prime Minister does not put himself before the House on a regular basis for it to scrutinise what this Government are doing.

[Ms Eagle]

I know that the hon. Lady was not a Member when there was a vote on Iraq, but there was a vote in this Parliament, and a very large majority for the action that was subsequently taken in Iraq.

[Sarah Newton]

Action, not war.

[Ms Eagle]

There was far more of a mandate. Indeed, the Conservative party, which was then in opposition, supported that.

[Mr Jones]

Is it not also a fact that the motion was carried on the votes of Conservative Members, which they may conveniently have forgotten?

[Ms Eagle]

Yes, that is absolutely true. Perhaps in future the hon. Lady should check the record before she makes points as defective as that.

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) makes a point which I think needs to be on the record. She says that the House voted for action, not war. The hon. Lady, who is fairly new to the House, will not be aware of the fact—I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House is aware of it—that this country has never formally gone to war since 1939, but we have been involved in a considerable number of military actions. It is quite understandable that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, not having been around at the time and not having been here long, would not understand that difference.

[Ms Eagle]

My right hon. Friend is entirely correct.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On the Iraq war, I am sure the hon. Lady knows that there is an application before the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the 10th anniversary of the war. Will she support that application?

[Ms Eagle]

I wish the hon. Gentleman all good speed with his application to the Backbench Business Committee, but it is not for me from the Front Bench to dictate what the Committee should decide to do.

The Government also had no mandate for the trebling of tuition fees, which they—

[Mark Pritchard]

For clarification, the application is not mine. My application is for a less contentious debate on Romanian and Bulgarian migration to the United Kingdom. The application for the debate on Iraq was made by the leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but I think it is in the national interest. The debate would be in the interests of the Opposition and a cathartic exercise for them, and I hope the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) will support it.

[Ms Eagle]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we are awaiting the publication of the Chilcot report, which I am sure will occasion us plenty of opportunity to have a debate and consider the way these matters worked out.

We know why the Prime Minister is running scared. He knows that his Chancellor’s economic plan is not working. His Back Benchers know that their Chancellor’s economic plan is not working. Little wonder, then, that our Prime Minister wants to hide away and hope that we will forget about it over a long Easter recess. He keeps organising these long Easter recesses for his, rather than for our, convenience. The only way to stop him getting away with it is to vote for our amendment to stop the Prime Minister evading scrutiny after the Budget for an entire month. I certainly hope that the House will do so.

18:48

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Of course, many of us wish the House to sit at every possible opportunity, because it is the debating chamber of the nation and its sitting gives us an opportunity to represent our constituents and hold the Executive to account in a way that keeps them properly on their toes. When I read the amendment, I must confess that I was struck by the nobility of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in wishing to offer up the Leader of the Opposition as a sacrificial lamb. He is put out weekly and then resuscitated, only to be brought back again and laid on the Dispatch Box of slaughter before our great Prime Minister, who week in, week out—

[Thomas Docherty]

I had the pleasure of being in the hon. Gentleman’s company last night at Buckingham palace, where fizz was available. May I suggest that if he thought that the Prime Minister won earlier today, he might have had a glass or two too many?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his intervention allows me to inform the House that I am observing my Lenten abstinence and, therefore, took great delight in nothing stronger than Her Majesty’s Sandringham apple juice.

On occasions such as this, one’s mind always turns to cricket, because there is a great similarly between Prime Minister’s questions and cricket. The Leader of the Opposition has six questions, and those Members who are up on their cricket will know that there are six balls in an over. That takes us back to 1968, to the great occasion at Glamorgan when one Malcolm Nash came on to bowl. I see the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) as the Malcolm Nash of Prime Minister’s questions, but I see our Prime Minister as the Garfield Sobers. Malcolm Nash runs in to bowl and the Prime Minister smites the ball for six. The next ball goes over Big Ben. The next goes over the Victoria Tower. The fourth ball is in the Thames, and the fifth is at the London eye.

[Thomas Docherty]

As a member of the all-party group on cricket, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s metaphor. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be Geoffrey Boycott, because he simply runs his colleagues out?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is a great joy to have a Scotsman in the Chamber who is knowledgeable about cricket. It is a triumph of English civilisation spreading north and is extraordinarily welcome. Mr Geoffrey Boycott is one of the most successful cricketers of all time. If the Chancellor is like him, a man of noble dedication to his task, the only batsman to have averaged over 100 in a season twice in his career, one of the highest-scoring batsmen in the history of cricket, and that is what a socialist thinks of him, what then will a Conservative say of a man of such aplomb, ability and foresight?

Let us get back to the issue of Wednesday and what I think is the Christian charity of the Leader of the House, who feels that it is unfair to put the Leader of the Opposition through the torment of Prime Minister’s questions on an additional unnecessary occasion and that it would be showing off to allow the Prime Minister to smite him to the boundary once again. Therefore, we will come back on a dutiful Friday, a proper working day, rather than one for doing other things. I cancelled my commitments with pleasure so that I could be in the House, not necessarily to speak, but for the pleasure of listening to others debate the Budget, enumerating the triumphs of Conservatism, the success of the proposals that will have been brought forward and the enthusiasm we will have for the way this Government are boldly, satisfactorily and rightly marching forward to get the economy back in shape after the horrific errors made by the socialists. I must therefore oppose the amendment.

[Thomas Docherty]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Tony Blair was a socialist?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

His party was socialist, his Government were socialist and his successor was a socialist; I think that there is a lot of socialist still left in the Labour party.

We will have that Friday, a day of jubilee, to come in and praise the Government for what they have done and for their wisdom and foresight. We are being kindly and charitable—nice, really—to the Opposition by not inflicting upon them the terrible experience they must have every week. None the less, I must confess that I admire the nobility of the hon. Member for Wallasey in bringing forward her amendment. For the Labour party to take this on puts one in mind of the charge of the Light Brigade. How does it go?

“Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon behind them”

[Mr Spellar]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will volley and thunder.

[Mr Spellar]

Does the hon. Gentleman not care about the employment prospects of the fact checkers for Channel 4 and various journals who are regularly employed every Wednesday, including today, when the Prime Minister claimed that the bedroom tax did not apply to those with disabled children? Does he not feel for them in that they will have less work to do because the Prime Minister—I would never accuse him in this Chamber of misrepresenting the position—does not understand his own policies?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I believe it is orderly, Mr Speaker, to say that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of terminological inexactitude. The Prime Minister said nothing about a bedroom tax, for there is no bedroom tax. The Prime Minister is somebody who deals in truth, right and justice, and therefore does not talk about things that do not exist.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend has convinced me that the only thing properly to do if one wants to support the Prime Minister in allowing him to have another crack at the Opposition is to support the Opposition’s amendment.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted that, as always, my hon. Friend has come up with a novel argument. I hope that it is approved of by Mrs Bone, although I would have thought that she would like to have him back for Easter by Holy Wednesday, which does seem a little late to be sitting.

Let me remind the House of my admiration for the nobility of the Opposition in offering themselves up as sacrificial lambs. Perhaps it is appropriate, in the context of Holy Wednesday, for them to be thinking of sacrificial lambs. However, it is better to save them the embarrassment and humiliation of having to watch, and save the nation its pity at having to watch, the poor Leader of the Opposition being filleted by our noble, illustrious and great Prime Minister, who on every Wednesday comes forth and ensures that there is success, a spring in the step of Conservatives, and joy across the land.

18:56

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

This really is a most curious debate. We managed to tease out the information from the Leader of the House, slightly reluctantly on his part, that he seemed not to have been aware before he spoke that the Chancellor had announced the date of the Budget. He can rightly say, to some extent, that perhaps that should have meant that the motion would be opposed. Frankly, however, as I said to him from a sedentary position, it is the job of the Government business managers—the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and their very able and extensive staffs—to look out for these things, let alone, perhaps, those who are in charge of the grid at No. 10, if anybody is. This is not just about the simple issue of not having a whole series of clashing announcements on one day; it is about the good management of business and the stress-testing of propositions before they see the light of day.

[Mr Bone]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that none of these problems would arise if we had a House business committee? Then it would not just be a case of the Executive trying to force through such changes but of also having a committee to which every Back-Bench Member could make representations. Would that not be the answer?

[Mr Spellar]

In this context, I am not criticising the Executive for forcing things through but for not being on top of the job. Unfortunately, that is only too typical these days in a whole number of areas. There were several examples with the last Budget, where there were clearly issues that should never have got to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary, or perhaps even other Ministers. They should have been knocked out long before by Treasury officials or special advisers.

[Stephen Mosley]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about people not being on top of the job. Does he admit that when this was voted through on 17 December last year the Opposition knew what the date of the Budget was going to be and made the decision to support it? It was you guys who were not on top of the job because you were not aware of what you were doing that day.

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) referred to “you guys”. I was not aware that you were part of that decision, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s meaning was clear, but it was notably colloquial—obviously too colloquial for the advanced and refined taste of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty).

[Mr Spellar]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) will get the hang of this place after a while.

Essentially, the Government determine the business of the House. It is absolutely right that that can be voted on, but it is the Government who work out the pattern of the parliamentary year—

19:00

Debate interrupted (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2012-13

The Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54(6))

Ministry of Justice

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Ministry of Justice—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,157,003,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,

(2) the resources authorised for use for capital purposes be reduced by £19,950,000 as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £385,095,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Communities and Local Government—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £464,869,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,

(2) the resources authorised for use for capital purposes be reduced by £1,212,893,000 as so set out, and

(3) the sums authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £339,615,000 as so set out.

Department for Work and Pensions

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £507,034,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £97,653,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £2,133,672,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department of Health

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department of Health—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,244,626,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,

(2) the resources authorised for use for capital purposes be reduced by £1,000 as so set out, and

(3) the sums authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £472,479,000 as so set out.

The Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No. 55).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2012-13 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Land Forces subject to additional duties commitments under section 25 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 set out in Supplementary Votes A 2012–13, HC 856, be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1 and 3 of that Act.—(Mr Evennett.)

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2012-13 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Air Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2012–13, HC 856, be authorised for the purposes of Part 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, 2013-14 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2014, a number not exceeding 36,370 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2013–14, HC 855.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, 2013-14 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2014, a number not exceeding 117,970 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2013–14, HC 855.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, 2013-14 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,

That, during the year ending with 31 March 2014, a number not exceeding 39,200 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2013–14, HC 855.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2009-10 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, excesses in the numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Part 1of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the revised maximum numbers set out in Excess Votes A, 2009–10, HC 992.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2009-10

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, resources, not exceeding £1,000, be authorised for use to make good excesses of certain resources for defence and civil services as set out in Late Statement of Excesses 2009-10, HC 896.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2010-11 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2011, excesses in the numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Part 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the revised maximum numbers set out in Excess Votes A, 2010–11, HC 992.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2010-11

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2011, resources, not exceeding £1,000, be authorised for use to make good excesses of certain resources for defence and civil services as set out in Late Statement of Excesses 2010-11, HC 896.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2011-12 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, excesses in the numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Part 1of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the revised maximum numbers set out in Excess Votes A, 2011–12, HC 992.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2011-12

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012—

(1) resources, not exceeding £62,700,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in Statements of Excesses 2011-12, HC 896, HC 994 and HC 995,

(2) resources, not exceeding £7,765,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for capital purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2011-12, HC 896.— (Mr Evennett.)

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2012-13

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013—

(1) resources authorised for current purposes be reduced by £2,398,590,000, in accordance with HC 894, HC 910, HC 971, HC 974 and HC 985,

(2) resources authorised for capital purposes be reduced by £5,212,562,000, in accordance with HC 894, HC 910, HC 971, HC 974 and HC 985, and

(3) the sums authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £3,939,090,000, in accordance with HC 894, HC 910, HC 971, HC 974 and HC 985.— (Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, VOTE ON ACCOUNT, 2013-14

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2014—

(1) resources, not exceeding £216,006,686,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 895, HC 909, HC 926, HC 972, HC 973, and HC 986,

(2) resources, not exceeding £21,552,454,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £209,612,302,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.— (Mr Evennett.)

Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, Late Excesses 2009-10 and 2010-11, Excesses 2011-12, Supplementary Estimates, 2012-13 and Estimates, 2013-14 (Vote on Account).

That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Sajid Javid, Mr David Gauke and Greg Clark bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading

Mr David Gauke accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012, 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending with 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012 and 31 March 2013.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 146).

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),

That, at this day’s sitting, the Sittings of the House (22 March) Motion, in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley, may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Mr Evennett.)

19:03

Division 173

Ayes: 265

---

Conservative: 224
Liberal Democrat: 39
Independent: 1

Noes: 84

---

Labour: 81
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Alliance: 1

19:17

Question again proposed,

That this House shall sit on Friday 22 March.

[Mr Spellar]

I am pleased to continue the argument. I slightly regret the absence of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who seemed to want to intervene. Maybe he has been nobbled in the meantime.

As you will recall, Mr Speaker, before we voted I made it clear, in answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester, that the Government are responsible for their own parliamentary business. With their considerable resource, they should be able to take account of the many factors required for a proper parliamentary timetable, not least with the current absence of legislation. Because they have messed up in other areas of the legislative programme, they are not actually bursting with items to be discussed.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am greatly enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but does he not agree with me that the Government have promised the House that they will introduce a House business committee in 2013 to avoid these circumstances arising, and that were the committee established, these unfortunate proceedings could be avoided?

[Mr Spellar]

It is hugely tempting to follow the hon. Gentleman down that path, but it reveals a degree of misunderstanding of how the Westminster parliamentary system works. If the committee he mentions—this will be a long debate when we get to that—is in control of the parliamentary timetable, it will effectively become the Government, because it will control Parliament. The committee might deal with a particular part of the parliamentary timetable, just as the Backbench Business Committee does. However, responsibility for the entire parliamentary timetable—and there is nothing more intrinsic to the maintenance of government than supply and this expression, “Through the Budget”—is fundamentally the role of the Queen’s Government, as determined on a daily basis by the maintenance of a parliamentary majority.

[Mr Hollobone]

The right hon. Gentleman might be right in some respects, but were this business of the House committee to be established, it might well have on it a Government majority and be able to determine non-legislative time, even if it could not determine legislative time. Given that PMQs on Wednesday is non-legislative, I would have thought that the committee would be able to determine that the House sit on a Wednesday.

[Mr Spellar]

But it is a hugely important part of holding the Government to account. It clearly has a considerable impact on the Prime Minister, given his desire to avoid it. If one reads the memoirs of a number of Prime Ministers, not just of recent vintage—

[Michael Ellis]

Tony Blair.

[Mr Spellar]

Not just of recent vintage, I said. I know the hon. Gentleman is a new Member who thinks that history started with Tony Blair’s election. I know this belief is common within the Conservative party, but actually we did have Prime Ministers—both Labour and Conservative alike—before that. I was actually thinking of Harold Macmillan, but the hon. Gentleman was probably in short trousers when he was Prime Minister.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am interested in the line that my right hon. Friend is taking, but actually we are talking here not about the procedures of the House, but about the incompetence of the Government in handling the timetable. They have tabled this motion tonight because they did not realise that they needed the extra Friday to fit in the four days of debate on the Budget.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend rightly draws me back to the immediate topic, tempting, interesting and attractive though it is to discuss the broader issues of parliamentary sovereignty and procedure. He is right that most of the factors, including the date of the Budget, were well known when the motion was laid. The number of days that we traditionally take for the Budget debate was known, as too was the date of Easter. In fact, the date of Easter could have been known several decades, if not centuries, ago. The procedure for calculating Easter was decided at the Council of Nicaea in 325. At that time, they could probably have calculated when this Easter would be.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Was it not St Wilfrid and the Synod of Whitby that settled the date of Easter in England?

[Mr Spellar]

The date of Easter is the first Sunday after the full moon following the March equinox. I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me whether this was under the Julian or Gregorian calendar, but he did not.

[Thomas Docherty]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that we are a United Kingdom Parliament. I do not know whether he is aware, but for a long time Scotland had a different Easter.

[Mr Spellar]

Several areas did. Of course, we would be straying into history if we noted that the last time we changed the calendar and the method of calculation, it did not work out too well and London got substantially burnt down. “Give us back our 11 days”, was the cry of the London workers.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My right hon. Friend is showing a detailed knowledge about how Easter is calculated. Was he actually at one of these meetings when it was decided?

[Mr Spellar]

I said 325, not 7.24.

It is absolutely right that we need a full debate on the Budget. I therefore question why the Budget needs to be on a Wednesday—I hope the Leader of the House will intervene—if we wish to fit in those four days and, quite rightly, have the Back-Bench pre-recess debate. Why not have the Budget on a Tuesday and the debate on the following days? That would work perfectly well, although I do think—mention has been made of staff who work here, and so on—that having recesses in the middle of the week rather than in full blocks can affect many people, particularly those who are trying to adjust to have holidays with family or, frankly, those without children who are trying to avoid going on holiday at the same time as those with family. Not much thought seems to have been given to how these things are organised—or, indeed, to parliamentary delegations. These partial weeks do not seem to be a particularly good idea.

[Mr Hollobone]

rose—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Spellar]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), seeing as he has not intervened yet, and come back to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

[Philip Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman prompts me with his talk about the Budget perhaps being on a Tuesday. For many years it was on a Tuesday, but it was changed to a Wednesday. That was before my time in the House, so I wonder whether he could tell me when the Budget was changed to Wednesday from Tuesday in the first place. Did it have anything to do with Tony Blair changing Prime Minister’s questions to Wednesday so that he could not be questioned about the unravelling of his Chancellor’s Budget the day after he had delivered it? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could help us.

[Mr Spellar]

I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman should talk about unravelling Budgets, given the experience of the last Budget—it was never fully ravelled, let alone unravelled. As I recall, he played some part in helping to unravel that Budget. We are happy and pleased that he took such a principled position. [Interruption.] Fortunately his Whip is in conversation with someone else and will not have noticed.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I tried to check how far back Budgets were changed from Tuesday to Wednesday. It is some way back, although I do not know whether it was anything to do with the bank rate or whatever. It is an interesting subject; unfortunately, I did not have time to research it. However, when Budgets were on a Wednesday, with PMQs on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that would have enabled questions to be asked of the Prime Minister. It would be perfectly proper—I would have thought it would be extremely helpful for the public debate—if the Budget was on a Tuesday and then the Prime Minister answered on the Wednesday. However, that is slightly separate; we would be able to fit in that time scale. What all this shows, yet again, is an inattention to detail and organising the business of the House.

[Thomas Docherty]

My right hon. Friend is a distinguished and long-serving parliamentarian. Can he recall whether it was custom and practice under the Labour Government that if the Budget was on a Wednesday, Prime Minister’s questions were sooner than four weeks later? Is that not one of the big problems we have with the proposal before us this evening?

[Mr Spellar]

It is very much—this ties in with when Easter is. It would be much better not to have such substantial gaps. Given the Prime Minister’s experience of trying to answer questions about the bedroom tax and his inability to answer the questions or, even more fundamentally, show an understanding of his own legislation, that is fairly worrying.

Let me turn to the question of Fridays. I am slightly surprised by the Leader of the House’s comments—as though Friday and Wednesday were comparable in terms of the constituency pattern. Members of Parliament often establish a pattern with their local organisations—schools, charities and businesses—that ties in with having their advice bureaus on a Friday. Members will ensure that they have a full programme during the day on a Friday and, often, an advice bureau in the evening. It might be all right for Members who only have to nip up the road to St Albans if Parliament sits until 2.30 pm, but for those who have to go further afield, getting back to undertake their advice bureaus becomes a significant problem. I suspect that most Members will have publicised when and where their advice bureaus will be at least six months in advance; many will have done it a year in advance. Indeed, they will have put up posters around their constituencies to advertise them, because they had not anticipated that the Friday under discussion would be a sitting day in the Commons.

Surprisingly, the Leader of the House has said that Members can speak on other days, but that is not how things work. Usually, under a very helpful Speaker, there is a bit of flexibility with regard to Budget debates, but the reality is that particular issues are debated on particular days. Members therefore need to know when subjects in which they are interested will be the prime focus of debate.

The Leader of the House has also said that the Government do not intend to make statements, but if he does some research, he will find that statements have been made on Fridays in the past. That would make the situation even more difficult for certain Members.

[Philip Davies]

The point is that it is up to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to decide where they want to be on the Friday under discussion. If he decides that it is more important for him to turn up at the advice surgery that he has advertised six months in advance, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, even if the proposed debate takes place. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman already does that during the House’s sitting Fridays for private Members’ Bills. He did not want to prevent the Opposition from calling for a recall of Parliament when the riots were taking place, but Members may have arranged to do other things during that summer recess.

[Mr Spellar]

I am not entirely sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s train of thought. He is right to say that debates on private Members’ Bills occur on Fridays, but Members know about them for a long time in advance. They can, therefore, set their constituency calendar some distance ahead and say, with assurance, “This is a non-sitting Friday, so there won’t be a Bill that’s of interest to my constituents and I can make arrangements.” That seems perfectly sensible. My point is that all of those elements were known and we find it slightly strange that, initially, the Leader of the House, at fairly short notice, tried to spring this change on the Commons. Fortunately that was spotted, so we are having a proper debate and exploring the issues.

It is becoming clearer that there are two fundamental issues, the first of which is the steady disorganisation of parliamentary business and the Order Paper. For example, there are increasing incidents of the House of Lords and the House of Commons not sitting during the same weeks. In some cases, that causes considerable discontinuity for Bills moving between the two Houses.

[Mr Lansley]

Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks—[Interruption.] We can be hopeful. If he looks at the motion, he will see that it is for the House to sit on 22 March. It does not amend the resolution of 17 December. It is the amendment that seeks to amend the resolution, the point of which was to establish the framework of recess dates, not to provide for which day, including Fridays, the House would sit. It would always have been necessary for us to come back to the question of a Friday sitting if that was the best solution. There was nothing defective about the resolution on 17 December.

[Mr Spellar]

I fully understand that when business is announced, it is always with the caveat that it is subject to the progress of Government business. As far as I am aware, no proposition has been advanced that this change is necessitated by the progress, or lack of it, of Government business.

If, for example, the Government had continued with their legislation on the reform of the upper House, but without a programme motion, that business might have taken up a considerable amount of time over the past few months. The Government might then have said that they had other issues that needed to be dealt with, that there had been insufficient progress on Government business at that point, and that they therefore needed an extra day. That would have been understandable, but this proposal is not of that order. A number of elements were involved, all of which were known, and the Government have mishandled it.

I mentioned the fact that the Lords and the Commons often meet in separate weeks. Many Members of Parliament are involved in groupings, organisations and even some formal bodies that go across both Houses, and it can be very difficult for people who organise events here, often in connection with extremely worthy causes and important issues, who are hoping to draw an audience of Members of both Houses. Similarly, parliamentary delegations from other countries often come here and want to meet up with fellow parliamentarians. The Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, for example, are fully integrated between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and peers and Members of the Commons are involved in them, but their events become much more difficult for them to attend because of the disconnection of the parliamentary timetable.

All those examples provide an indication that the Government felt that running Parliament was easy. They did not understand the dynamic of the Commons, in particular, and of Parliament in general. They did not understand the rhythm of the place. The change to the timing of the Queen’s Speech, for example, has had an impact. It has gradually worked its way through, but there is still some disconnect there.

The Government have introduced changes without really understanding how Parliament works, and this motion is another symptom of that. It should therefore quite properly be dealt with by the amendment, which will enable Members of Parliament to undertake their constituency activities, and enable the Prime Minister to do what he is trying to avoid doing, week after week—namely, to turn up here and answer to the Commons and to the country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Has the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) concluded his oration?

[Mr Spellar]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

He has. I should not sound, or look, so surprised.

19:37

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I rise to support the amendment, because in my view the House should sit on a Wednesday in preference to a Friday. I am second to none in my admiration of the skills of the Leader of the House. He is a politician of legend throughout Cambridgeshire. He has had the good grace to visit Kettering general hospital in the past, and he is a politician without equal in his knowledge of this country’s health service. I am thus second to none in admiring his political skills, but I get the impression that he is feeling his way gently into his present position, and I feel that he has misjudged this element of his portfolio.

I give him 10 out of 10 for setting out the parliamentary timetable well in advance. I really think he has done his very best to inform the House and the House authorities about when the Chamber should be sitting, but there has been a miscalculation over the Budget. I do not know whose responsibility that is. I doubt that it is the responsibility of anyone in the Leader of the House’s office. I expect that the guilty suspect probably works somewhere in No. 11 and has not communicated the dates far enough in advance to the Leader of the House. We are therefore where we are tonight.

We are debating this matter at gone 7.30 on a Wednesday evening because the House has voted for the debate to continue until any hour. If any Members were keen to get away early this evening but voted for that motion, they would have only themselves to blame.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend makes a fundamental point. Hundreds of Members voted for the resolution, so it is quite clear, at least on the Government Benches, that they want this debate to continue until any hour so that everyone can have a chance to speak.

[Mr Hollobone]

As always, my hon. Friend is right. In both the last Parliament and the present one, he and I have ploughed quite a lonely furrow on the issue of the House rising on a Wednesday.

[Thomas Docherty]

I do not wish to detract from what the hon. Gentleman says, but many other colleagues on the Government Benches—the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley (Philip Davies)—have also been parliamentary champions. Is that not correct?

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman mentions two parliamentary colleagues whom we all hold in extremely high esteem. He is quite right that they have been parliamentary champions in many respects. I have to say, however, that I am rather cross with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)this evening, as he made an excellent speech but drew the wrong conclusions from his remarks.

If my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—ever tune in to watch Parliament, they do so on two occasions: on a Wednesday at 12 o’clock to watch Prime Minister’s questions or to watch the Budget. The Opposition amendment basically conflates those two pivotal parliamentary events in the parliamentary year. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I, in ploughing our lonely furrow and arguing that the House should rise on a Wednesday in the last Parliament, perhaps attempted the impossible in looking at the issue through the prism not of party politics but of Back-Bench opinion without any political colour applied to it. Although I welcome the amendment from Her Majesty’s official Opposition, I have to say that they have some cheek when it comes to the House rising on a Tuesday, as they were as guilty when they were in charge as are the present Government now. I would welcome an intervention by the official Opposition Front-Bench team to give us a commitment that if they ever return to office, they will pledge that the House will only ever rise on a Wednesday. I notice no stirrings on the Opposition Front Bench, which is hugely disappointing.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and I were, heaven forfend, ever to be in charge of these things, one of our first priorities would be—

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

Does my hon. Friend think that once the House business committee is introduced, there may well be an opportunity for him to be in charge of these matters?

[Mr Hollobone]

Indeed. I do not want to be ruled out of order for being too hypothetical, but if there were a House business committee, I would hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) would be a member of it, if not its Chair; and if my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and I were in government, one of our first priorities would be to set up that committee and for my hon. Friend to be ennobled as its Chair. If we were in charge of these matters, we would put in place the necessary regulations for the House to rise always on a Wednesday.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

In the event that the business of the House committee were set up, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be important to have representatives of the smaller parties on it so that it became totally inclusive?

[Mr Hollobone]

Indeed, and I would be in favour of regulations that gave a disproportionate share to the Democratic Unionist party because it talks disproportionate good sense on so many issues.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am listening attentively to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the notion of guaranteeing that the House will always rise on a Wednesday. As he is not a Liberal Democrat, I think that he is probably true to his word, but surely there will be occasions—before Christmas or Easter, for instance—when it will not be practical for that to happen. The hon. Gentleman would probably accept that if Christmas day fell on a Friday, it might be appropriate for the House to rise on a Monday or a Tuesday.

[Mr Hollobone]

I follow the hon. Gentleman’s train of thought, but I do not think that those circumstances would arise. I think that there would always be a convenient Wednesday before the dates that he has mentioned.

[Thomas Docherty]

That is an interesting argument, but there would then be the danger of a long gap if the House rose on the Friday before Christmas, perhaps on 17 or 18 December, and did not reconvene until, say, 6 January. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that that would be an unsatisfactory arrangement.

[Mr Hollobone]

Possibly, but I think that the purpose of tonight’s debate is to try to avoid the long gap that has been identified by Her Majesty’s official Opposition. That brings me back to the point about the conflation of the two events, Prime Minister’s Question Time and the Budget. When my constituents tune into the parliamentary channel on those two occasions, they do so because they are interested in what Members are saying in this place. They are particularly interested in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say about the Budget, and in what the Prime Minister has to say about the Budget a week later.

[Philip Davies]

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that his constituents are not interested in what is said in the House on Fridays? If he were suggesting that, my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and I would be extremely disappointed.

[Mr Hollobone]

I have done my best to apprise my constituents of the value of tuning into the parliamentary channel on one of the 13 sitting Fridays, and to lead by example by watching my hon. Friend from my room, even if I am not in the Chamber myself, and listening to his words of wisdom on so many issues. I am afraid that the message is not getting through to my constituents yet, but I will keep on trying.

My constituents do, however, want to watch Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesdays, and the problem with the motion as it stands is that they will be denied the opportunity to hear the Prime Minister being questioned on the Budget a week after it has been announced.

Let me attempt the near impossible and not view this issue through a party political prism. I think that my constituents, whichever party they vote for—and whether they vote for any party or none at all—want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say about the important issues of the day before the House rises for a long recess, and that, on any level, that is not an unreasonable proposition. I think that the Prime Minister himself would be keen to do that. What I am questioning is the advice that the Prime Minister is being given in this respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset observed, the Prime Minister does extremely well. Indeed, most Prime Ministers do well at Prime Minister’s Question Time. It is not a level playing field: the balance of advantage lies with the Prime Minister of the day. I think that the Prime Minister would be up for it, but I think that he is being badly advised.

I also think that the timetable proposed by the Leader of the House does a discourtesy to the House. That is to do with private Members’ Bills. Half a dozen Members have tabled important Bills for debate on 22 March, which have been listed on the Order Paper for the whole House to see for many, many weeks. Three of them have been tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Also tabled for that day are the Gift Vouchers and Insolvency Bill, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (Amendment) Bill, and—perhaps most important of all—the Charities Act 2011 (Amendment) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which was given a Second Reading by one of the largest majorities given to any private Member's Bill in the history of the House.

[Mr Bone]

I would vote for the Government motion if the Leader of the House assured me that if the Budget debate finished early on that day, the business listed for the day could then be proceeded with and include the private Members’ Bills. Would my hon. Friend support that proposition?

[Mr Hollobone]

I certainly feel the Government should give some ground on this issue, just out of generosity to the Members I have mentioned in the course of my remarks, because those Bills would be extremely worthy legislation, and given that the parliamentary timetable is not exactly chock-a-block at present, I think there is some room for manoeuvre for the Leader of the House.

My main contention, however, is that Wednesday is, rightly or wrongly, in many respects the most important day of the parliamentary week. I think it is a great shame that following the Budget—one of the pivotal events of the parliamentary year—the House and the country are to be denied the opportunity of holding the Prime Minister to account for the contents of that Budget a week after it has been delivered. Our parliamentary democracy is eroded as a result. I will support the Opposition amendment tonight, and I hope the Leader of the House takes my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered.

[Mr Nuttall]

I take a slightly different view. Considering what has happened with past Budgets, does my hon. Friend agree that a passage of four weeks before the Prime Minister is questioned on the Budget would give Members an opportunity to digest all the various opinions about that Budget and perhaps therefore ask more incisive questions than would be possible if they asked them immediately afterwards?

[Mr Hollobone]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. But those Members who spend that month going over the Budget papers in the way he suggests will have the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister about them at the first Prime Minister’s questions when the House returns, but there will be other Members who will want rather swifter answers on behalf of their constituents, within a week of the Budget. The timetable currently proposed by the Leader of the House denies them that opportunity.

19:49

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

I will not speak for long, Mr Speaker, as I am sure that you, like many other Members, are keen to hear Fatboy Slim, who is on the Terrace this evening. I know that is why so many Members are present. Some of us remember Fatboy Slim from The Housemartins. For the benefit of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), The Housemartins were a popular beat combo from the ’80s—the 1980s.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

What on earth is a beach combo?

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps my broad Scottish accent is to blame, but I said beat combo. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, very familiar with a Fife accent. We had the pleasure of his company in central Fife in 1997. He mentioned cricket earlier, and was slightly surprised that cricket is played in Scotland. Dunfermline Knights are a very good cricket team. I am sure he will recall that central Fife, which is now ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), has also got a useful local cricket club. Perhaps we could arrange a visit.

First, may I commend the Leader of the House on the Government’s relatively early U-turn and the fact that we are having this debate early in the month? Some other U-turns have tended to come much closer to the date. I also want to pick up on the valid point made about Cambridgeshire’s finest parliamentarian. I think the Leader of the House has made a pretty good start to his tenure in his current distinguished and important role. I was going to suggest he was probably going to be the finest Cambridgeshire parliamentarian since Cromwell. I am conscious that we have colleagues here from across the water who will tempt me into debating Oliver Cromwell. Whatever his faults, Oliver Cromwell was always a great believer in the rights of Parliament to hold the—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Oliver Cromwell used his troops to stop Members voting the wrong way in a Division—even the Whips do not try that one.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These exchanges are most entertaining but they are somewhat wide of the mark. I cannot encourage the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to dilate any further on the matter of Cromwell. He must dilate, if he has to dilate, on the terms of the matter before us, which I feel sure he will now do.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker; of course, I never require any encouragement to do something.

I have the privilege of serving on both the Administration Committee and the Procedure Committee, and it is with those hats on that I wish to focus the majority of my remarks. Nobody has been a greater champion of parliamentary outreach than you, Mr Speaker. I think that the House would agree that in your time in the Chair you have done a vast amount to encourage Parliament to reach out, to open its doors and to do more to get the public in to see Parliament in action. The Leader of the House should be careful about what he wishes for in his motion. I am sure that he will have the answers to the following questions to hand, because he is an astute Minister. Will he clarify what discussions his office has had with the indomitable Mrs Aileen Walker who, as you know, Mr Speaker, is in charge of the tour office? I have the pleasure of serving on the Administration Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). You will know, Mr Speaker, that our tours are constantly over-subscribed. Will the Leader of the House clarify how many members of the public—how many taxpayers—who have booked travel well in advance to come down on the Friday to see Parliament in all its fine glory will not now have an opportunity to walk here on the Floor of the House of Commons because the Leader of the House wishes to take away that very valuable part of our democratic process? I hope that he has the figures to hand. I note that he is deep in conversation with one of his parliamentary colleagues, but I am sure he will be able to respond with those figures.

We also have to address the important issue of the staff of the House. Again, you have been a champion of looking after them, Mr Speaker. Has the Leader of the House had discussions with the Clerk of the House and with the trade unions about the disruption that will be caused to their plans? It is fair to say that our staff work incredibly hard, particularly those in Hansard, who do so much to clean up the expression of our thoughts. Has the Leader of the House made sure that they are not going to be unduly inconvenienced by having to come in on that Friday? He is clearly deep in thought about how he responds on that point.

On the issue of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) raised a valid point about the sitting Fridays. I will not be tempted into explaining the contents of private Members’ Bills, but at this afternoon’s Procedure Committee sitting we had the Clerk Assistant, Mr David Natzler, as well as Miss Kate Emms and Mr Simon Patrick, and we were asking the Clerks what happens to those private Members’ Bills. As I understand it—you will correct me if my understanding is at all inaccurate, Mr Speaker—without the Leader of the House’s consent, those Bills cannot be placed on the Order Paper for the Friday. That would look extraordinarily confusing to people outside Parliament; they would see the Bills on the Friday but those Bills would not be able to be taken. So will the Leader of the House guarantee the House today that, as the hon. Member for Kettering proposed, if, for whatever reason, Members on either side finished early in the Budget debate on the Friday, the six Bills we have at the moment—I suspect, depending on the Leader of the House’s answer, that the number may grow—will be placed on as orders so that they can be considered? That is an important issue to clear up before we decide how to vote in this debate.

[Mr Bone]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Thomas Docherty]

Of course I will.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I follow the logic and development of the argument made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), but I counsel him against pursuing the point about the treatment of private Members’ Bills any further. I politely suggest that the question of whether the House should sit on the relevant Friday stands as it is and that the intention is for the Budget debate to be conducted. The question of what would or would not be the treatment of private Members’ Bills does not arise, as the proposition is either that the House sits on that day to consider the matters in the Budget or that it does not sit on that day. I know that he would not want to refer to a diversionary matter. He has made his reference and I am sure that he is now moving on in the development of his argument.

[Thomas Docherty]

As ever, Mr Speaker, I know exactly where I am heading and I think I have placed my marker down on that point.

The Friday after the Budget, as colleagues on both sides of the House have mentioned, is normally a day for visiting our constituencies and for going to see our loved ones, our staff and our constituents. Over the past couple of years, I have attended a post-Budget seminar organised by a local accountancy firm, Thomson Cooper. It is always hugely informative and I am sure that many other colleagues take part in similar events on the Friday. I find Mr Andrew Croxford’s presentation extremely enlightening and often come back with nuggets of information that I am able to use in the following week’s Budget debates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, judging from last year’s performance, could probably benefit from finding an accountancy firm in Cheshire that could do a similar exercise for him.

As a good parliamentarian, I will make every effort to be in the Chamber on the Friday to take part in the debate and I will therefore have the opportunity to take part in the post-Budget analysis. As my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has pointed out, it will perhaps benefit everyone, including the Chancellor.

[Philip Davies]

Although I was persuaded by the case being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I am less persuaded by the case that the hon. Gentleman is making. These are the kind of decisions that people have to make. The hon. Gentleman does not have to be in the Chamber for the Budget debate on the Friday. If he has a better date somewhere else, he can make the decision to be somewhere else. The same applies when Parliament is recalled during recess, as people might well have things organised and they then have to make the choice about which is most important. Surely the same applies in this case.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have shared quite a few Fridays over the past year and I must attest that the debates are extremely good. In fact, I would suggest that the quality of debate on Fridays is often of a higher standard than that of some of the other debates we have had in the past year.

The key point is that the Government announced the Friday sitting dates as long ago as last May. Some reference has been made to the fact that this motion was tabled in December, but the sitting Fridays were set out 10 months ago. At that point, the Leader of the House’s predecessor did not say that this Friday would be coming up. A number of colleagues will have made constituency plans and will have engagements that it will be difficult for them to break. For those who come from Belfast and elsewhere, travelling back to their constituencies on a Friday afternoon can be quite challenging. Anyone who has been to City airport or Heathrow knows how busy they can be. The fact is that the House will be sitting until 2.30 pm, and if our constituencies are outside the M25, it will become difficult to engage at all with our constituents on that Friday.

I also disagree with the logic of the Leader of the House when he states that the dates are published and cannot be changed. I am not yet aware that the Government have announced the date for the Queen’s Speech or for Prorogation. Someone who was not a parliamentarian or a knowledgeable member of the public might think, looking at the calendar, that once the House came back on 15 April it would sit right through until the recess on 21 May. I am probably not giving anything away if I say that we expect this Session to finish at the end of April, and there will then be a recess. The logic that the Leader of the House seems to have applied—that because dates have been published, those dates are fixed—falls when it is subjected to scrutiny.

The Leader of the House also referred to the fact that the Budget date was set for March in December. Given the Chancellor’s record on U-turns, we on the Opposition Benches were not entirely convinced that that would hold water; of course, the autumn statement took place in December. I know, Mr Speaker, that Buckinghamshire is a wonderful, delightful county and that every day must feel like a summer’s day in Buckinghamshire, but in Dunfermline and West Fife it is probably fair to say that 5 December certainly feels like we are into winter, rather than autumn. The Leader of the House should not labour the argument that the date was set and fixed several months ago. Perhaps he should reflect that the Chancellor would have more credibility on these dates if he once in a while stuck to what he said he was going to do.

A valid point was made about the House business committee. May I gently correct some of the assumptions made by Government Members? My understanding, having read the Wright report, is that the chair of the House business committee would be the Leader of the House. There is a fair possibility that the hon. Member for Kettering may receive a promotion in the near future, and he may become the Leader of the House, but my understanding is that he would have to be the Leader of the House in order to chair the House business committee.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I seek to be helpful to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I say to him in that regard two things. First, those are speculative matters. They are not matters set in concrete, and there is potential for all sorts of different views. Secondly, if it is of interest to the hon. Gentleman, who is a keen if not anorakish student of parliamentary matters, I can advise him that I myself made a lengthy speech on this subject at the university of Hull in February last year, but I do not encourage him to seek to emulate the length of my oration on this occasion.

[Thomas Docherty]

May I humbly suggest, Mr Speaker, that you place a copy of that speech in the Library? I am sure all Members would benefit from an opportunity to share your wisdom and your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to update the House as to when he will be making his announcement on the House business committee. I will not press the matter any further, beyond saying that we all look forward to his thoughts on that issue in due course.

A valid point was raised about the role of the Prime Minister in relation to the Budget. I confess that it has been a while since I have been invited to Downing street. I am sure I am on the guest list for the current temporary occupant’s next supper club, but I have been led to believe that it says on the plaque on the door, “First Lord of the Treasury”. I am not an eminent parliamentarian like you, Mr Speaker, but I understand that the First Lord of the Treasury is notionally in charge of the Treasury, so it is not unreasonable to expect the First Lord of the Treasury, in his capacity as Prime Minister, to be able to answer some basic questions in the week after the Budget.

I stand to be corrected by eminent parliamentarians such as yourself, Mr Speaker, but from my brief research I can discover only one occasion in the past 15 years when a Prime Minister did not take questions within a week or so of the Budget. From the evidence of the past two years, one might think that the Prime Minister did not do detail and did not have a full grip of the answers that he might need to give to questions from Members on both sides of the House. I accept that the Prime Minister needs some “chillaxing” time. I understand that there is an updated version of Fruit Ninja available for the iPad. For the benefit of the hon. Member for North East Somerset, the iPad is a modern piece of technology favoured by many distinguished parliamentarians and is worth investigating.

However, if the Prime Minister did find that he had other engagements, he is of course entitled to delegate. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has been trying for some time, and I think with some success, to find out who is supposed to deputise for the Prime Minister. Some might suggest that it is the Deputy Prime Minister—perhaps the clue is in the title. To the best of my knowledge, the Deputy Prime Minister has been let loose at the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions on only two or three occasions—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who is far more knowledgeable than I am, confirms that that has happened on only two occasions.

Perhaps the Leader of the House can confirm whether that is because the Prime Minister does not think that the Deputy Prime Minister is up to the job, or is it because, after the Eastleigh by-election result, he is concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister—I will try to keep a straight face—might outshine him? Is the Prime Minister concerned that the two parties might contradict each other, as we saw on the first occasion, when the Prime Minister’s press office had to clarify several of the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks? Of course, on one occasion when the Prime Minister was unavailable he got the Foreign Secretary to stand in for him.

It would be helpful if the Leader of the House confirmed whether the Prime Minister is available on the Wednesday after the Budget. Is he on important Government business? Is he intending to “chillax”? Is he planning to visit any of the constituencies? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asks a valid question: is he planning to visit a food bank? It would be a useful opportunity if he visited a food bank and spoke to some constituents.

After the Prime Minister’s performance today I understand why the Leader of the House is so admirably trying to defend the indefensible. It is quite clear that, despite the soft drinks proffered last night, my right hon. Friend the Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition wiped the floor with the Prime Minister. For that reason, I understand why the Leader of the House is reluctant for the Prime Minister to man up and come to the Chamber to face up to his decisions.

20:12

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I do not agree with all the comments he made, but the gist of his speech was very good. I rise to support the amendment. Were I sitting on the Opposition side of the House, I would support a similar amendment. Of course, I supported similar motions and amendments in the previous Parliament, as did my friends on the Front Bench, but they seem to have changed their position. It is also rather interesting that the shadow Ministers, when they were in government, took exactly the opposite position to the one they are taking today. It is the national union of Executives that we have to deal with tonight. Parliament—the mother of Parliaments—should decide the timetable, and it should do so through a House business committee. If that were the case, we would not have debates such as this one.

I want to deal with some of the points that have not been touched on. Members have pointed out that business is listed as provisional, and of course that is always the case; it says that on the handy card showing the calendar. The only way there could be an extra sitting day is if business has not been proceeded with. If business had not been proceeded with, obviously the Budget could be on an earlier day. We therefore have to assume that business has not proceeded as the Leader of the House wanted.

I should have taken the opportunity at the beginning of my speech to apologise to the House and to the Leader of the House for not being here early enough to hear all his comments. Unfortunately, I was in another part of the Palace and had made the real mistake—I apologise profusely for it—of listening to my Whips, who told me that this business would not start until after 7 o’clock. I will never make that mistake again.

[Thomas Docherty]

I wonder whether it has occurred to the hon. Gentleman that his Whips may not have been entirely helpful to him in suggesting the timing of the debate.

[Mr Bone]

No, that is an outrageous slur; I just put it down to incompetence. On a more serious note, the abuse from the Whips has already started, and I am still in the Chamber, so when we get out of the Chamber there will be even more. That is a bad thing for this House.

Going to the heart of the matter, the real problem is that Prime Minister’s questions has gone down to one day a week on the Wednesday. If it were still two days a week on the Tuesday and the Thursday, it would not really matter what day the House rose on, because there would be an opportunity to scrutinise the Prime Minister close to the rising of the House.

There is a principle involved that is not just to do with this motion. I gently say to the shadow Leader of the House that she is being a little opportunist in making a political point rather than taking the politics out of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) wanted to do. There is a strong argument for the House not rising for a recess on a Monday or a Tuesday other than in very exceptional cases. It should rise on a Wednesday or a Thursday, and then we would get rid of all these problems.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend said that it would not make any difference if there were Prime Minister’s questions on a Tuesday and a Thursday, but in fact it would make a difference in this case. If there were Prime Minister’s questions on the Tuesday, the Budget would follow immediately afterwards. If the House then rose on the Thursday, that would mean that it rose on Maundy Thursday. As my hon. Friend shares my views about the Christian religion, I am sure he agrees that that would not be a sensible idea.

[Mr Bone]

I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the timing of the Budget is entirely at the discretion of the Executive. They have chosen to have it so late and that has caused all these problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made an absolutely first-class speech, as always, but drew completely the wrong conclusions.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) did make some very good and eloquent points, given the recent scandal over the adulteration of food, the Food Standards Agency should possibly look at Her Majesty’s Sandringham apple juice?

[Mr Bone]

I want to keep very closely to the subject of the motion, and I think that that is straying rather wide.

I feel exceptionally strongly about this issue and the fact that Parliament—[Interruption.] The Whips are already having a go at me from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) asked why I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I have already explained that to the House. I am really annoyed by the attitude of the Whips in this place. That is what brings this House into disrepute. They do not care about Parliament; all they care about is getting Executive business through. They are shameful. I wish my private Member’s Bill had gone through, as that would have abolished them.

[The Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36.)

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

20:18

Division 174

Ayes: 222

---

Conservative: 193
Liberal Democrat: 27
Alliance: 1

Noes: 53

---

Labour: 46
Conservative: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 2

Amendment proposed: (a), leave out from ‘shall’ to end and add

‘, notwithstanding the Resolution of 17 December 2012, sit on Wednesday 27 March and at its rising on that day adjourn until 15 April 2013.’.—(Ms Angela Eagle.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

20:34

Division 175

Ayes: 53

---

Labour: 47
Conservative: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Alliance: 1

Noes: 222

---

Conservative: 193
Liberal Democrat: 28

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That this House shall sit on Friday 22 March.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Charities

That the draft Charities (Incorporated Church Building Society) (England and Wales) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Transport

That the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 19 December 2012, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 13 March (Standing Order No. 41A).

[Mr Speaker]

I would ask, as I ordinarily do, Members who are for whatever reason not staying in the Chamber to leave quickly and quietly, afford to the same courtesy to the Member who has the Adjournment debate that they would wish to be extended to themselves in similar circumstances.

Dalgety Bay Radiation

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

20:47

[Mr Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the patient but hard-pressed and increasingly angry residents of Dalgety Bay in Fife in my constituency. They are residents who discovered 18 months ago that the houses that were built 50 years ago were built near or above radiation-contaminated particles. They are residents who in the last 18 months have suffered the fencing off of their local beach. At the same time, their amenities have been cut, with some now not able to be used. They are increasingly looking to the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for answers and, indeed, action. They wish for the radiation-contaminated particles to be removed. They wish for a remedial action plan and clean-up plan to be agreed for the Dalgety Bay beach area, and they wish to be reassured not only about the amenity of their area, their house price values and their ability to use the beach, but about the safety and health of the people in the area.

I have asked for this debate specifically because of the advice given in the last few weeks by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—COMARE—which has published a report on Dalgety Bay. In its view, action to remedy and clean up the Dalgety Bay beach area has to be taken as quickly as possible. Residents in Dalgety Bay are increasingly angry because on other sites, particularly Almondbank in Perth—the Minister will know about this and may be able to comment on it in his response—action has been instructed and taken and is now under way, while we still await any clean-up of Dalgety Bay, any decision on how it will be funded and, indeed, any decision on who is responsible for the clean-up.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Has he had any indication as to why there has been such a delay in taking up this very important issue on behalf of his constituents?

[Mr Brown]

I will come to that. It is incontestable—indeed, nobody disputes this fact—that about 50 years ago, radiation-contaminated materials were dumped in the Dalgety Bay area. Nobody disputes the fact, either, that in the past few years, 3,400 particles of radiation-contaminated materials have been collected in the Dalgety Bay area by scientists and others, who have seen coastal erosion bring many of these materials to the surface. Nobody disputes the fact that the safety risks associated with some of the finds are at a level that has made radiation experts increasingly worried. Indeed, five finds were above 76 megabecquerels, which, according to all radiation experts, constitutes a hazard that has to be dealt with.

The problem is that, even though we have all these finds and materials, the action that we have expected to be taken on Dalgety Bay is still to happen. Does the Minister agree that we need action and that the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency should now agree that the previously identified programme of work should proceed as quickly as possible? The medical evidence says that action should be taken as quickly as possible, but the process of dealing with this radiation contamination has slowed down to the point where people are increasingly worried about whether the agreed timetables will be upheld.

As I have said, the reason why I have called for this debate is the medical evidence. If the Minister examines the medical evidence that has been provided to him and the residents of Dalgety Bay, he will see that the committee looked carefully at the health risks involved. Fortunately for the people in Dalgety Bay, the committee discovered that, although the radiation material was most likely to cause head or brain cancer, there was no higher incidence of those conditions in Dalgety Bay. It is also fortunate that, although rates of liver cancer are higher in the area, it is not usually identified with these radiated materials.

The committee said that there are three reasons why action should be taken as quickly as possible, however, and recommended the quick implementation of a remediation action plan. One reason was the long life of the discovered materials, which means that they will have a substantial life if nothing is done about them. Secondly, the committee was worried about the dynamic process whereby, as a result of coastal erosion, the materials were coming to the surface in Dalgety Bay and posing a health hazard to the population. The third reason is the size and scale of the materials. Not only have 3,400 materials been discovered and examined, but such materials are coming to the surface at a rate of about 1,000 a year. I suggest to the Minister that he must now take seriously the size, dynamic nature and long life of the materials located in Dalgety Bay.

I think that it was because of those things that the Ministry of Defence agreed in February last year to what was called an investigatory plan. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation agreed a timetable for action to be taken in the Dalgety Bay area. There was to be a review of the historical situation and of coastal processes. Then there was to be an investigatory report on the physical elements that made up the problem in the area. Then there was to be an assessment of that report, after which there was to be a review of the risks entailed. Then there was to be a set of options, which would be laid before us, on what needed to be done to remove the contamination. Then it was foreseen that there would be a plan that would deliver the area from the contamination.

That was set down clearly in a document that the Minister must have before him this evening: the investigation plan of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. Unfortunately, that plan has not been observed. The coastal processes report, which was promised in October, did not arrive. By the time I called this debate, there was no indication that it would arrive. I understand that it was sent to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on Sunday of this week, but it was five months late, at a time when we are asking that action be taken immediately because of the health risks in the area.

Work on the investigatory report itself was to have been finished in November; again there is work to be done by the Ministry of Defence, but that report is not yet available, even though it was promised by the end of January. The investigatory assessment has obviously not been done, because the investigatory report has not been completed. Many other promises have been made. We were told that between February and May, we would have the study of the options and the risk assessment work that had been done. We would then have the summary of what needed to be done as a whole, and an agreement on that. That timetable has now been completely disrupted by the failure to produce the initial reports.

I have to say to the Minister that it is the Ministry of Defence that is responsible for these delays. The coastal processes report is a Ministry of Defence report that is going to be put to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I see him looking at his civil servants. They will confirm that that is the case. It was agreed that the Ministry of Defence should do the investigatory report, not the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Again, that has not been produced. It is now long delayed because of the Ministry of Defence’s failure to complete its work. The investigatory assessment was also to have been done by the Ministry of Defence and, as I understand it, that has not been done either. Next Monday, we have a meeting of the review group, the Dalgety Bay Forum, yet none of the reports except the coastal processes report seems to be available at this stage.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on securing this debate but on the leadership that he has shown on this issue in his community. He will obviously be aware that Helen Eadie and Fife council are backing his calls for action. Does he think that the Ministry of Defence should listen not only to him, as a Member of Parliament, but to the council and to the local MSP, who are all backing his call?

[Mr Gordon Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a real problem.

I have a letter from the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—not the Minister who is replying to the debate—in response to my raising the question of radiation. In his letter, the Minister says:

“Correspondence should be addressed to SEPA as the Agency, and not MOD”.

The Ministry of Defence has failed to produce the report. It has failed to produce the investigation. It has not yet produced the investigatory assessment. At the same time, many people regard it as the initial polluter. For that Minister to say to a Member of Parliament that correspondence should be addressed to SEPA as the agency and not to the MOD is an abrogation of the Ministry’s responsibility in this matter.

I put it to the Minister that if he was writing to the chairman of his local council or to a constituent who had raised questions about the health of constituents as a result of contamination identified with the Ministry of Defence, and if the Ministry had not produced the necessary reports, he would have to be very careful about telling the chairman of his council or any other representative official that correspondence on such a matter should not be addressed to the Ministry of Defence. I hope that he will apologise for that when he speaks this evening.

The problem is deeper, however, and that is why I have had to come back again to raise the matter in the House. What has been omitted over the last 18 months is this fiction: the Ministry of Defence has refused to accept responsibility for the contamination of the area. The Ministry has persisted in saying that it does not yet accept that it was the original polluter in the area. We have evidence on the website of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency:

“It is thought that the contamination originates from the residue of radium coated instrument panels from military aircraft…The radium used by the MoD was primarily in luminescent paints.”

Then we have the letter sent to me by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which states:

“Works to identify other potential polluters at Dalgety Bay is continuing. However, to date, our investigation has not identified any other persons whom may have introduced the radium to the location.”

When this matter kicked off 18 months ago, the Ministry of Defence asked the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for a report and asked who was responsible. The agency was very clear indeed about who was responsible—the Ministry of Defence. The MOD chose not to accept this advice and it has been looking for landowners, developers, builders, residents and other participants in the area who might have been responsible for its pollution, but there is absolutely no doubt about it. It comes back not just to a legal responsibility, as I will show later, but a moral responsibility for the MOD to accept that it dumped the material in the first place, that the material is there because it came from MOD aircraft and that the pollution is the direct effect of having dumped it there. Refusing to accept responsibility is angering people in Dalgety Bay, with good cause.

Let me give a final reason why the Minister should stand before the House now and say that he will work closely with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to get a remediation action plan under way so that work is completed by the end of the year. It is an irony that just at the time that the Ministry of Defence is refusing to accept responsibility for the contamination that exists in Dalgety Bay, a mile away at Rosyth dockyard, the MOD launched a consultation exercise two years ago and is examining whether the seven decommissioned submarines, four of them Polaris submarines, should be cut up and stored in the Rosyth area for years upon years. How is the MOD going to persuade the residents of Rosyth a mile away from Dalgety Bay that it should be entrusted with the safety and health of the local residents in decommissioning, breaking up and then storing submarines in Rosyth, when it cannot persuade the people of Dalgety Bay that the safety and health needs of the residents there are being taken seriously and it even refuses to admit its responsibility for the contamination while at the same time delaying the necessary remedial work?

I urge the Minister to be very careful in what he says to the House this evening about what the Ministry of Defence is going to do on this matter. He will say that the Ministry has tried its best, spent money on investigations and is monitoring the work. I well know the speech he is going to make, but the fact is that it has not produced the reports in time, not admitted responsibility for the pollution, not agreed the options for cleaning it up and not yet agreed to fund the remedial work.

The people of Fife county, whom I represent, have for years been servants of the Ministry of Defence. Rosyth dockyard and Rosyth naval base were set up 100 years ago, and 15,000 people work there. They refitted the ships and the submarines in war time and in peace time, and they have been loyal in support of the defence needs of this nation. They have done well by the Ministry of Defence; it is time that the Ministry of Defence does well by the people of Fife.

21:03

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing a debate on Dalgety Bay once again. We last discussed the subject in November 2011, and I visited the bay on 31 January last year. I walked on the beach and met local residents in the sailing club and heard about its problems. I also met Professor Curran, the chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I understand furthermore that the right hon. Gentleman had a meeting with the Secretary of State for an hour and more on this particular matter, so I do not think it is fair to say, as he suggests it is, that my Department has ignored the issues at Dalgety Bay, as we have not. Neither, for that matter, have we ignored the concerns of the local community and nor has the Ministry of Defence abdicated its responsibilities or sought to delay a decision on who is the polluter. I welcome the opportunity to explain how the MOD has actively been supporting SEPA over the last year or so.

The Department has actively supported SEPA in fulfilling its statutory duty to inspect the area of concern. I am afraid that this is more than can be said of other parties who have had an interest in either the former Royal Naval Air Station Donibristle or indeed in the foreshore. That includes the developers mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, who have some responsibilities in this regard. Similarly, we have not acted inconsistently in our approach to sites that we formerly owned across Scotland.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Almondbank, which is a going concern. It is still operating, and we have a commercial contract which states that we will hand it over after clearing up contamination. That is rather different from the situation in Dalgety Bay.

[Mr Gordon Brown]

Is the Minister saying that the only reason he is taking no action on Dalgety Bay is that he has no such commercial contract in that instance?

[Mr Robathan]

I will explain why we dispute much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in a moment, but there is one thing that I particularly dispute. I know that when he was Prime Minister, and indeed when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was very profligate with public money. He was very willing to spend it, and then to leave us in the appalling financial condition in which we now find ourselves. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we take a rather more parsimonious and sensible view than I think he did when it comes to the spending of our constituents’ money.

[Thomas Docherty]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the issue of aircraft carriers. Does the Minister regret blowing £100 million on two U-turns?

[Mr Robathan]

I think that you would rule me out of order if I pursued that point, Mr. Speaker, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it was not the actions of a Conservative Government that led to the rather ridiculous contracts for the aircraft carriers, which we have been trying very hard to tie down in many ways.

SEPA is the lead regulator in Scotland in relation to all matters pertaining to radioactively contaminated land. Notwithstanding that, my Department has undertaken voluntarily to assist SEPA and to deliver the necessary site investigation. That is in addition to the monthly beach monitoring, and it demonstrates how seriously we are taking the matter.

It is worth repeating that, in the opinion of the Health Protection Agency, the risk to beach users remains very low. The agency is on record as stating that the risk of contracting a fatal cancer is less that 1 in 100 million, which is significantly lower than the level that the Health and Safety Executive considers to be the upper limit for an acceptable level of annual risk for members of the public. Recent investigations of the incidences of cancers in the Dalgety Bay area appear to support the HPA’s assessment. I note the recommendation of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—that remediation should proceed, but this is a matter for SEPA, and it needs to be reviewed in the context of the risk posed.

[Lindsay Roy]

Is the Minister saying that this is some kind of modern hysteria, and that there is no real issue on the Dalgety Bay foreshore?

[Mr Robathan]

I am saying that the risk to health is extremely low. That is not my judgment, because I am not a scientist; it is the judgment of the Health Protection Agency and others.

As part of the monthly monitoring, contractors working for my Department have recovered and removed radioactive items from the foreshore, thereby ensuring that any potential risk is as low as reasonably practicable. We adopted that precautionary approach because it was consistent with the advice given by the Health Protection Agency, and provided a suitable safeguard while SEPA undertook its inspection. However, there appears to be a concerted effort in the media to circumvent SEPA’s statutory inspection by raising anxieties unnecessarily and calling for remediation. The press reporting of the recent investigations of cancers in the area appears to be a particularly egregious example. When I visited the area, the sailing club informed me that it seemed likely that it would have to cancel a regatta owing to heightened concern arising from media reports that did not reflect the low level of risk, and that people were unlikely to visit because they had read those reports.

The proper course of action is to allow SEPA to complete its work and form an opinion on whether any of the land meets the statutory definition of radioactively contaminated land, on what needs to be done, and on who is responsible.

We should bear it in mind that the royal naval air station at Donibristle was closed in 1959, 54 years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman and I were in short trousers and some Members of Parliament had not even been born. The publicly available records show an organised and systematic rundown of the various site activities, with a focus on the salvage and sale of assets. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the statutory regime requires that, if land is deemed to be radioactively contaminated, it is necessary to consider all the actions of later parties which may have contributed to or caused contamination. The subsequent redevelopment for housing as part of the Dalgety Bay new town, together with the construction of what is now the boat park and sailing club, would have involved significant demolition, site clearance, infilling and land reconfiguration. This is supported by contemporary photographs and plans. Indeed, a refuse tip appears at what is now the headland in the 1964 Ordnance Survey plan, which was approximately five years after the developer took over the land. It is the areas of the headland and boat park where radium has been identified, and that could go some way to explaining either the current or historical occurrence of such material on the beach.

The presence of demolition material, including bricks, roofing material and other debris, is consistent with the demolition and site clearance that preceded the redevelopment of the Donibristle site. There is no documentary evidence that the MOD attempted to clear the land through demolition.

My officials have previously raised concerns as to whether “designation” of the land is appropriate. While I fully recognise that the very mention of radioactivity gives cause for concern among some of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, the current view held by the Health Protection Agency remains, as I have already stated on at least two occasions, that the risk is very low.

Nevertheless, given that items, often referred to as “particles”, with a relatively high level of radioactivity were found beneath the beach in October and November 2011, the HPA felt there was a need for a detailed risk assessment. The comprehensive investigation undertaken by my Department, the results of which are to be released very soon, will enable SEPA to undertake a full and conclusive assessment.

[Mr Brown]

Will, therefore, the investigation report, which is the basis on which SEPA will be able to make the decisions, be before the Dalgety Bay Forum when it meets next Monday? Otherwise, we will face considerable delays before this report can be examined. Will the Minister also accept that, despite all the information he is trying to give us, SEPA has already said its investigation has not indicated any other persons who may have introduced radium to the location?

[Mr Robathan]

First, there has indeed been a delay. One of the problems was with accessing some of the land, which delayed things. I understand that SEPA has yet to publish the analytical data, which delayed our factual report, but we are meeting with SEPA on 14 March, which will be next—

[Mr Speaker]

Thursday.

[Mr Robathan]

Yes, Thursday. Thank you, Mr Speaker. At that meeting we will hand over the factual report and discuss the way forward. I will not say that will take place on Monday, but it will take place next Thursday. [Interruption.] Indeed, it would be possible to move the meeting of the Dalgety Bay Forum.

So my officials have already agreed to meet SEPA on 14 March to ensure the prompt transfer of the factual findings. It will then be for SEPA to make its determination as to whether or not any land at Dalgety Bay meets the requirements for designation as radioactive contaminated land, based on all the scientific and technical evidence.

My officials have raised a number of concerns with SEPA in connection with its approach, in order to provide clarity on the MOD’s position and avoid any future misunderstanding. These included, for example, the lack of consideration of activities other than those of the MOD that could have caused, or knowingly permitted, the contamination to be present within the foreshore. SEPA confirmed that it was now carrying out an investigation to identify all the potential appropriate persons, should any land at Dalgety Bay be designated as radioactive contaminated land.

In conclusion, I am as keen as the right hon. Gentleman for the issue of contamination at Dalgety Bay to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, and I do understand the concerns of his constituents—who would not be concerned? However, the risk remains very low.

The right hon. Gentleman contends that the MOD has a responsibility for remediation, but this is not his determination to make. I should point out that, perhaps, for some 13 years it could have been his determination to make, but he did not choose so to do. It is for the professionals at SEPA to establish the need for remediation and who is liable for the cost, based on a proper scientific and technical assessment. However, we have assisted, and will continue to assist SEPA in every way possible.

In closing, may I say how pleased I am to see the right hon. Gentleman in the House?

Question put and agreed to.

21:14

House adjourned.

Main Road recreation ground (Kinnerton)

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Petitions

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.—[Presented by Mark Tami, Official Report, 12 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 828.]

[P001154]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Wales:

Responsibility for Local Authorities and the decision-making process for town and village green applications in Wales are devolved. As such they are properly for the relevant Local Authorities, the Welsh Government and their agencies.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 6 March 2013

[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]

Home Care Workers

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am pleased to have the chance to discuss home care and home care workers, because it is an incredibly and increasingly important area of service and policy touching nearly every family in the land. As the number of elderly and frail people increases, many of them with some degree of dementia, and as more people stay in their own homes, it is vital that we as a Parliament and the Government take action to ensure that standards of care are what they should be and meet the needs of older people with the dignity and quality of service that they have a right to expect, and that I am sure we all want for ourselves when the time comes.

I appreciate that there are big funding questions. I certainly want social care to be a priority for resources. Under the present austerity regime, social services departments and care providers are struggling to meet the pressures that we discussing. I also favour the full implementation of the Dilnot proposals. However, it is my intention to focus not on finance but on care and care workers and what we can do to address the present shortcomings, which must be evident to Members from all parties.

Let me make it clear at the outset that we should praise the good job that so many care workers and care providers do, often—I shall say more about this—in difficult circumstances. However, there are far too many shortcomings, as described in the recent Care Quality Commission report and the Unison report “Time to care”. We need an across-the-board drive to raise the standards, training, working conditions, terms of employment and professional standing of this most vital group of workers. It is especially important because they are on the front line. They are the first point of care and contact for hundreds of thousands of elderly people and are responsible for helping with their intimate personal needs and medication as well as day-to-day living.

On standards, the Care Quality Commission found a quarter of services to be substandard. Both the Unison report and the survey last autumn by the consumers association Which? found too many instances of rushed and poor care, as well as evidence of good and excellent care. I have been surveying constituents on the issue and have seen the same mixed picture. One daughter in the Which? survey found her mother having her face washed with a flannel with faeces on it and being dressed in the previous day’s soiled clothes. Others spoke of relatives going all day without food or drink, untrained staff using lifting equipment, muddled medication and forgotten alarm pendants. It is clear that standards must be raised to a consistent and higher level.

Training must be an important part of that. We need to listen to people like the worker in the Unison report who said:

“Three half-days’ irrelevant training was given. Then I was on my own. I had never bathed, dressed or cared for anyone before. I had to empty urine bags, colostomy bags etc. with no training. I felt very scared and was left to struggle as best I could.”

The consequences of mistakes involving such vulnerable people do not bear thinking about. We can well understand how workers in that position are being let down by those in charge of home care provision across the country.

I argue, as Unison does, for standardised levels of training and detailed minimum standards on employers to provide practical training to that level, without making the requirements excessively academic, so that we do not exclude people who are good at caring but bad at passing exams. Requirements should include communication, though, especially given the number of people whose first language is not English working as carers. Someone in Oxford told me that her mother was in a care home where just three out of 60 staff had English as their first language.

I also argue for a professional register of accredited carers, just as we have for nurses. People would qualify to get on it and gain the status that it involves, but they could also be struck off if incompetence or negligence warranted it.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case. How long did it take him this morning, from the moment he got out of bed, to wash, clothe himself, have breakfast and get out the door? Although I appreciate that standards for care workers must be concentrated on, does he not agree that many of them are asked not just to undertake their work on the minimum wage but to complete their tasks in an unfeasibly short time?

[Mr Smith]

Absolutely, and I am coming to that point. I could not get myself completely ready in the limited time that some care workers have; some are allocated 15-minute slots for visits.

When things go wrong, it is vital that staff speak out, yet too often care workers feel vulnerable and not in a position to do so. I note that last month, the Secretary of State for Health said that he was “very sympathetic” to extending to home care workers the duty to whistleblow that the Government are thinking of applying to nurses. I urge the Minister to do so.

It is crucial that inspection is extensive, robust and effective. It is all the more so given the importance of care and the fact that it takes place in people’s homes, away from immediate supervision. There are concerns about that in Oxfordshire right now. Our local paper, the Oxford Mail—I am sure you will remember it well, Mr Turner, from your time in Oxford—has highlighted concerns raised by our local patient voice and county councillors about the adequacy of local CQC inspection arrangements. In November, there were just two inspectors for Oxfordshire, and even now there are only five, who between them are responsible for inspecting 447 health and social care institutions and thousands of home care visits.

There is all-party concern. Conservative councillor Jim Couchman, who chairs the county’s adult services scrutiny committee as well as being a member of the health overview and scrutiny committee, said after meeting the CQC:

“We did get pretty worried by what we saw as an extremely ill-equipped organisation to deal with the responsibility accrued to it…The CQC is not a proper inspection team in any way, shape or form.”

Councillor Couchman has also told me since that apart from the enormity of the task required of such a small staff, the most surprising fact was that recruits did not need any experience or knowledge of the NHS, health care or social services. The CQC seemed more concerned about whether new staff had a background in regulation.

I was also concerned that when asked to talk to the Oxford Mail, the Care Quality Commission declined. When such worries are being voiced, it is all the more important for a body such as the CQC to come forward and answer questions as a basic responsibility of public accountability, as well as to take the chance to build public confidence rather than undermining it, as the CQC ended up doing. Will the Minister look into the position on care quality inspection in Oxfordshire? More generally, will he ensure that the commission has sufficient inspectors across the country with the right experience to do the job?

Feedback from users and their families is another important yardstick by which to lever up care standards. Our county council uses individual visits and client satisfaction surveys to inform contract monitoring. However, a wider public satisfaction rating is needed for the plethora of care agencies. One of the paradoxes of modern life is that, if advice is wanted on the standards of service providers such as restaurants, hotels and garages, or of products such as cars and electrical goods, there is no end of reviews out there to guide people, but for something as important as helping someone to find a good care provider, there seems to be nowhere to look for advice. In theory there is competition for provision, but in reality all the customers are groping around in the dark. That is a good reason not to emulate in mainstream NHS provision the privatisation that has already happened in care services.

Underpinning all that, action is desperately needed on the terms and conditions of care workers. They are doing a demanding job, often on the lowest wages and with minimal security. According to the Unison “Time to care” survey, more than half of home care workers overall and more than 80% in the private sector are not paid for travel time or costs; it has been estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 home care workers are in effect paid less than the national minimum wage as a result. To make matters worse, more than half of private sector home care workers have a zero-hours contract with no guaranteed pay, and more than half of all home care workers reported that in the past year things have got worse for them on pay, working time and the duties expected of them.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for setting out clearly some of the home care issues. Does he agree that zero-hours contracts in particular make it difficult to ensure continuity of care for clients and difficult for a provider to invest in its staff, because they are constantly having to look for alternative work to make up the hours to obtain a decent income to support themselves and their families?

[Mr Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and must be reading my mind, because my next sentence was that zero-hours contracts present real problems for continuity of care, which was the point she made. It is important that vulnerable clients in particular have carers whom they know, trust and have built up a relationship with.

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate and to Unison, with which I have met, for its initiative. I strongly reinforce the collection of points that he has just made. I have had not only users but care workers troubled by their ability to do their job come to see me. In my experience, such workers are troubled by a combination of not having enough time to look after the person they are caring for and no adequate account being taken of travel time, which means that they are in effect paid below the minimum wage to do a job that they cannot carry out sufficiently and that often there is no continuity of care from a particular individual for a vulnerable, normally elderly person. Those are big issues and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to all parties saying such things to the Government. All parties together can change what is a fundamentally flawed system.

[Mr Smith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. All those comments are vital, and he is right that throughout Parliament and society at large we can insist on raising standards for workers who are doing a demanding, important and professional job on poverty wages, often in pretty exploitative conditions. That has to be changed.

An example to do with continuity was mentioned in the Care Quality Commission report: a client had 13 different home care workers for 35 calls. In such circumstances, clients have to explain time and time again to different care workers what needs to be done, how they like things and so on. Given that the people receiving home care increasingly have substantial health needs, the whole business of zero-hours contracts is a poor and inappropriate employment model. I do not like it anywhere, but it is especially damaging in this sector.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my borough of Bexley, a particular model now in use involves a care company that is acting as an umbrella agency? The care workers whom the company sends to vulnerable people are actually self-employed, which means that it is pushing an employment liability on to a vulnerable person and abdicating responsibility. What happens in Bexley is meant to give people greater choice, but it is bogus self-employment. Is the Minister aware of that model? Will he consider looking at it in detail, to see whether it is true self-employment or merely tax planning?

[Mr Smith]

Or, indeed, merely a way of circumventing the national minimum wage. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will come on to some requests to the Minister for action in that very area.

We touched earlier on the 15-minute slots for care workers, and there are serious concerns about the care that workers are able and allowed to provide when they arrive at someone’s home. The financial pressures on social services providers and on paying clients are leading to increasing use of 15-minute slots. Those may give time for a brief check, but not for caring in any meaningful sense of the word.

We need a thoroughgoing overhaul of the terms and conditions of home care workers. The non-payment of travel time breaks the minimum wage laws, which I understand has been confirmed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to Unison. Will the Minister meet HMRC so that a priority drive can be put in place to ensure that every home care worker in the country is contacted and helped to secure their entitlements? That would help not only the workers’ basic rights but recruitment and retention in a job that is far too often seen as low-status because it is low paid and has such poor conditions, and that people get out of because they simply cannot afford to carry on working.

Last year, I was approached by a constituent who was working as a home care provider for a company under contract to Oxfordshire county council. The provider was paying him little more than the minimum wage for the exact, restricted time that he spent in each person’s home, with no allowance for travel. After paying travel and other employment costs, he was simply not earning enough to get by, and he found out that he would be better off back on jobseeker’s allowance, which was where he went. I took up the case with social services and the then Secretary of State for Health; both said that it was a matter for the provider. For the providers, however, it is a matter of profit, competition and, for far too many of them, what they can get away with. That is the nub of the problem: in a contracted-out, decentralised system operating to market competition, the buck does not stop with anyone.

I am sure that the public want better safeguards and decent treatment for the vulnerable people being cared for and for the workers who do that vital caring work. That means putting in place a framework of standards and entitlements for clients and their carers, along the lines of the ethical charter for which Unison has argued. That is what I am asking the Government to do. Will the Minister reply to my points on the issues of training to consistent and accredited standards, a professional register, properly enforced standards, the adequacy of inspection, comprehensive enforcement of the minimum wage and promotion of the living wage?

It is thanks to the dedication of many care workers and the good service providers that there are out there that home care is not worse than it is. Far too much of it, however, is not nearly good enough, and some of it is very bad. The people needing care and their families are worried about such matters, and a test of this Government, or of any Government, must be what they do to raise the standards of home care and the working conditions of those who provide it.

09:48

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) not only on securing the debate but on covering such fundamentally important ground on matters that clearly need to be addressed. From the litany of issues that need to be dealt with seriously by not only the two parties in government but all parties, it is clear that if we were to construct the circumstances for a catastrophe to happen on our watch, all the ingredients are being prepared in the services being provided to people in their homes.

The right hon. Gentleman described many symptoms, and at present the health system is under extreme pressure. The last Labour Government established the £20 billion efficiency gain, now colloquially known as the Nicholson challenge. All parties know that the pressure for efficiency gain inevitably resulted in an attempt throughout the system to push costs down to the least expensive care models, which means out of hospital, into the home and care by the lowest paid people. In addition, a whole heap of management babble obscures the way in which the trend is being catapulted. The health system depends on a group of workers in people’s private homes, but we should not ignore the fact that many people work in similar conditions in residential homes for people who cannot be catered for in their own home. There is a parallel situation in nursing homes.

With pressure on the system, there will be increasing attempts to ensure that patients are discharged from hospital much earlier than in the past. Part of the management mantra is that the worst place for an elderly person is an acute hospital and that unnecessary admissions should be avoided. That is self-evidently unarguable, but is often asserted. However, at the margin an assessment must be made before making that decision. There is a feeling that older people are being denied admission to hospital because of age discrimination in the system, and that because they are older they should be kept at home when, if they were 20, 30 or 40 years younger with the same condition, they would be admitted to hospital. Many of us know that that pattern exists.

MPs have many examples in their casework, and I am sure I am not unique in this: inadequate care is provided in the home for older people who must endure unacceptably poor standards of care and circumstances. The response is often pontification from the political classes, but the care workers are voiceless. Whenever the “Today” programme runs a story about poor care, which it often does when a shocking story of poor care is revealed or a report by the Care Quality Commission is published, some of our own classes are wheeled on to morning media slots and often denigrate the character of the people who provide care, as though a failing in the carers caused the problem. They say that we must address problems with carers’ characters rather than the unfeasible circumstances in which so many of them must operate.

I intervened on the right hon. Member for Oxford East to ask how long it takes him to get out of bed in the morning and to get ready to go out of the door. All of us in the Chamber are able-bodied and do not need a hoist to get out of bed or to use the toilet. We do not need to be assisted in every way, and we are not on a cocktail of medicines—perhaps some of us are. An hour is probably a reasonable time for most able-bodied people, yet we often hear that care workers must undertake those functions for other people in less than half an hour. That is simply not feasible. People may say that carers cut corners, take risks and do not complete the job, but they are asked to undertake an impossible task.

Many carers are on the minimum wage, and in areas such as mine in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly the travel time between visits is often significant. If the agency employing care workers is not prepared to cover properly travel times or costs, it may take the worker below the minimum wage, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said.

We must address the issues that the right hon. Member for Oxford East has properly listed. All the ingredients are there. As we go forward, the pressure will continue. Bed reviews will be undertaken as the new clinical commissioning groups swing into action in the next month. They will look at how many community beds there are in their area, assess whether they are affordable, and look for new ways of working and new pathways. They will use the usual language to argue that there are better ways of providing the care that is currently provided in community hospitals, that local communities should not be obsessed with bricks and mortar, that they can provide better care in the home, and that people should relax and understand that the number of beds can be reduced even when the population is ageing and the number of people needing care is increasing. Reducing the number of beds will increase the pressure on remaining beds. People will be discharged much earlier to their homes with assurances that adequate care packages are in place when we all know that those care packages are marginal and that the people providing the care will be asked to undertake work that is often unfeasible.

I often resist calls for diminution in the number of community hospital beds in my constituency, and I am sure that other hon. Members do the same. We used to know the number of beds in our local hospitals, but the service that used to be provided is becoming increasingly invisible. The problem is that the service can then be cut, denuded and reduced over time in ways that are very difficult for us all to properly assess, because people will not able to see or understand how it operates. Parts of the service will be shaved off in the same way that local authorities have redefined access to support from moderate to critical, and so on—as I know that many local authorities have done.

I have visited a number of agencies in my constituency. I am really pleased that we have some excellent agencies working in west Cornwall. Many of them are impressive agencies, but of course they are all competing, and there is a risk of a race to the bottom. Local authorities are commissioning on the basis of price, and the fear is that they are not necessarily looking at quality as much as they should be when they make assessments.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I made the point about competition in my remarks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a very important dimension is that a lot of clients are paying for care themselves, and they have very inadequate information on which to judge one agency or provider against another?

[Andrew George]

Absolutely. Minimum standards and agreements across agencies—or if the Government will not establish minimum standards, baseline standards—would give people reassurance. What we understand is happening, as part of achieving the efficiency gain that all parties want, is that not only is there an attempt at constructing a clinical and patient interest argument that patients are better off being discharged to their home, which is better for them, because it is where they want to be—the mantra that is often used; but there is cost-shunting as well. Obviously, if a patient is in hospital, the state is paying for them. There is an increasingly harsh attempt at identifying what continuing care is and is not—in other words, the state continues to pay for that patient in their home—but what ultimately happens is that the sooner the hospitals can get patients out to their home, it is the individual, if they have any assets at all, who meets the bill.

In terms of standards, in my view, we should be encouraging agencies that are providing care to offer at least a living wage for workers—£7.20 per hour and, I think, £8.30 in the London area. Travel time between visits should be part of salaried time. A mileage rate should be set and understood, and everyone should share a mileage rate; in my area, the rate paid to travelling care workers varies between 35p and 40p a mile. There should be a minimum visit time of 45 minutes in very exceptional cases, and at least an hour for most visits, especially if it involves at least two of the following procedures for non-ambulant or semi-ambulant clients: getting out of bed; dressing or undressing; toileting; feeding; washing and mobility support.

An efficient and effective arrival and departure reporting and recording system should be introduced, because there is some dispute between agencies and local authorities on that issue. Registration of care workers is very important, and I hope there will be cross-party support for it. The Select Committee on Health, of which I am a member, has been pushing for it for some time. It would ensure that there is adequate training, proper registration and recognition of the significant job that home care workers do. With that kind of support, I believe that we can give home care workers the proper status and support that they richly deserve.

10:04

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) on securing the debate. There could not be a more important subject on which to have a Westminster Hall debate. I also thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who made a very important contribution. To add more thanks, the recent CQC and Unison reports have been incredibly helpful; for those of us who have been thinking about care for some time, the two reports have crystallised and explained, in a well researched way, the substantial challenge that we face.

If I may make a slightly parochial Merseyside remark, this is an extremely important issue for us, especially in Wirral, where we have an ageing population, which, I must say, we are very glad about. We are glad and proud that our grandparents and parents are living longer, but with that pride comes responsibility. That is why the challenge that we face is very important. I would like to thank my constituents, who have been very good in coming to several public meetings with me on the subject of care. I have asked them to help me think about that issue, because I know that many of them face this challenge. They have willingly given up their time to inform me about their concerns, and I am incredibly grateful.

I have also been lucky in the Wirral because home care staff have met me and given me the benefit of their experience, along with council officers and councillors. I recognise that the problem is shared across all those groups. We are going to fix the problem together, and we are here today to ask the Minister whether he will join us in helping to do that.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the point she just mentioned, does the hon. Lady agree that one of the pleasing aspects of this issue is the number of active senior citizens in all our constituencies who want, in a voluntary capacity, to involve themselves in the debate to try and lift the standards and ensure that we give the proper care to people in their own homes?

[Alison McGovern]

I could not agree more. Only last Friday, I was with Heswall Soroptimists, a very committed group of women who volunteer in our community, and who raised various issues about care. That is only one example of committed groups of citizens who are keen to be involved in finding a solution.

It is important that we make the moral case for change. Too often, people in need of care in their homes are hidden from our society, and people who need support, by their nature, can find significant barriers to their participation in democracy. Therefore, it is extremely important that politicians take the time to speak up for them. I have been meeting regularly with Wirral officers to try and work through some of those issues, and specifically, to discuss whether there is a way that we can improve the quality of care in our borough.

On that note, I flag to the Minister that such conversations are made much more difficult by the funding settlement that local government has received. The fact that local government has taken the biggest cuts from Whitehall has certainly impeded my ability, locally in the Wirral, to get change. I ask the Minister to note that point, and next time that he has conversations with Cabinet Ministers and the Treasury, to remind them of local government’s role in care and of the important challenge that we are trying to meet.

In discussions with Wirral council officers, we have also been trying to consider how to tackle the problem of information that has already been flagged. For people who are trying to procure care, it is difficult to know what quality standards they can expect and what the market looks like. I sympathise greatly with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East about the role of markets in what is, I would argue, a bit of the economy that does not necessarily lend itself well to markets. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I sound like a bit of an economics geek when I say that, in any case, markets do not work well when participants have insufficient information. I believe that if we cannot solve that problem, the current system will never work.

I will move on to talk about two aspects of home care that have repeatedly been shown to be very important to my constituents. As I mentioned, we have had several public meetings in the Wirral to discuss these issues, and we have tried to bring together both those who work in care and those who receive care so that we can see the problems from either side of the coin. Those two aspects are 15-minute appointments and zero-hours contracts. Those two issues typify the insecurity at work and low investment in skills that home care workers face.

First, on 15-minute appointments, it might have been mentioned that the recent Unison report found that 46% of staff felt that they had to rush visits—that is nearly half the workers going into the homes of people who are very important and need help. The result is the feedback that I receive that due care and attention cannot be given to people. I am talking about basic matters of respect, such as addressing the person concerned as they would wish to be addressed.

Let me give an example from my own constituency. A care worker was in a couple’s home to make some food for them, but said that they were able to do that for only one member of the couple—the husband or wife—because that was all that they had been allocated time for. Most people expect to be able to sit down to a meal with their partner. That is a basic thing that we all expect to be able to do in our lives. Fifteen-minute appointments may or may not have been the cause of the problem in that case, but if 15-minute appointments mean that the normal standards that we would all expect to be upheld have to be disregarded, that is not a system that will work well.

I will read out a quote from one of the care workers to whom Unison spoke:

“When the person you go to needs more care or has incontinence you are only allocated 15 minutes for a meal and have to leave them. I haven’t left a client like that and would go over my time (although not paid for it), but it does mean you are running late for other calls.”

I cannot imagine what it must be like for someone to turn up at a person’s home and find, if they are incontinent, that the worst has happened. They are supposed to be there only to make them a sandwich or whatever and they must decide between being late for the next person, which will cause stress, or, frankly, rushing around doing things that they know they will not be paid for, which will cause them stress. At the same time, they are trying to make that individual feel better about what has happened. What skills and talents does someone need to make that situation go well? We should first admire the people who do this job, but also question what in the system is causing such a breakdown.

One aspect of this subject that I have highlighted as a result of listening to my constituents is that too much of the way in which our system works is task-orientated, not person-orientated. Dignity is extremely important. Increasingly, people have recognised that the way in which we treat others in society is ever more important. When we are asking people to do a list of tasks—no more and no less—rather than think about the individual and try to help them with whatever their needs are, we will not fix the problem. Individuals will feel bad about the care that they receive rather than feeling that it is a help to them. Another care worker quoted in the Unison report expressed that very clearly:

“I never seem to have enough time for the human contact and care that these people deserve.”

That is a lesson to us all.

Secondly, on zero-hours contracts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and I have recently commenced a survey that is designed to listen to people across all industries who have experienced being asked to do or have taken on zero-hours contracts. Of course, for people who want a bit of work but do not need it to be regular—students or others—zero-hours contracts may not be such a problem. However, I think we all recognise in this Chamber the problems with that flexibility and insecurity in a world in which people are trying to provide routine, predictability and attention to detail for some quite vulnerable people. I think we would all question the appropriateness of zero-hours contracts.

There are two problems with zero-hours contracts that we need to consider. The first is inconsistent care. My constituents tell me that they would like to know who the person is who will be turning up and they would like visits to be predictable and regular, not least because of respect and dignity issues, such as knowing the little details. Often, people who need care face communication barriers. Understanding in detail how a person communicates is extremely important, so consistency of care could not be more important. How do zero-hours contracts support consistency of care?

The second issue is stress. Insecurity at work causes stress, and in a world in which we are asking people, as I mentioned in my example, to turn up and help vulnerable people, we need them to feel confident and secure and to have enough skills to be able to tackle whatever problems are there. Recent research has shown the impact of stress and insecurity for those working in care on the manner of treatment received by the people for whom they are caring. That is an important message to us all as politicians. What responsibility can we take for creating more security at work for those who care for vulnerable people?

Comments have already been made about the pay levels in the sector. They are clearly low. Low pay plus zero-hours contracts mean that we will have people of relatively low skill. I mean “low skill” in the technical sense; I would argue that people who work in care are extremely skilled and extremely able practically, given what they have to deal with. However, investment in skills will clearly not happen where there is low pay and an insecure labour market.

Having described the problem, I will conclude by describing what I believe might be part of the solution. First, working in home care needs to be seen as an aspirational job. There is no reason why someone should not work in care and aspire to management, to moving up in their career. We need to find pathways through the career chain so that we can make this a genuinely aspirational job. A significant number of our young people are out of work. We need to demonstrate to them that home care work is valued in society and that if they pursue such a career, they will be invested in and respected as members of our society. We need to make that absolutely clear.

I again thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East for securing the debate. There could not be a more important subject than this. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and explain what we can do to bring some change to the sector.

10:18

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, thank the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and congratulate him on bringing this matter to the House for consideration. There will not be one person in the House or outside it who is unaware of the importance of home care workers and what they do. Unfortunately, we can all tell horror stories like those that the right hon. Gentleman told at the start of the debate, but we also have many good stories of care workers who do tremendous work. Where would we be without the good work that they do?

Thanks to medical innovation, people have a longer life expectancy now than they had in the past. As a result, people are trying to live at home just a wee bit longer before they go into a residential or nursing home. A great many people now retire to my constituency of Strangford, because it has the seaside and is also a lovely place to be, and we are very pleased that they are coming to live in our area. However, they are people of a certain generation, and the expectation of people in Northern Ireland is the same as that of people in the rest of the United Kingdom—that they will live that wee bit longer. I believe the Government have been encouraging families to help at home before turning to residential nursing care.

There must be robust regulation of care workers to ensure safety and value for money. In the news, we often hear horror stories of someone taking advantage of the elderly or vulnerable. Hearing such stories concerns and annoys me, but it is not the case in the vast majority of circumstances. There should be regulated training and assessment as well as funding and help, to ensure that we get things right, which is the gist of the debate today.

In the past I have spoken about the difficulties that welfare reform will bring for carers. I shall use the example of my brother, who had a motorbike accident approximately eight and a half years ago that left him with some brain injuries. My parents are well into their 80s—81 and 83, mum and dad—and their ability to cope with my brother and his particular circumstances lessens as every year passes, because the nature of life is that the older we get, the less physically able we are. We are very pleased and blessed to have my brother able to speak and converse with us; the difference is that our Keith will never be able to work again or, as he would love to, ride a motorbike again—that will never happen. He is able to keep his independence due to the carers who come to see him, and they are tremendous. There is perhaps not as much funding as there should be in the NHS for carers; Keith is reliant on his disability living allowance to pay for the help he needs. If that were to change, he would have to be placed in a facility with full-time carers, which would adversely affect his mental health and cost the Government a lot more to provide. That is my honest-to-goodness, personal opinion in the case of someone close to me.

Such situations are replicated across my constituency and in constituencies across the UK; there are many cases. It is essential that home care continues. If people cannot afford to pay for reputable carers, it is more likely that they will look for carers who are less expensive and perhaps less qualified. That is why the Government must regulate more now.

I make a plea for Crossroads Caring for Carers Northern Ireland, which primarily provides domiciliary respite care. It has offered that service for carers in Northern Ireland since 1984, and provides in excess of 200,000 hours of respite care to more than 1,200 families per year. It does tremendous work, as do many others. The service is unique, because it is aimed specifically at the carer. Crossroads is committed to providing a quality, flexible home-care service; its care attendants enable the carer to have a break, by carrying out whatever tasks the carer would normally do. Carers can take a break from caring, in the knowledge that those they care for are receiving quality care from Crossroads. In other words, every bit of quality care will be provided by Crossroads. A break from caring is invaluable in reducing the psychological and emotional stress that many carers face. Crossroads domiciliary respite care helps carers to continue to provide the support they give to a sick, disabled or elderly person.

The care provision is tailored to each caring situation; everyone is unique and the service adjusts to the unique circumstances. Individual care plans are agreed between Crossroads, the carer and the person with care needs. People decide for themselves what help and support they need, and Crossroads responds. Care attendants help with a range of personal care tasks, ranging from bathing and personal hygiene to complex care needs. Through their families, I regularly meet many constituents who have complex care needs. Crossroads adopts a flexible support approach, with care attendants helping with almost any task that is part of everyday living.

Funding for Crossroads is under stress, as I said, so less and less help can be given. That brings us to the thrust of the debate: people are left in situations where they must look to cheaper alternatives, which are not always better. It bears repeating that the Government must address care in the home needs. Too many people are living in dirty homes and not being fed enough. There is only so much that families can do. Although we are trying to save money, care in the community cannot bear the brunt of what the changes will bring. Crossroads Caring has lost the bulk of its funding due to cuts. That will mean more elderly people living in unfit conditions because too much is required of their carers. With respect, the Government do not seem to understand that if they put a little into respite help for carers now, it will mean that carers can continue to care rather than giving up and putting their loved ones into state-sponsored homes, which are more expensive and where issues with carers are more apparent. Saving a penny now will soon mean spending thousands later. I hope when the Minister responds, he will give some indication of the Government’s strategy.

Those advertising care at the moment can do so while providing little training or checks on their staff, as hon. Members have indicated, and that must end. There must be regulation, qualifications and a set standard to which all carers and service providers adhere. When the Government set that in place, we will hear fewer horror stories and more feel-good stories, of which there are thousands and thousands. They are not the stories that make the press; they are about the many carers who go above and beyond their calling to provide care.

As an elected representative—as an MP and a former Assembly Member and councillor—I know of the good work that carers do. They come to me regularly, in their own time, to seek help for those for whom they care. I am always impressed by the fact that carers spend additional time on those for whom they care—above and beyond what is expected. We hear the negative stories, but the good ones always make us feel much better about the good work that carers do in our constituencies.

I am sure that, like me, colleagues feel there must be proper training and monitoring and that it must be put in place in a timely fashion. As each day passes, more people are being cared for at home. We have a duty to ensure first, the regulation of all carers; secondly, the safety of those being cared for; and, thirdly, and most important, peace of mind for the family of the person who needs care. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oxford East on securing the debate. I look forward to a good answer from the Minister and to his support.

10:26

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to follow all the speakers, who fully and excellently set out the case for care workers.

When I read the “Time to Care” report, I had an enormous feeling of déjà vu. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I worked for Unison as a full-time officer. Back in the 1990s, one of my first jobs as a young officer was supporting the Derbyshire county council home helps joint consultative committee. “Home helps” was the name given to home care workers in Derbyshire, of whom there were thousands. The joint consultative committee used to bring together representatives of home care workers from across the county with senior management of social services, including the director of social services, who so understood the important role of home care that he was always prepared to attend meetings to listen to the views of home care representatives. It was an opportunity for them to raise their concerns and the issues that their members faced.

The 1990s was a period of huge change for such workers. The role of home helps was changing immensely: they moved from providing a service that was basically helping older people with cleaning, shopping, meals and even, back then, laying fires, to providing much more intimate personal care and dealing with people with increasingly complex needs. It was also a period of budget cuts, which accounts for the feeling of déjà vu. There was pressure to change services, to make them efficient, obviously, but also to open them to the private market.

I vividly remember Derbyshire home helps raising concerns about a proposed move to a time-recording system. When they arrived at a service user’s house, the first thing they had to do was telephone to tell social services where they were, so that there was much more detailed information on the amount of time they spent with each service user. A concern they raised at the time was that doing so would change their focus, so that rather than their prime focus being on the needs of the service user, their top priority when they arrived was to record their time so that social services could properly cost the service.

I also remember home helps raising concerns about short calls that did not allow them time to care, to listen to what services users wanted or to respond to their priorities.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about recording arrival and departure times. Often the system simply fails, not only in rural areas, where mobile coverage is poor, but when using the cared for person’s telephone. Carers often cannot get through and calling becomes a greater obsession than providing the care itself.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I remember well the representative from the High Peak area constantly making that exact point, which was that there was poor mobile phone coverage. They talked about how much of their time would be spent dealing with the telephone instead of focusing on the person who required their assistance. There were also worries about travel time.

I particularly remember the concerns of people who worked alongside private sector care providers where, they reported, staff training was often inadequate and there was often a high turnover of staff. They also reported that the care providers frequently did not provide personal protective equipment; they talked about the lack of rubber gloves and the like. We often had discussions about which tasks home helps were given time to carry out. They often pointed out that their service users wanted and needed things that might not be what the carers were commissioned to provide.

Unison’s “Time to Care” report and the Care Quality Commission’s “Not Just a Number” inspection programme made me wonder whether we should have listened more closely to the concerns and issues raised by those Derbyshire home helps 20 years ago, particularly when, in describing the current context, the CQC talked about the

“increasing pressure on social care budgets and the rise in the number of people with complex care needs and dementia.”

In describing its key findings—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East said, a quarter of services fell below the standards expected—the CQC said:

“What is concerning is that our findings come as no surprise to people, their families and carers, care workers and providers themselves.”

The findings really do not come as a surprise, because they are exactly the issues that have been raised over many years.

The CQC highlighted several problems, including service users

“not being kept informed about late arrivals, different care workers from one visit to another, not having their preferences clearly documented, a lack of support for care staff to carry out their work, and failure to address the ongoing issues around travel time.”

Those are responsibilities of not just this Government but the previous Government, but the pressure on social services that are commissioning care services is even greater now, and we need to look again at what is required.

There is great similarity between the findings of the CQC and Unison’s “Time to Care” report. Although the care and welfare of service users is the most important focus, the CQC found that staff felt

“unsupported by their management teams and not…able to deliver care in the right way because they are too rushed, with no travel time and unscheduled visits added to their day.”

It also reported a lack of planning and supervision for staff. Training needs were not identified, staff were not confident in using their equipment, and inductions were not always completed following recognised standards.

As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, the voices of care workers are often not heard in debates such as this one. We ought to address that today. I was pleased to see that Unison’s report included many quotes from individual home care workers. It provided an opportunity for them to have a say and to talk about their experiences. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has already quoted one of the home care workers who contributed to the report, saying they did not have time to spend with their service users and they had to rush between calls.

One of the most important issues is about older people. I imagine that many hon. Members have this experience when they are out canvassing in their communities: they knock on the door of an older person, and perhaps the Member is the only person they have spoken to that day. Their priority is to talk to someone who is willing to listen. That was well recognised by one of the care workers who contributed to the report, who said that

“care is not just about duties but communication and many providers do not allow for this…How can half an hour be enough to get someone up, dressed, meds given and have a chat? People are being failed by a system which does not recognise importance of person-centred care.”

There are many quotes in the “Time to Care” report, which I am sure the Minister has read. I hope that he listens to the voices of home care workers and the issues that they raise.

It is vital that, like the director of social services in Derbyshire back in the 1990s, we listen to the voice of home care workers, because they meet service users every day. Most of them are incredibly committed to providing a good-quality service and ensuring that people receive the support that they need. It is also vital that we do not simply listen to them, but act. Will the Minister meet home care workers and their representatives to discuss the findings of Unison’s “Time to Care” and the CQC report? Will he set out today how he intends to respond to the findings of those reports?

10:35

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and all other hon. Members who have spoken.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) on securing today’s debate. Home care workers often work in isolated environments, and the people who receive care are isolated. Too often, they do not have a voice, and one of our jobs as Members of Parliament is to provide a voice for the voiceless. My right hon. Friend has helped us to do that today.

The issue is extremely important. More than 800,000 people provide home care in the UK. Some 80% of them are women, and their median age is about 40. They provide vital, intimate and personal services to more than 1 million of the most vulnerable people in society. If any other policy area had that scale of figures, this debate would be on the Floor of the House, with many other hon. Members present. It is good to have hon. Members here in this debate, but the issue that requires addressing is a huge one.

The help that home care workers provide is crucial for older and disabled people, because it helps them do what they want, which is to stay living independently in their own homes. It is crucial for families, who often have to go out to work and cannot provide support and care for their elderly relatives. Also, they might not live nearby, as I know well myself. Home care help is crucial also for the public finances and taxpayers, because if we can keep more people living healthily and independently at home and not going into hospital, taxpayers will receive better value for money.

Like other hon. Members who have spoken today, I have been concerned about the issue for a long time. Last May, I held a domiciliary care summit in Parliament with the United Kingdom Homecare Association, with 50 providers coming along. I have work-shadowed home care workers in my constituency, including Amanda White. Going out on an early-morning shift with her was an eye-opening experience. I also speak to many older and disabled people and care workers in my constituency and across the country. Many of the points that I have heard have been repeated by right hon. and hon. Members today.

There are many examples of excellent, decent and respectful care. The home care workers to whom I have spoken, including Amanda, love their job. They feel that they are doing something important for vulnerable people, helping them to live the kinds of lives that they want. However, the overwhelming picture is of a vicious downward spiral, with ever-increasing demand and ever-decreasing budgets, poorly paid, motivated and trained staff, and poor-quality care. Just to summarise, I will go through five issues that many hon. Members have raised today.

The first issue is low pay. Many people do not get even the minimum wage at the end of the week, because they are not paid travel times. Unison’s survey, “Time to care”, which hon. Members have mentioned, found that half of those who responded said that they did not get paid travel time, rising to more than 80% in the private sector. King’s college London has found that between 150,000 and 220,000 people working in the social care sector get paid less than the minimum wage. I will ask the Minister some questions about that towards the end.

The second issue concerns shorter and shorter visits for people with higher and higher levels of need. It is important to remember that as budgets are squeezed, councils raise their eligibility criteria, so people who need care and support at home have greater needs but get shorter and shorter visits. According to the UK Homecare Association, three quarters of visits are for 30 minutes or less, and one in 10 visits are for only 15 minutes. As several hon. Members have said, that is completely inadequate to get someone up, washed, dressed and fed, particularly if they have dementia. Anyone who knows someone or has a family member with dementia will know that they often struggle in the morning, which is a really disorientating time.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing that carers provide to those on whom they call is a wee bit of a chat in the morning—someone to speak to—because many people have no one at all to speak to. When they come in, they light the fire and do all the things that the hon. Lady has mentioned, but communication between carers and those they visit is important. Does she think that that should be given more time?

[Liz Kendall]

Care and communication is vital for people with all sorts of frailties and conditions, but particularly for those with dementia, as carers try to keep their memories and brains going. Those people often feel lost in a fog, and having some kind of contact is vital to keeping them going, so it is important.

We have heard about the problems of call cramming, with carers being rushed, getting late to one client and leaving early for the next. Older people are worried when they are left waiting on their own, and staff are frustrated that they have to rush in and out.

The third issue that has been raised is zero-hours contracts. As hon. Members have said, such contracts are very bad for workers, because they find it difficult to budget and plan their lives. Zero-hours contracts make it hard to attract people to the sector. They are also terrible for the users—older and disabled people who do not get continuity of care. I cannot imagine someone coming round to get me out of my bed and take me to the shower. I would be naked and they would be washing me, but I would not know who they were, because they would often be different people each time. We would not put up with that for ourselves, and we should not expect it for older people either.

The fourth issue is the lack of training, which is a real problem in dementia care. It is only since having known people with dementia that I have fully understood why they are seen to get aggressive: they do not, but they are frustrated because they cannot remember things. Carers need detailed training for that.

The fifth issue is the vicious downward spiral or vicious circle that leads to poor care for users of services and real problems for staff. The last UK Homecare Association report states that vacancy rates are at 21%, so we are simply repeating the problems.

In my remaining time, I want to make three comments about why that is all happening and what we need to do. Clearly, demand has increased in recent years. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said, when local councils’ budgets are being cut by a third, when adult social care is 40% of their budget on average and their biggest discretionary spend, and when the money that the Government say they have transferred from the NHS has not been ring-fenced, it is inevitable that care budgets are being cut. Figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government—the Government’s own figures—show that more than £1.3 billion has been cut from older people’s social care budgets since the coalition came to power.

There are a few deeper things going on. First, the caring profession is mostly delivered by women and is low-skilled. Such professions have always been neglected in the past, so that is a concern. Secondly, the problem is invisible: it concerns isolated staff and isolated, frail older people who do not have a voice. In talking about the care crisis, I always tell people that I have received five letters about the care crisis in my constituency and 99 about saving forests. I am passionate about forests, but getting only five letters on the care crisis shows that this is an issue of isolation and we should stand up about it.

[Andrew George]

Like the hon. Lady, I have shadowed care workers in my constituency. One point that often comes across is that when I ask those who pontificate from on high—criticising poor care standards and implying that it relates to the character of the people providing the service—whether they would be prepared to do this job, no one wants to do it, even at twice the salary.

[Liz Kendall]

I completely agree. That is why Unison’s report, “Time to Care”, which has given people a voice, is important.

The third fundamental issue is that our NHS and care system have not kept pace with changing demographics—people living longer—and changing needs and expectations. Families cannot always cope with caring for elderly relatives, and older people want to stay in their homes for longer. In the past, it was not the business of the NHS and social care to think about the home; its business was always about sending people to institutions.

What should be done? I want to raise four matters with the Minister. First, I know that the Low Pay Commission has looked at the minimum wage. Will he confirm, however, that as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East said, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has ruled that it is not legal to pay for travel time? If that is the case, what is being done about that? What action has been taken? In any other area, there would be legal action to enforce the minimum wage, so what is being done?

Secondly, I know that the Minister wants a shift to commissioning for outcomes, rather than by the minute. That is the Government’s policy, but how will he make that work in action? What are his levers over local councils? Thirdly, it is time to have a national strategy for improving training for home care workers. What are the Government’s plans?

Finally, although the announcement on the Dilnot cap is a step forward, Dilnot has always said, as the Minister will know, that proper funding is needed in the current system, which this Government have not produced. I know that he will be in intense conversations with the Treasury over the future budget. If, following the Budget, the Government decide to pull over more money from the NHS to social care, will he ring-fence that money this time?

10:47

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) on securing this incredibly important debate. As was pointed out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the subject is too often neglected. It is literally hidden behind closed doors, and it does not get the attention it deserves. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), and the hon. Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he drew attention to the brilliant work done by Crossroads in many parts of the country—and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who spoke from direct personal experience.

I totally agree with the shadow Minister that the health and care system has not kept pace with the demands and challenges of an ageing society, and that we need a fundamental re-engineering of how we deliver care. I have a passionate belief in the need to shift towards an integrated care model, in which we shape services around the needs of the individual, rather than those of the institution, which is a shift that must happen.

Before I go into details, let me say that I applaud Unison for having undertaken the report that several hon. Members have mentioned. When its staff wrote to me about the report, I asked officials to meet them, and they will meet soon. I, too, asked to meet them, and I will discuss their concerns with them next month. I recently met some care workers, with another hon. Member, to hear directly from them, and I want to experience myself what goes on—often behind closed doors.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned whistleblowers, and I have a lot of sympathy with the points he made. Last January, the Government extended the Government-funded whistleblowing helpline to the whole of the care sector, so that any care worker can find out how to pursue their concerns. Of course, as employees, care workers have employment law protection, and we should encourage them all to use their rights.

The Government want to do all we can to ensure that standards of care remain as high as possible, and indeed improve. That is the challenge we all face. People who receive home care and their families should be able to expect the highest quality of care every time. I am aware of the many examples of poor care. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members drew our attention to some pretty shocking case studies and to the fact that someone can have up to 13 different care workers over a relatively short space of time. As the hon. Member for Leicester West said, it is completely unacceptable that a person has to receive quite intimate care from someone whom they have never met before. Moreover, the idea of a zero-hours contract is, in most circumstances, completely incompatible with a model of high quality care, in which the individual really gets to know their care worker.

The CQC report “Not just a number” highlighted some serious concerns, which we must take action to address. The responsibility for bringing about improvement rests with all the key players, including the providers, the councils and the regulator. The Government too must take their share of the responsibility here. The trick is to erase the bad, keep the good and improve services across the board.

The care and support White Paper sets out our intentions to improve the standard of social care. We will do that primarily by investing in people—by focusing attention on the staff who provide care in the first place. I want to join the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members in paying tribute to care workers, the vast majority of whom do really excellent work, often in difficult circumstances. They work under real pressures because of the way in which care is commissioned over very short spaces of time. We are seeing a race to the bottom, and we must move away from that. It puts care workers under impossible pressure and it does not provide good quality care.

Another matter I feel strongly about, and to which I referred in my response to the Winterbourne View scandal, is that there must be much more effective corporate accountability. Some companies are making very good money out of home care, so accountability must go with that profit making. It is unacceptable that home care providers sometimes allow negligent care to take place under their watch, and they must be held to account for it. Poor care, private or public, should be condemned wherever it exists. We must not have the idea that poor care exists only in the private sector. It was intolerable that hundreds of people died in Mid-Staffordshire hospital, an NHS hospital, as a result of poor care, and it is equally unacceptable when it happens under the watch of a private provider.

It is impossible to speak about improving standards without also talking about human capital. Care workers who feel valued and encouraged will perform better; it is as simple as that. The more attention the Government pay to the skills, training and personal development of the work force, the better are our chances of improving standards. After all, it is the care workers, not us in Parliament, who ultimately provide the care. We must increase the capacity and the capability of the social care work force, give people better information about care providers and improve the performance of the regulator, the Care Quality Commission. All those things will make social care a more attractive place for people to work and, most importantly, improve the quality of services.

We will shortly introduce new minimum standards to improve training for care staff to make sure that all employees have the foundations for excellence. My focus must be on training and standards, and ensuring that they apply across the board. I am dubious about the idea of creating a new regulator or of using the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which has not had a great record, to regulate some 1.5 million people. The money that is available should perhaps go to the front-line workers, rather than on creating new bureaucratic structures. I will give way to the hon. Lady, and ask her to be very quick if she does not mind.

[Alison McGovern]

I will be speedy. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said about the causes of the problem. He does not seem to have mentioned funding pressures on local government. Will he respond to that point, because it is a massive constraint on improvements in the sector?

[Norman Lamb]

I will directly address that point. The analysis of the independent King’s Fund said that provided councils apply the money that the Government have allocated to care and undertake proper efficiency savings, which the previous Labour Government recognised had to happen across health and care, they should be able to continue to provide the level of service that exists at present. We need to think more fundamentally about a much more integrated approach between health and care. We can save resources and improve care if we bring the systems much more closely together.

It was, I think, the hon. Member for Wirral South who made the point about looking at care as an aspirational role.

[Alison McGovern]

indicated assent.

[Norman Lamb]

I totally agree with her. If a worker can aspire to something better—perhaps a progression in their career—they will commit themselves very fully to the role. The idea of a vocational progression towards nursing, even if, at the end of the day, a degree is involved, should be opened up much more than it is at present. I completely agree with her on the points that she makes.

I share the concerns that hon. Members have raised about pay. There have been reports that some home care workers may be working for less than the minimum wage, which is an absolutely disgraceful situation for a vast number of reasons, not least because an illegally low wage will never produce excellent results and it is an exploitation of the worker that we must not tolerate. It is the responsibility of all employers, including home care providers, to pay staff at least the national minimum wage. The Government are working closely with the Low Pay Commission and local authorities to address that issue. I can assure all hon. Members that we will not accept anything less than 100% compliance with the regulations.

When I was a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I wanted to change the rules to make it easier to name and shame employers who fail to pay the minimum wage. We must regard that as completely unacceptable practice, and any employer who indulges in it should be exposed; it is utterly intolerable.

[Lilian Greenwood]

rose—

[Norman Lamb]

I am conscious that time is tight and I want to address the remaining points.

The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), who is no longer in her seat, raised concerns about potentially bogus arrangements in her constituency in Bexley. I think that she is writing to me on that matter, and I will be happy to look into it.

Care providers are also responsible for ensuring that their services meet the requirements in regulations and essential standards. The regulator, the Care Quality Commission, has powers that it can use to make sure that that happens. The CQC has our full support to use those powers as it sees fit to drive improvements in services. It is worth taking a moment to talk about the CQC report, which we have been discussing this morning. Between April and July 2012, the CQC inspected 250 registered home care providers as part of a themed programme to highlight respecting and involving people who use services and safeguarding them from abuse and neglect. To ensure that everything was examined thoroughly, it involved the people who use the services as well as the people who provide them. It looked at how staff are supported and how standards are maintained. Overall, the CQC found that 74% of the services that it inspected met the standards, and about a quarter did not. That is unacceptable and we must all focus our attention on those services.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to concerns about CQC’s capabilities in Oxfordshire, and I am aware of local media attention on that. My officials have raised those concerns with CQC and they were assured that it is on track to achieve its goal of inspecting 100% of adult social care locations across Oxfordshire by 31 March, that its Oxfordshire compliance team now consists of 10 full-time inspectors and that, after a period of recruitment, CQC has had no vacancies in the area since last December. If concerns continue, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to contact me and I will be happy to look into them further.

The importance of commissioning must be stressed. Commissioning over short periods of time—that race to the bottom—is unacceptable. We must commission on the basis of quality, as the hon. Member for Leicester West said. Finally, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing such an important subject for debate.

Brechfa West Wind Farm

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Turner. Two minutes ago, I was getting slightly worried that the Minister was going to miss the debate, but I am delighted to see him in his place now. I should have known better, and that he would not let the House down.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. However, if I had my way we would not be having this debate here today, as the matter under consideration, which essentially relates to the exploitation of Welsh natural resources, would be a matter for Welsh democratic institutions.

I have yet to be a Member of Parliament for three years—I am coming up to the three-year anniversary—but I have already lost count of the number of times that I have raised the issue of the need to devolve responsibility for these issues. Indeed, I introduced my own Bill, which was unceremoniously voted down by Tory and Labour MPs before it even got to Second Reading.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Hear, hear.

[Jonathan Edwards]

To be fair, the Liberal Democrats joined us in the Lobby, and I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who led that rebellion, present in Westminster Hall today.

Many of my constituents are extremely confused why some developments within the two technical advice note 8, or TAN 8, areas that I have in my constituency are a matter for the local planning authority, and why the development at Brechfa West is determined by the Minister. This development by RWE npower renewables is aimed at generating up to 84 MW, and therefore supersedes the ridiculous 50 MW limit that currently determines where responsibility lies.

The Minister will be aware that the UK Government-sponsored Silk commission is currently taking evidence on part two of its report. My party has called for the devolution of power to determine all energy-generating developments. The Labour Government in Wales have limited themselves to calling for full devolution of renewable energy projects. I read in the Western Mail that even the Tory Assembly group wants to increase the limit to 100 MW, although the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) has declared on Twitter that that will happen only “over his dead body”. I have not seen a submission by the Lib Dems on the Silk report but I am confident they will be on the side of progress on this issue.

[Mr Williams]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the Welsh Lib Dem commitment that the power to determine all those consents regarding projects above 50 MW should be vested in Assembly Ministers. That is of direct relevance not only to the two TAN 8 areas in his constituency but to a significant TAN 8 plan in Nant y Moch, which is in my Ceredigion constituency.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am glad to see that commitment by the Lib Dems in Wales. However, we have seen the UK Government submission, which I believe was published this morning. I have not read it in great detail, but I am led to believe that it argues for maintaining the status quo. If that is the case, it will be slightly embarrassing for the Tories and the Lib Dems in Wales.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I am greatly opposed to devolution of these matters, but that is purely because in my view the Westminster Government are more likely to listen to the opinions of local people than the Welsh Government are at the current time. That is the reason why I am opposed to devolution on this issue and will continue to oppose it; it is in the interests of local democracy and reflecting the opinions of local people. I would have thought that he might support me on that.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I hope that that is indeed the case, and that is why I secured this debate in the House this morning.

Ministers need to be aware that the current situation is frowned upon by people in Wales, who are protective of their natural resources. They do not understand why Scotland and Northern Ireland have full control over this policy field, while Welsh projects over the 50 MW limit are determined in London.

I have been forced to call this debate because my constituents feel that they have had precious little opportunity to express their views. All developments to date within TAN 8 area G have been determined by the local planning authority. Each development has been open to a full public consultation, and the lines of accountability with the planning department and planning committee have been clear. Indeed, based on the experiences of the only functioning development within the TAN 8 area, local planning guidance has been amended to include mitigating measures, such as an enhanced buffer zone.

None of those things applies to the Brechfa West development, as it is being determined under a completely different set of planning criteria. Local people feel that that particular development is being determined in a completely undemocratic manner. Only last week, a group of them travelled all the way down to London to present a dossier to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and I am confident that the Minister has read that document in the meantime. They feel that consultation by the planning inspector was lacking, and are as aggrieved as I am that the Minister and his team are making this decision without having even visited the area concerned. The Minister could have taken his dog, Otto, for a walk in the area, as it is a lovely part of west Wales, enjoyed by tourists from around the world.

As much as I would like to, I am not going to spend the time available to me today making the case—once again—for repatriation of energy powers to Wales. Instead, as the Minister will be making his decision on the Brechfa West project within the next week, I want to move on to the substantive issues regarding this development, and in particular the issues that have been raised with me by constituents.

Put simply, neither I nor my constituents are satisfied that either the Minister or the Secretary of State will visit Brechfa before passing judgment on the wind farm application. Even local planning authorities, made up of councillors living within the county, carry out regular site visits to gain a sound understanding of any proposed development. How can my constituents have any confidence in the Minister’s decision when he—sitting in his office down here in London—decides on an application for a project that is more than 200 miles away, in a village he does not know, in a community he does not understand and in a county he will not visit?

Many constituents have written to me regarding the noise levels of existing wind turbines situated in TAN 8 area G, more commonly known as Alltwalis wind farm, which is a stone’s throw away from the proposed Brechfa West development. Target noise limits for the proposed Brechfa West wind farm are based on ETSU-R-97, the same methodology used for the existing Alltwalis turbines. As the Minister should be aware, the 10 turbines at Alltwalis already make the maximum noise permitted under ETSU-R-97. The 28 proposed turbines at Brechfa West would inevitably add to the existing noise, thereby breaching noise limits. My constituents firmly believe there was no proper discussion during the planning process for Brechfa West about the cumulative noise effect, or about the possibility of using alternative noise or turbulence measurements to ETSU-R-97.

Of course, ETSU-R-97 is itself unsatisfactory. Since 2009, the UK Government have asked, first, Hayes McKenzie and, secondly, the Institute of Acoustics to review the application of ETSU-R-97, which is the Government’s recommended methodology for predicting and assessing the noise coming from wind turbines. As I have pointed out in correspondence and on the Floor of the House, the issue is not how consistently ETSU-R-97 is applied but whether it is effective in protecting people who live near turbines. The Minister should ask my constituents about this issue. It is their strong view that ETSU-R-97 is far from effective, and I strongly believe—I make the point again today—that the UK Government should commit to reviewing ETSU-R-97 on that basis.

The National Assembly for Wales agrees with that position. In May 2012, its Petitions Committee carried out a review into the control of noise from wind turbines. The cross-party group of Assembly Members made four key recommendations, one of which was that

“ETSU-R-97 guidelines be revised to take into account the lower ambient noise levels in rural areas and the latest research and World Health Organisation evidence on the effects on sleep disturbance.”

My constituents would be very interested to know the Minister’s views on that recommendation and whether he agrees with colleagues in the National Assembly.

Is the Minister content to allow wind farm applications to be judged in accordance with guidance that is 16 years old and arguably out of date? If so, what assurances will he put on record today to state categorically that the proposed 28 turbines at Brechfa West will not exceed the noise limits set out in the guidance? Why is there no provision, for example, for excess amplitude modulation? In particular, how will any breaches of noise regulations be policed? Which development—Alltwalis or Brechfa West—will face enforcement action? To whom will local people complain? Will it be to the local planning authority or to DECC here in Whitehall? Those are complicated issues and I am not convinced that the architects of TAN 8, which concentrates developments within strategic zones, have thought them through. Admittedly, that is, of course, an issue for the Welsh Government, as TAN 8 is Welsh Government policy.

It cannot be right that some of my constituents consistently lose sleep due to the effects of wind turbines. If the Minister is minded to approve the Brechfa West application, my constituents would expect his personal reassurance that no resident will suffer loss of sleep due to the turbines and that there will be clear enforcement procedures to protect them.

I have also received many complaints from constituents about the access route for the Brechfa West development, which will be built only 150 metres away from the access route to the Alltwalis site. I have written to the Minister about that issue. Surely it is ridiculous that the developments will not be forced to use the same access route, should Brechfa West be approved, because they adjoin the same location. The operator of the Alltwalis development, Statkraft, has a continuing dispute with the landowner of its access route, and the situation has turned extremely unpleasant. Surely the Department should use the new adjacent development at Brechfa West to address some of the outstanding issues with the Alltwalis development, if the Minister consents to the Brechfa West development in the next week.

In answer to my recent parliamentary question, the Minister confirmed that the Planning Act 2008

“allows for applications for development consent for new generating stations above 50 megawatts (MW) and associated electricity connections to be contained in a single application, or in separate applications submitted in tandem”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 956W.]

Given that the Minister will be determining the Brechfa West application on its own, my constituents in Brechfa, and in the surrounding communities of the majestic Towy and Teifi valleys, can reasonably expect him to give a cast-iron guarantee this morning that no additional infrastructure, such as pylons or electricity cabling, will be required to connect the Brechfa West turbines to the national grid.

The infrastructure has been more contentious in mid-Wales than the energy-generating projects themselves. The understanding of local people is that, should the Minister approve Brechfa West, National Grid will make an infrastructure planning application linking TAN 8 area G in the north of my constituency and TAN 8 area E in the south before joining the main south Wales electricity network at Swansea.

[Glyn Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me a second intervention. Does he agree that, for any other form of application, seeking approval without the associated infrastructure just would not happen? Someone could not seek permission for a house if there was no road to it, yet in mid-Wales we have a public inquiry into six wind farms without any idea of how the power is going out. The idea is that the approval of the wind farms would force the infrastructure to follow. That is absolutely outrageous. The Governments in Westminster and in Cardiff are forcing something on local people and are coming up with every stunt in the book to try to undermine local opinion.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Indeed, the Department’s planning guidance is that projects and infrastructure should be agreed in tandem.

The Merched Beca uprising of the 19th century was spawned in the communities of north Carmarthenshire, and if the worst fears about pylons are realised, there will be huge protests throughout Carmarthenshire, as we have seen in mid-Wales.

If the Minister is not prepared to give a guarantee, my constituents would expect a moratorium on the Brechfa West application until additional planning applications for electricity infrastructure are submitted. As UK Government energy planning policy dictates, the applications should be considered together, otherwise the people of Carmarthenshire would rightly feel they have been misled by his Department, the Labour Government in Cardiff and the multinational companies involved in the development.

Given that there are 10 turbines in Alltwalis, that 15 turbines are currently being erected on Betws mountain in TAN 8 area E and that a proposal for 21 further turbines was recently refused for Llanllwni mountain in the TAN 8 area of north Carmarthenshire, it seems logical for electricity infrastructure proposals to be submitted in tandem. Only then will those passing judgment on the applications have a true and accurate picture of the impact the developments would have on the communities I represent.

I find myself in the somewhat strange position of defending the interests of the defence industry and its testing of unmanned aerial vehicles to justify my constituents’ concerns on Brechfa West. My opposition to UAVs is a matter of public record, and I stand by my comments. Nevertheless, my constituents have significant concerns about the safety of operations in what is now regrettably a highly militarised area.

Since the planning process ended, the Ministry of Defence has warned that the proposed Brechfa West turbines would cause unacceptable interference to range-control radar at Aberporth. The interference would desensitise radar in the vicinity of the turbines, leading to aircraft not being detected and not being identifiable to air traffic control. There would also be false aircraft returns, thereby increasing the workload of controllers and air crews, which would have a significant operational impact.

The MOD also states that radar is used to separate and sequence both military and civilian aircraft, and that

“radar is the only way to do this safely.”

The Minister should be aware that the whole of north Carmarthenshire was recently designated an air corridor for the testing of military drones between the air base at Aberporth on the Ceredigion coast and the military training area on Epynt mountain in south Powys.

Despite identifying risks to public safety, and initially demanding that those risks be mitigated by developers before any construction begins, the MOD withdrew its objections before the start of the planning process. It has been suggested that the MOD was subjected to considerable pressure from the developer, and the MOD apparently made the decision only for legal reasons—for fear of facing a legal challenge— and not because of a change in policy or position.

[Mr Mark Williams]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the pressure that may have been brought to bear on the MOD goes to the heart of the issue about conflicting policy agendas? The Welsh Assembly Government and the MOD are investing a lot of money in the development of drones at ParcAberporth, but TAN 8 wind turbine sites are being designated comparatively nearby. That is a big clash of policy, is it not?

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. North Carmarthenshire now has the only air corridor over the British mainland, yet the area has been heavily mapped for the development of renewable projects, which affect defence projects. There seems to be a lack of coherence, whether that is the responsibility of the Welsh Government or the UK Government—the air corridor is a UK Government policy, of course.

Additionally, the MOD is blocking the Met Office’s objection to the proposed wind farm, which, again, was formulated on public safety grounds due to interference to the only weather radar station in Wales. As we are talking about flying objects, with rumours of weaponised drones being tested in the near future, those responsible for approving the wind farm must be satisfied that the development poses no public risk. Will the Minister outline his understanding of why those objections from the MOD and the Met Office were withheld?

My constituents have endeavoured to engage with each and every step of the application process. Many have been unable to take part due to different authorities being responsible for developments of different sizes, which leads to confusion. I find myself getting confused, and I am a Member of Parliament. Some of my constituents have requested that, at the very least, turbines 17, 18 and 23 be removed to minimise the noise and visual impact on their homes. If the Minister decides to approve the development in the next week, I would ask that he particularly considers those three turbines.

It is regrettable that I have had to secure this debate to air my constituents’ concerns. My constituents feel that, compared with the planning processes of the local planning authority, they have been unable to express their view on the procedures employed by the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the Department. There is no doubt in my mind that decisions on such developments should be made in Wales. I hope the Minister, before he makes his decision within the next week, will consider the points I have raised today.

11:17

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on securing this debate. I know he has taken a strong and long-standing interest in the topic, which is important for his constituents. Over the past three years—his anniversary is coming up—he has been diligent in asking written and oral questions in the House.

I am sorry to start my response to this interesting debate by making what might seem to be an unhelpful statement, but the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the Department is currently considering the application for development consent from RWE npower renewables on the proposed Brechfa Forest West wind farm. Given my quasi-judicial role in approving the application, I regret that I am unable to comment on the merits of the arguments for and against the proposal made both this morning and during the Planning Inspectorate’s lengthy examination of the application.

I am also unable to respond to the pithy interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), but I acknowledge their points. I assure them that I have listened carefully to the discussions this morning. I cannot prejudge the outcome, but I will consider whether any of the points raised are material to the deliberations on the consent. There will be a revised submission in light of this debate, and my officials and I will read it carefully before coming to our considered decision.

My deliberations will also have to include the other relevant matters that have been drawn to my attention, including the representations delivered to the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and several of his constituents last week, and the report from the Planning Inspectorate dated 12 December 2012, which drew together the various issues that were considered during the examination of the Brechfa application.

The hon. Gentleman expressed his frustration that I had not been able to visit the site. I can assure him that that is nothing peculiar to his constituency, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it is in Wales. It is not usual for a Planning Minister to visit individual sites, because that might jeopardise, counteract or duplicate the professional site visits that the Planning Inspectorate undertakes. It is my job to bring together all those detailed observations and the representations made locally, and to consider them. I could carry out that consideration in Whitehall or Kathmandu, but I have to look at the evidence impartially and reach a decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no reluctance on my part to visit such a beautiful part of the country, and I am sure that were Otto given a say in the matter, he would be all in favour of a site visit.

For the sake of clarity, it might be worth setting out briefly the process by which the Brechfa application and other infrastructure projects classified as nationally significant—in the case of onshore wind farms, those with a generating capacity of more than 50 MW—are considered and determined. One of the key planks of the Planning Act 2008 process for such projects is the role of the Planning Inspectorate. Until its report and recommendation are submitted to the Secretary of State, the inspectorate leads on various aspects of the process. It is, therefore, the inspectorate that engages in discussions with applicants before an application for development consent is submitted; it is the inspectorate that considers whether an application should be accepted for examination; and it is the inspectorate that will conduct the examination of that application. As part of the examination, the inspectorate’s examining authority—either an individual or a panel of three of five members that is hearing the case—visits the sites of proposed developments. That is as it should be. The inspectorate’s officers have the expertise to assess the issues on the ground and weigh up the benefits, or otherwise, of the proposed development package. It is not Ministers’ place to engage in that aspect of the process.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I accept the points that the Minister makes, but that means that we must essentially accept on blind faith the advice of the inspectorate. My constituents have expressed to me their concern that such work was not carried out properly.

[Gregory Barker]

In considering all the evidence, I will have the opportunity to weigh against the professional submissions that I receive additional submissions from local people, not least the information that the hon. Gentleman has so assiduously brought to my attention. He brought it to my Department last week, and I can assure him that it will be weighed in the balance as a decision is reached.

As indicated earlier, it is only at the end of the process that the Secretary of State can consider the information that has been provided by the applicant and any interested parties, and the way in which the Planning Inspectorate’s examiner has considered those matters. Finally, the Planning Act process is precise about the timetable for decision making. Decisions must be made within three months of the submission of the Planning Inspectorate’s report and recommendation. I am sure we all agree that it is in nobody’s interest for such decisions to be spun out, leaving local communities and businesses hanging, waiting for Government decisions. If that timetable cannot be met, the responsible Minister must make a statement to Parliament and to interested parties indicating why not. In the case of the Brechfa application, a decision must be reached by 12 March 2013, so we are close now.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I know that the Minister wants to make progress, and I am listening intently to what he is saying. One of the arguments against the development is that it will not be possible to use the existing electricity connection grids to transmit the energy to the main line in south Wales, which runs from Alltwalis to Carmarthen. New infrastructure will be required, and the UK Government’s planning guidance clearly states that such projects should be considered in tandem.

[Gregory Barker]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises the question of grid connection for the Brechfa project. Although I cannot go into detail and comment on the specifics of that case, for obvious reasons, it might be worth outlining the process that is set out in the overarching national policy statement for energy, which is known as EN-1, for considering grid connection issues. EN-1 sets out that, wherever possible, applications for new generating stations and related infrastructure should be contained in a single application to the Planning Inspectorate or in separate applications submitted in tandem that have been prepared in an integrated way.

[Glyn Davies]

Does the Minister know that the inspector in the conjoined public inquiry into the six applications I mentioned has specifically refused to do that? Protesters, including me, have wanted that to happen, but the inspector has refused to look at the infrastructure side at the same time, even though that would satisfy local people’s concerns.

[Gregory Barker]

I hear my hon. Friend’s point, and clearly it would be best for the applications to be made in tandem. However, that is not always possible, and it may not always be the most practicable way of dealing with such issues. In some cases, therefore, applicants may decide to submit an application that seeks consent for one element but contains some information on the second strand of the project, including an assessment of impacts. Where that is the case, the decision maker will need to be satisfied that there are no obvious reasons why the necessary approvals for the other element—the grid infrastructure—are likely to be refused.

I would like to touch on the other big issue that was raised, namely the devolution of consenting powers for energy infrastructure to Welsh Ministers. I understand that that raises a degree of emotion. The Government support the principle that decisions for particular matters should be taken at the most appropriate level, and as locally as possible, wherever that is feasible. For nationally significant energy infrastructure projects in England and Wales, as defined in the Planning Act, we consider that the right decision maker is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. For offshore renewable energy projects of up to and including 100 MW, that responsibility is vested in the Marine Management Organisation, under the relevant provisions in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. We believe that the present arrangements for decision making are fit for purpose in that they minimise delays and unpredictability and ensure investor confidence in the decision-making process.

The major infrastructure planning regimes are different in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for historical reasons, and they reflect each nation’s devolution settlement. The Planning Act and the Localism Act 2011, which broadly cover England and Wales, introduced the current major infrastructure planning regime. Those changes were devolution-neutral and did not make any significant changes to the division of responsibility between the local and national consenting authorities. The Government are clear that any requests for further devolution of powers in this area to Welsh Ministers or the Welsh Assembly should be considered in the light of any recommendations made by the Silk commission, which is currently reviewing the powers of the National Assembly for Wales and is due to publish its recommendations in spring 2014.

The hon. Gentleman asked about noise and reliance on regulations that date back to 1996. We have procured updated analysis from acoustic experts Hayes McKenzie, which carried out a research project. Its report was published in June 2011, and it found that although ETSU-R-97 guidance remained fit for purpose, good practice guidance was needed to confirm, and where necessary clarify, how it is being implemented in practice. We are producing new guidance, which will be published in the first half of 2013. We are updating the guidance, but we believe that it is fit for purpose. I am afraid I cannot go into more detail, but I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

British Retail

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Meale in the Chair]

14:30

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to introduce this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

I chose to call a debate on retail for two purposes. From a parochial point of view, retail is a significant employer in Watford and a significant contributor to the economy. Also, the press that retail receives nationally, with glamorous Sky reporters standing in front of shops such as Blockbuster and HMV that are shutting down, gives a false impression of the sector’s overall prosperity and contribution to the economy.

Members of Parliament and the public at large should realise that retail is a big sector of the economy, and contributes in excess of 5% of GDP. Although the Government are trying to encourage growth in the manufacturing sector, the retail sector contributes more added value to the economy.

Retail is able to offer increasingly sophisticated employment. The old impression that people work in shops because they cannot do anything else is no longer relevant. Retail jobs are highly trained, and there are many apprentices. Many people, including me, started their business career in the retail sector. Following my law degree, I was a graduate trainee at John Lewis, which gave me ideas for developing my life both in business and more generally. It all went well until I became interested in politics.

Retail contributes employment and taxation not only through pay-as-you-earn and corporation tax but through business rates. The sector is a big contributor to urban regeneration. People do not think of retail as a factor in urban regeneration, but they only have to look at places such as Westfield on the Olympic site. When I went to work in Watford’s Harlequin centre, which is now known as Intu, in 1980, it was the poorest part of town, notwithstanding the efforts of John Lewis and other old retailers that had been there for 50 years, 100 years or more. The Harlequin centre was certainly not the sort of place people would want to go unless they had to go shopping.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that the vibrancy of high streets that are under pressure from some of the multiples is also down to niche independents? Allowing niche independents to thrive and grow is vital.

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I would expect nothing less. Independents are very much part of the story, and they are necessary, but large companies developing real estate and operating shops create massive employment, massive taxation and a massive contribution to urban regeneration, although that takes nothing from the validity of my hon. Friend’s point.

Things have changed. Everyone knows that in the past, apart from the high street, most towns had parades of shops. The developers of the masses of residential areas across London and the home counties from the time trains opened up those places would, for every few hundred houses, build a parade of shops that included a fruiterer, a greengrocer, a fishmonger, a general grocer and so on. Various things in the cycle, certainly in my lifetime, have kept those parades going.

I remember when the supermarkets started to take hold and some of those shops became empty and were replaced by banks, which were opening chains of local branches. It is hard to imagine now, but there was a big fight for which bank could get there first. Then there were estate agents. Again, if there was a spare unit, people would open an estate agency. There always seemed to be something, but that is not the case now.

With the internet there is less demand for individual units. There is plenty of supply, because, in many cases, the units were built before the second world war, if not before the first world war.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate.

One of the changes is that massive supermarkets are also becoming dominant players in the convenience sector and are appearing in every community, rather than simply in out of town or city centre locations. Has the hon. Gentleman reflected on the health, or otherwise, of that for British retail and market diversity in those communities?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes, I have reflected on that fundamental point. Many hon. Members want to contribute, so I cannot address all aspects of retail. Suffice it to say that although in the past shops appeared, on the surface, to give people much greater choice, if we add the internet and other channels, people have great choice now. I do not completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but his point is valid.

Many people of my father’s generation came out of the Army with a small amount of money and could never dream of opening a big factory or going into a big form of business, but they were able to use their money to open a market stall, as my father did in Yorkshire. Unfortunately, the Marks and Spencer dream of going from a penny bazaar to a major multinational did not happen in my family, but we ended up with two market stalls. My father’s business doubled in size over 30 years from one market stall to two.

The serious point is that in those days the barriers to entry were low and could be met by people with small savings and an idea. For almost any item of clothing, household goods, luggage or anything that people could think of, there was a place for a niche shop. It is easy to say, “All that has changed. It is now in the hands of Tesco and the other big companies.” I do not quite buy that, although, yes, in the start-up system it is generally true that not many people, for a number of reasons, are opening shops; they are not saying, “I want to sell shoes, so I am going to take a store in Watford high street.”

Even if someone is acceptable as a tenant, they probably cannot afford to pay the rent or the rates. Compared with my father’s generation, there probably is not the same demand for the high street, but that does not include internet start-ups. There are many such examples in my constituency, including the sister of Jenny Reed, who works in my office. Hayley Reed had no business experience, but she set up a shop in her spare room. If I might ruthlessly plug the shop, it is called ProperPresent.com, and is similar to what previous generations would have created in bricks and mortar. The retail sector, albeit differently, still allows for start-ups and for choices that fit people’s modern lifestyle.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this hugely important debate, and I support his point. The coming changes in technology represent enormous challenges and opportunities for retail. Does he agree, therefore, that it is important that the Government take a long, hard look at the changes taking place in the sector and the policies that we need to implement to maximise employment opportunities? Does he welcome the news that the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills has recently agreed to launch an inquiry into the changes that are taking place in the retail sector?

[Richard Harrington]

I more than welcome the inquiry. It shows that retailing is being treated seriously as an industry in its own right, rather than as just a mechanical part of the distribution chain. It contributes as much as manufacturing and other sectors. I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend says.

The ultimate answer to the question of choice in retail is whether the public are given a better service today. I argue that they certainly are. When I worked at Trewins, which was John Lewis in 1980, we shut on Saturday at lunch time, on Sunday and on Monday. Now the equivalent—the Intu shopping centre, formerly known as the Harlequin, in Watford—is, for better or for worse, open every day. People have the choice to shop all the hours they want. Similarly, from the small independent point of view, although I agree that the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker are not there, the internet gives the public a huge amount of choice and very good service. Although the developments in the retail trade are muted in people’s minds by the shops, chains and household names that have closed down, the public are given a much better service.

We need only look at the effect on the economy. Again, to be parochial, the main shopping centre in Watford replaced a sprawling mix of businesses, including the smallest abattoir left in England, an old Sainsbury’s branch and lots of different warehouses. For the past 20 years, the main shopping centre has had 147 stores, but the important thing is that it directly employs more than 4,000 people, plus the distribution chain and all the businesses in it. The shopping centre contributes about £14.5 million in business rates, which is a tremendous amount. It has about 750,000 square feet of infrastructure, and has upgraded that whole part of town.

I am not saying that there have not been consequences. It would be wrong of me to say that things are all one-way and all about prosperity; I am aware of the effect that shopping centres have on other things, but they are economic powerhouses in their own right. By any standards, the shopping centre is a big business, employs a lot of people and contributes a lot to the economy.

Similarly, nationally, companies such as Westfield have come from abroad to invest significant amounts of money in what it sounds trendier to call “urban regeneration” than “retail”. The east end, White City and other places throughout the country are major, long-term investment projects. Westfield has invested about £3.5 billion since it came to the UK in 2000, and created 25,000 jobs. If it were another kind of business and that sort of growth were announced over 10 years, there would be headlines all over the place.

Although I accept that retail is not the total answer to our economic problems, we must accept what it does for employment, infrastructure and areas where the rest of the private sector and the public sector have failed completely. It is a significant and serious business, and its problems must be considered by Government. I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) in the Chamber; I know that he is experienced in this subject. Government must turn their mind to retail, because it is such a significant employer and a significant contributor to the national economy.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate. The issue of employment has been raised, but does he agree that apprenticeships are another of retail’s valuable contributions? Sectors such as retail and catering offer important apprenticeships. They certainly do in Erewash. I recently visited Anderson’s on the High street, an independent coffee shop and caterers offering apprenticeships. Next week is national apprenticeship week. It is another important aspect of this debate that we must not miss.

[Richard Harrington]

I very much endorse what my hon. Friend says. As I said, it is easy to think of retail as “Open All Hours” with Ronnie Barker or Young Mr Grace appearing and saying “You’ve all done very well”, but shops invest a lot of money in training staff, and they know that a lot of their capital assets lie in the skills of those staff. Retail used to be minimum-wage drudge work, but it is fair to say, despite my lack of success in the John Lewis hierarchy, that now the management teams in some retail firms are comparable with almost anything else in this country, and the work starts from apprenticeship level. I totally agree.

However, there are some industry issues that we need to consider, and I will speak of them as I perceive them; I am not in any way a spokesperson for the industry, but I have tried to observe it and take all things into consideration. Business rates are a significant issue. In many cases, they are a more important overhead than rent. I believe that the industry contributes just short of £24 billion a year in business rates. That is a direct contribution to the local and national economy, and it is a serious amount.

The way that rates are linked to the retail prices index means that average shop rates have more or less doubled in the past 20 years. As most other valuations in the Government system these days are being linked to the consumer prices index rather than the RPI, that seems a little unfair. The industry’s greatest disappointment, which seems to have merit, is that there was talk of a fundamental revaluation that would remove many of the anomalies in the system, but it has now been postponed. It seems to me that there is a legitimate argument that in the interim, until the system is properly reviewed, rises should be limited by linking rates to CPI instead of RPI.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

I agree that business rates are crucial. I also think that we cannot divorce this debate from the general economic climate. Towards the end of last year, Ashfield lost its two Jonathan James shops. One of them, in Eastwood, has now been replaced by the Money Shop, a payday lender. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is crucial to this debate and to what our high streets look like is growth in the economy, not in payday loan companies?

[Richard Harrington]

I do not think that point is relevant in this particular case. As far as retailing is concerned, a payday loan company, provided that it is legal and proper in all that it carries out—I accept that there is a different issue—employs people in much the same way as a shop with the same number of staff. That is not to take away from the hon. Lady’s point, but from a retail perspective, it is important to realise that like traditional retailers, all those companies employ a lot of people and in that respect contribute a lot to the local economy, which is the subject of the debate.

Rates are an important issue to which the Government must turn their thoughts. The planning side of things is also important. The national planning framework, which I thought was absolutely excellent, gives a lot of emphasis to town centres and their development, but there seems to be no compliance mechanism. It must be remembered that more than 80% of planning applications for retail currently being considered are for out of town rather than in town centres. Given that it is generally agreed that the regeneration of town centres is a good thing, it would be good to have some form of compliance for ensuring that local authorities emphasise it.

We must accept that because there are now fewer functions for retail premises, local parades do not have the “get out of jail free” card that they used to have when new industries and uses would by and large appear. However one looks at high street retailing, there is less demand because of the internet, which has also brought many benefits. The Government’s current policies on relaxing planning rules to allow some units to return to residential use are a good thing and an acceptance of reality. Although one would hope that it was not the case and that some units could be live/work—for residential use at the same time as retail—the fact is that there are a lot of places where, if there is a convenience store, it is very good. I commend the convenience store sector for how it has adapted, notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) about the big supermarkets in all their guises, from hypermarkets to convenience stores, doing their best to dominate the market.

There is still a strong and good independent sector in this country, and long may it continue, but that sector will not fill up all the parades of shops and tertiary units, which were built with very good reason. In the case of many of our parents or grandparents—for some hon. Members, their great-grandparents—the husband would be at work and the wife would walk to the shops every day with the baby in the pram and the shopping trolley. The shops had to be nearby, because there was often no public transport and people certainly did not have a car. Most of us accept that has changed, and that planning laws have to change in respect of empty properties; we need both private and social accommodation and some of it could come from surplus retail space.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I declare an interest. Like my hon. Friend, I worked in the sector for about 20 years, either as a landlord or a tenant, and I echo his sentiments. The vital issue with retail space, in particular in city centres, is utilising the upper parts: residential conversion is crucial. For far too long, we have been obsessed with the ground-floor unit, almost dismissing the upper part. In continental Europe or other areas, people utilise the upstairs, which provides an alternative use.

[Richard Harrington]

I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend said.

I finish with two suggestions that might be unpopular with the large commercial sector, the shopping centre providers and commercial landlords. I mentioned many good points about companies such as Westfield and the strong regeneration sector; retail happens to be their product, but they are really redeveloping important parts of our landscape. However, it is almost impossible for independent retailers to get into such units. I am not talking about community efforts, an area for a market with local craftsmen and that type of thing; I am talking about people who are running proper businesses, be they start-ups or just one unit. They cannot get into the shopping centres because of the commercial value of a rent paid by an individual operator to the shareholders, many of which, ultimately, are the pension funds that look after all our pensions; those capital values are very much dependent on having big names in the units. As part of planning, the Government should look at the possibility of allocating to independent retailers a small number of units paying market rent; I am not arguing for any form of subsidy, except the sort that people get to move in, such as fitting out or a rent holiday. A number of shops should be allocated to companies with only one or two stores. That is the only way. It could be part of a general planning permission. I am not specifying half the units, or a quarter, but somehow it has to be realised in the retail sector that small companies and start-ups with capital—properly capitalised, I am not talking about ones that cannot compete from a capital point of view—should be allowed into those main retail centres.

My second suggestion will probably make me extremely unpopular, in particular with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal). Although the Government cannot do much about the role of small commercial landlords, those landlords are absolutely deluded about their ability to get the rents they ask. Their mentality is to ask for yesterday’s rent; because a shop was rented out 10 years ago at £40,000, they will keep it empty for three, four or five years under the delusion that they will get the same rent, and notwithstanding the fact that they are paying empty property rates, which I point out to the Minister it is right for them to be doing. If the vast array of small commercial landlords are listening to the debate or reading Hansard tomorrow, which I accept is completely unlikely, I have a suggestion that might help, although it is not the panacea for everything. As MPs, local councillors and people involved in the community, we could persuade small operators to come into some of those empty shops, but landlords asking for a rent that they once got 10 years ago makes it almost impossible.

In summary, retail should be recognised as a modern, vibrant sector, something that this country is good at and which contributes a lot to our national economy. It has to be accepted by Government that retail is up there with manufacturing and all the other businesses that the Government are promoting to help the country, and not, as used to be thought, something that just sucks in imports and is part of the distribution sector.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for being short with his time and generous to his colleagues who have made a number of interventions; I think we have had six. Six Members have written to me and I hope they will be called, but there are the two Front-Benchers and seven other people are indicating that they wish to speak, so I need your help to call everyone during the debate. Bearing in mind that most of those who have written in are sitting on the Government side of the Chamber, as are most of the Members attending, I hope that they will help their colleagues.

14:55

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing this important debate. I agree absolutely with many of his excellent points, which are based on huge experience of the sector.

The retail sector provides jobs for 3 million people nationally and is the UK’s largest private sector employer, accounting for about 10% of all jobs. More than half the people in the retail sector work part time, compared with about a third in other sectors, making it an important source of jobs for people seeking non-standard hours, such as pensioners or those combining work with study, child care or caring responsibilities. Retail is a diverse sector, ranging from market traders to high street giants, or from self-employed start-ups to global companies; they are the face of our high streets. Those high streets, however, are changing, not least because of the impact of the enormous growth in internet sales which, according to figures released this week, have seen a 10.9% increase since February 2012.

The UK is now the global leader for online shopping, and there has also been a dramatic growth in m-commerce —sales over mobile phones—of more than 500% in the past two years. Verdict, the retail analyst, has forecast that almost £1 in every £4 spent online will be through a mobile in 2017. A staggering 73% of smartphone users now use their phones when out shopping. Successful town centres in the future will be those that understand that, and where traditional retailing and leisure converge seamlessly with new technology.

Recent figures show that retail sales are up but that footfall is down, perhaps reflecting changing shopping habits that have led to many empty retail units nationally. It is not entirely helpful to produce a league table of empty shops as a reflection of what may be happening in a particular town, because high streets are going through transition and many councils are looking to use some of the surplus units for other uses, such as residential use. A couple of hon. Members have made that point. That is why a key principle of the Portas pilots was understanding that high streets are not simply collections of shops but public spaces where people can socialise, eat out, access other services and enjoy leisure, arts and cultural activities. I am pleased that Stockport is one of the Portas pilot areas. Our pilot is being led by the creative industries bringing together local people to think up new and innovative ideas.

Stockport is facing the challenge of revitalising a traditional shopping arcade squeezed by competition from nearby centres in Manchester and Trafford Park, and the historic Market place and Underbanks with their empty retail units. We have attracted new retailers, in particular young entrepreneurs, into historic parts of our town. We have a “Vintage Village” market, which takes place every month in the market hall, attracting traders and visitors from throughout the UK. It recently won a prestigious magazine award and has been so successful that the organisers now have a permanent shop in which they rent space to other traders. The fair contributes to the efforts to regenerate the beautifully restored and redeveloped market hall and Market place into the thriving trade hub it has been for 750 years.

We also have the innovative teenage market, which Mary Portas has described as “unique and inspiring”. It was created in 2012 by teenage brothers Joe and Tom Barratt as an event where young people could have a free stall in Stockport market to sell their creative products. It is not only an event but an online television show and an initiative dedicated to supporting young creative talent. It provides a free platform for young painters, fashion designers, jewellery makers, graffiti artists, photographers, graphic designers, bakers, poets, comedians, musicians, singers, dancers and other performers.

Stockport’s famous Plaza, which is a splendid vintage cinema and theatre, has been awarded £20,000 from the Portas pilot initiative towards the cost of installing digital projection equipment. That has enabled the Plaza to start satellite screenings of the National Theatre, the Bolshoi ballet and, later this season, the Glyndebourne opera, alongside community usage for events and film screenings, including old and much-loved classics.

One of Stockport’s difficulties is that it shuts at 5 pm. It needs to develop a night-time economy to compete with nearby towns. Stockport market has a major role to play in enabling the change to a night-time economy. Traditional street markets like that in Stockport must provide better food offers, with specialist stalls, and offer cultural events. It must be seen as not so much a shopping experience but an entertainment experience—a sort of retail theatre.

On market day 750 years ago, families would come with goods to sell and see and experience the sights, smells and sounds of the market, which offered not only fresh produce but entertainment, food and drink and the chance to catch up with fellow townspeople. I believe that such an environment is still hugely attractive, particularly to families, and can provide early-evening entertainment that could kick-start a night-time economy in Stockport.

As chair of the all-party markets group and co-chair of the all-party retail group, I am looking forward to “love your markets week” in April, which will celebrate our historic markets and showcase new and vibrant markets. At the same time, it will offer training opportunities for new traders through the “First Pitch” initiative by the National Federation of Market Traders.

Like other parts of the country, Stockport has many empty shops, and the reality is that many will never again be retail units, but might start a new life as artist’s studios, outlets for council services or residential accommodation. Despite the closure of some retail chains, the issue is clearly not as simple as shoppers deserting the high street for their computer or mobile devices. Recent research has shown that frustration with online shopping is driving some customers back to shops. The market is complex and it is changing fast.

In Stockport, 5,700 people are employed in retail. The jobs are popular and sought-after. During a visit to a local Stockport store last week, I met many long-term staff, including people who had worked there for up to 35 years. They had a lot of commitment, local contacts and knowledge about their products, which all contributed to a friendly and successful store. The company had invested in them and they in turn had an investment in the company.

I was interested that one of the main themes at the British Retail Consortium’s annual reception recently was how to help people to build a career in retail. In a 24/7 environment, there is obviously tremendous pressure to have maximum flexibility from the work force, and many companies are introducing zero or eight-hour contracts to keep costs competitive. I acknowledge that some people may find that attractive, but others will have little alternative.

The problem with short-term contracts is that they are unpredictable, and people have no pension, sick pay or tax credit entitlement. That is clearly difficult for the work force, and I believe that in the long term it will be a problem for employers who will not get in return the sort of commitment they need from staff. In future, because of changes in how people shop, customers will want more service from staff in the information that they provide about goods, as the hon. Member for Watford said. That means that increased investment in skills and training for retail staff will be required, and that is not totally compatible with zero or eight-hour contracts.

Retail is a vibrant and exciting industry with much scope for future success. From market stalls to superstores, whether a trolley-shop in a supermarket or using the latest technology to buy online, the nature of shopping is changing. People no longer want just a shopping experience, and towns such as Stockport will have to be a mix of traditional retail, independent and specialist shops, special markets and cultural events. The challenge is to create a high street that is attractive to 21st-century mobile phone shoppers and also meets the social needs of the community. Combining retail with a place to meet has always been the challenge of the high street through changing times, but I am confident that with proper support the high street will survive, albeit in a new and exciting form.

15:04

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Alan, for calling me to speak in this extremely important and pertinent debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing it. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who has immense knowledge of the subject, and has made a good pitch for what she thinks should be the future of our town centres.

There is no doubt that our retail sector is undergoing a fundamental and lasting structural change, and that the full force of the internet is being felt. In the past few months, HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster, to name a few companies that once had a successful business model, have succumbed quickly as their business model, overtaken by the pace of change in technology, has become obsolete. Traditional retailing is being eroded and is likely to give way to e-retailing.

Destination retailing is joining e-retailing as the focus for many of our multiple chains. It is said in retail that the customer is king, and it is impossible to stem the tide of what is happening. I am chairman of the all-party town centres group, and I think it is important to manage that fundamental change in our town centres and high streets. That is what I want to speak about today. We must look carefully in many areas at how we manage the change because many things need to be done. I want to focus on three issues.

The first issue is business taxation. Rents are falling in many small and medium town centres, but business rates, which are one of the greatest costs for retail businesses, are not following that pattern. I understand why the Government may not want a business rate revaluation at the moment, but the Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury should consider freezing business rates in the forthcoming Budget, to give a fighting chance to small businesses in our town centres that might not benefit from small business rate relief.

[Toby Perkins]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his comments about business rates. There is no question but that the issue is significant. He seems to be calling for the Government to forgo expected income to invest in the future, which is the Labour party’s economic strategy, so is the hon. Gentleman coming on board?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor sought to freeze business rates, I would expect him to do so in a way that balances the books. It is certainly not the Conservative-led Government’s policy to do things that impact further on the deficit. The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are advocating an increase in the deficit instead of reducing it as the Government are doing.

[Mr Robin Walker]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Before he moves on from business rates, does he agree that we inherited with the terrible deficit from the last Government a huge backlog of appeals against business rate decisions in the Valuation Office Agency? That continues to be a problem. Will he join me in urging the Treasury to do everything it can to clear that backlog, and to recognise that that shows that there is a real issue with the valuation and revaluation process?

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I would certainly join him in calling for that. Many businesses in my constituency have contacted me on that very point.

Let me move quickly on, because other Members want to speak. The second issue that is vital to managing the transition in our town centres is car parking and particularly short-stay car parking charges. Car parking charges are a tax on our town centres; they very much detract from them and lead people to look for alternative shopping destinations. There are a number of things we could do about that. First, the Government could work more with local authorities and even incentivise them to reduce car parking charges. Secondly, I would like them, perhaps through the Department for Communities and Local Government or town teams, to work with local businesses, local authorities and private car parking firms to see how we can develop systems to incentivise shoppers. For example, we could, in partnership with retailers, put in place systems that took a certain amount off the customer’s car parking charge for every purchase they made. Utilising such a system could help some of our small and medium-sized town centres.

The third issue is regulation. I would like the Minister to advocate to every Department the idea that any unnecessary regulation that has an impact on our town centres and high streets should be completely resisted. A classic example is the proposed EU harmonisation of permitted vitamin and mineral levels in food supplements. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is alive to this issue, and he is trying to resist the EU’s directive, which could impact on our town centres and high streets. The industry thinks that 4,000 jobs could be lost if the directive is implemented, and many of them would be in small health food shops and in health food chains across the country.

To sum up, we cannot ignore structural change, and the Government are hard-pressed in terms of what they can do, but they can make a difference in the three areas I have identified. There are ways in which they can help to manage structural change, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to tell us about how the Government can help at this difficult time for our retailers.

15:12

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing the debate. I want to focus on high street retail. I beg Members’ forgiveness because I want to be fairly parochial and to talk about the challenges and opportunities facing my home town.

Croydon used to be one of the top 10 retail centres in the country, but it has been in relative decline for 20 to 30 years. It might help colleagues if I examine the things that led to that decline. The first is the mismanagement of parking policy. I do not wish to make a particularly strong party political point, but the previous Labour-controlled council sold the multi-storey car parks to NCP. I am not arguing about whether there is a problem with their being in private ownership, but the council took no control over subsequent parking prices. Prices have gone through the roof, so many people no longer come to Croydon to shop.

In the 1980s, the previous Conservative Government made a mistake on out-of-town planning policy. In Croydon, there have been major developments along the Purley Way, which drew people away from the town centre.

There are also issues about how the council has managed the public space in our town centre over a number of years. We have two covered shopping centres, and the main pedestrianised road—North End—goes between them. There are issues about people feeling safe when they come into the centre. There are issues about aggressive charity collections. The area is meant to be pedestrianised, but there is fairly regular vehicle access so that things can be delivered to shops. There are lots of people playing music, but that is poorly controlled, not well structured or organised. There are therefore issues about the quality of the public realm. There is also the general problem Croydon faces with its overall reputation and brand.

However, Croydon has just had the most incredible news. Westfield and Hammerson—two of the top retail developers in the country—have formed a joint venture, with a plan to invest £1 billion in our town over the next three years. That is game changing for my home town; it is the best news we have had in my adult life. The aim is to make Croydon one of five retail destinations in London. We have the west end, Westfield London to the west, Westfield Stratford to the east and Brent Cross to the north, and Croydon will become the destination for south London. That will, I hope, bring some of the big brands, such as John Lewis and Apple, which we are missing at the moment. That is the key to then having the independent shops that everybody wants. Those independents will exist only if we get sufficient footfall to support them, and that comes from the big brands.

The scheme will create thousands of jobs. One thing I hope the council will do as part of the planning permission is try to ensure that as many construction and subsequent retail jobs as possible go to local people. I hope that Westfield and Hammerson take control of parking provision so that we can have sensible parking prices. I am a great believer in public transport, and I want improved public transport access so that those who can come by public transport do. However, the reality is that when some people go shopping—particularly if they buy a lot—they want to take their car. If our parking policy penalises them for doing that, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

I also want to make a point about mixed use. The development scheme is not just a retail transformation; it will provide hundreds of new homes and leisure opportunities. We want Croydon’s major town centre to be an active destination not just during shopping hours but pretty much around the clock.

The scheme will not just be good on its own terms, but catalyse other development around the town centre. A number of schemes have been consented, but they are not being developed, because of the current economic climate. The new scheme will clearly bring them closer to fruition.

The scheme will be an important first step in transforming Croydon’s reputation, along with the Mayor’s policing plan, which will address the long-term under-resourcing of policing in Croydon, giving us 117 extra officers by 2015. There is also the money the Government and the Mayor generously gave us in response to the riots, which will be used to transform the public realm in the town centre. That really is great news.

I am conscious that others want to speak, and I do not want to talk for too long about my own parochial concerns, so I will mention just three other things. First, I would like the Minister to pass on to his colleagues the idea that, if we are to realise the full potential of the extra jobs that are created, we will require some transport infrastructure improvements. We need to ensure that we have better connectivity between Croydon town centre and the motorway network through the A23. We also need to improve capacity on the trams at East Croydon station. The Mayor will have to foot the bill for a significant chunk of that, and so will the developers as part of the planning process. We may well want to talk to the Chancellor about the jobs that could be created with a relatively small additional investment.

I also want to talk about the Portas pilots. The centre of Croydon is too big for the Portas pilots, but we have one connected with our historic market in Surrey street. One real issue is how we connect the new retail destination with that market so that it reinvigorates that great destination.

Let me emphasise that the residents of Croydon want this scheme to be an urban regeneration scheme, not a box full of all the big brand names that is plonked down on them. They want a scheme that better connects our town centre and that ensures that Surrey street and London road, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), which took such a hammering in the riots, benefit from being adjacent to the area that is redeveloped. They want much better connectivity with our key gateways at East Croydon and West Croydon.

Finally, I want to plug the idea of business improvement districts. We had a vote in Croydon a few years ago. There was strong support from all the major business rate payers for paying a bit more in business rates, as long as they had control over how the money was spent. They have invested in additional policing, improved cleaning and some really great events, which have drawn people back into the town centre.

My constituents are passionate about their home town. They have been put off going there by its image, concerns about safety and parking prices that are too high. On the horizon, we now have a potentially transformative scheme, and I wanted to put on record my strong support for it. There are some real lessons to be learned from what has happened to Croydon and what will be done to put that right, and those lessons are relevant to many other town centres around the country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Order. Thank you very much, Mr Barwell. I am going to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at 3.40 pm. That leaves about 20 minutes, and four people have indicated that they wish to speak, three of whom wrote in. I also need to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Watford, who introduced the debate, to summarise what he thinks of it. It is down to Members on the Government side of the Chamber whether they help each other out.

15:19

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on obtaining the debate, which is important.

I must declare an interest. My first job, when I was at school, was at the local greengrocer’s. I can make a fantastic stack of oranges and apples if given the opportunity, but time is probably too pressing. I also spent many years as a senior executive for major retailers—Safeway and Asda. While I was at Asda I was fortunate enough to move the business on, in its involvement with financial services, and to run its e-commerce and home shopping business.

It was incredible to see the degree of trust that people put into big retail brands, which was such that when the tsunami struck in December 2004 our website was almost crashed by the number of people who wanted to come to the retailer to work out how to respond to the challenge on the other side of the world. The retailers need to support that trust fully, and each needs to build a relationship with its customers. To do that, retailers must be better at adapting and more flexible in how they tackle the challenges and conditions around them. Let us not forget that Tesco started as a market stall, and is now taking on great media companies and trying to deliver movies and a cinema experience for people in their front room, at a click of a button, on their smart TV.

Retailers must be more responsible and more responsive to conditions in the marketplace. That means that they must embrace all the channels that are available to them. Too many have been too focused on bricks and mortar and have not thought about the opportunity that comes through the click of a mouse or, perhaps more importantly, about the integration of channels and how to appeal to changing customer needs across those channels. For example, the British Museum has a small physical retail presence, but a multi-million pound website with appeal across the world. In Macclesfield there is a fantastic business called musicMagpie, which some hon. Members will be familiar with. It engages not only in e-commerce, but in re-commerce. It recycles DVDs, CDs and computer games, selling them on through multiple channels including the high street. That recycling fits the need for greater sustainability and suits our times of challenging economics. We need to help retailers to realise that they must be more responsive.

Several hon. Members have highlighted the need for more flexible use of physical space by traditional retailers. That means that planning authorities need to think more creatively. A space that has had a certain use in the past need not in the future be linked to retail, but could be linked to residential or other uses, as my near neighbour the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) said. That process—making the use of space more flexible—is vital, and it is something for landlords, not just councils and planning authorities, to engage in. Too often their expectations are far too high, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford said.

It is easy to try to get rates lowered, but it is also vital for retailers to think more effectively about how they engage the community. We were not able to become a Portas pilot—we wish Stockport well—but despite that we moved on to work out what else we could do. We created a forum called “Make it Macclesfield”, which is the town’s new brand identity, and there is a town team. We have brought life back to the historic Barnaby festival, celebrating the fact that we used to be the world’s leading producer of finished silk. Each month there is the Treacle market, which brings more people to the marketplace on a Sunday afternoon than we normally see on a Saturday morning. Winterfest and other events and community programmes bring countless more people in. We have created a plan for the whole town: we must consider the whole town, and not just retail. There is a plan for the silk quarter, to celebrate our silk heritage, for the heritage quarter, to celebrate our independent retailers, and for the marketplace, to bring everything together and enable the town to thrive and flourish flexibly.

There are challenges on the horizon, but the future may be brighter than the cynics believe if we can help retailers to be more responsive, use space more flexibly and get communities to engage better in the task of bringing town centres to life.

15:25

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Like other hon. Members I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) for securing the debate, which comes at an opportune time, two weeks before the Chancellor is to deliver the Budget.

The retail sector, as we have heard, is a vital component of the UK economy. At present, the sector faces challenges, which it is important for us to address. I shall concentrate my remarks on the high street, which some pundits have written off, but which I passionately believe still has an important role, not just as an engine of economic growth but as a focus for communities and leisure activities. I shall comment particularly on business rates and the unfair burden that retailers must carry, paying 28% of all business rates despite accounting for only 5% of the economy.

Lowestoft, in my constituency, is a Portas pilot town. The town team is putting in place a range of initiatives to create the sense of place that we need to get back to. They include mentoring small businesses, the introduction of town rangers, the hosting of musical and cultural events and the creation of a voucher discount scheme for those who shop in the town centre. Such initiatives provide high streets and towns with an opportunity, but it is important for traders and retailers to be able to compete on a level playing field with out-of-town stores and internet operators. Sadly, at present, the business rates burden means that they cannot do that. In the past two years business rates have increased in line with the retail prices index, by 4.6% and 5.6%. The increase in 2012 meant that retailers had to find a further £350 million in taxes when trading conditions were particularly challenging. At a time of falling disposable income and low levels of bank lending to small businesses, business rates are unsustainable.

I urge the Government to consider various measures, and I will be interested in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister. First, the Government should review the mechanism for increasing business rates annually. Instead of making increases in line with RPI based on a particular month, in which there may be a spike in inflation, they should use an annual average consumer prices index rate, subject to a 2% cap, in line with the Government’s inflation target.

Secondly, the Government have decided, as we know, to defer the revaluation that was due in April, with the new list that was due to come into operation in 2015. I question the merit of keeping a rating list based on rental values from April 2008, when the property market was at an artificially unsustainable level. The Government have said that the reason for the delay is that the result of a revaluation would be more losers than winners, and that the centre of London would benefit to the tune of £440 million, which might not be palatable to the rest of the country. However, the evidence that I have seen shows that retailers in many provincial towns will be penalised by the delaying of the review. I urge the Government to introduce measures to reduce that burden.

My third point is that there is a need to address the inherent unfairness of the current system, which favours out of town development at the expense of town centre shops. Out of town car parks are not subject to business rates, as long as they are free for customers’ use. As those locations compete with the town centre, where shoppers must invariably pay for their parking, the financial incentives are effectively the wrong way round. Consideration should be given to raising business rates on out-of-town developments and investing the money in town centre regeneration schemes.

Fourthly, the Localism Act 2011 introduced welcome new powers for local authorities to provide discretionary rate relief, which can be used to incentivise new investment in the high street and in shopping parades. However, to ensure widespread take-up of the relief, more funding is needed for councils to deliver it. It is important that the Government develop a mechanism for local authorities to fund discretionary rate relief through those new powers.

Finally, I urge the Government to conduct a full review of the means by which business rates are set. The rise of the internet means that retailers who trade from high street and mall shops are unfairly penalised when competing against rivals that sell exclusively online. Let me provide the example of a book retailer. A national bookshop company may have a chain of shops for which it is paying rents in excess of £100 to £150 per square foot, on which its rates are based. In contrast, their internet competitor will have one—albeit very large—warehouse in the middle of the country, where the rent may be to the order of £4 to £5 per square foot. It is important that business taxation properly reflects the underlying profitability of a business.

I know that the Treasury—whatever parties may be in power—rather likes business rates. They are easy to collect, difficult to avoid and highly productive, generating 5% of the UK’s tax bill. However, I submit that the system is no longer fit for purpose. If we carry on as we are, the future of British retailers is at best uncertain, and I urge the Minister and the Government to carry out a full root-and-branch reform.

15:31

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing the debate. I will try and curtail my remarks to allow other speakers in.

Prior to arriving in the House, I spent 15 years as a Conservative party agent but before that, I spent 15 years in the retail trade. I worked, as it happens, for a small, family-run business that is still trading—successfully trading, I would add—so it is important to note that small, independent, family businesses can survive the onslaught of the big multiples. The retailer that I worked for was in the electrical retail trade, so it could say, in relation to Comet, for example, that it has seen off its competitor.

I do not want to dwell too much on statistics, but in preparing for the debate, I came across research by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Local Data Company, indicating that retailers with more than six stores are closing shops at a rate of 28 a day, and that there are 35,500 empty shop units in the UK—a national vacancy rate of just over 14%. Clearly, the financial situation is not favourable at the moment and retailers are finding it exceptionally difficult. The Government have done a great deal over the past couple of years on changing planning procedures. In that respect, they have helped by making change of use easier, and I am sure that some provisions in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill will also be beneficial.

However, the high street does not only require planning laws and deregulation. As has been mentioned by previous speakers—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous)—we must have a level playing field for high streets, out-of-town stores and online retailers, if the high street is to survive in anything like its current state. I would be reluctant to add additional burdens to existing businesses. I would rather look at reducing them, but we must look at evening up the difficulties. Business rates, as has been mentioned, are a particular burden on small shops. We have to acknowledge that, and I sincerely hope that the Government are looking at possible changes to taxation, business rates, and so on, which will level the playing field.

In my constituency, there are three major towns. Barton-upon-Humber, which is a relatively small market town, has a very good retail mix, with thriving local shops that seem to be able to co-exist with the local Tesco. In Immingham, they are desperate for Tesco to arrive, because that will switch the engine on for local regeneration schemes. Planning permission has been given, and that highlights the fact that out-of-town stores or incoming supermarkets can regenerate existing towns. Immingham is particularly unfortunate in that it has a very run-down shopping centre, and people are desperate for the arrival of the supermarket. In Cleethorpes, St Peter’s avenue and Sea View street are littered, as it were, with independent retailers. People can get everything from a cup of coffee and a sandwich to furniture, jewellery, and so on, and there are all the usual stores that used to make up every high street, such as the butcher, the baker and the fishmonger. There are models across the country of thriving high streets where, occasionally, some of the larger chains are mixed in.

The Portas pilots have been mentioned, and although I welcome the aims and objectives of the Portas review, I have reservations about some proposals. Obviously, I welcome the fact that the Government have taken on board the celebrity status of Mary Portas and used her to promote schemes that will help to regenerate high streets. Going back to the time when I was a Conservative party agent, our office was in Market Rasen on the high street, which is now a Portas pilot, but the fact that that office has closed and become a tattoo parlour may not help the Mary Portas scheme.

Some of the proposals are a little too simplistic. As a local councillor in north-east Lincolnshire, I was a member of the town team, which was mainly concerned with the Grimsby town centre, which serves Cleethorpes, Immingham and Grimsby, and we worked tremendously hard. We had a local businessman who had a lot of energy and enthusiasm, but we must recognise that the local council is a key element of any successful high street. It deals with traffic regulations, parking pricing regimes, and so on. North East Lincolnshire council, when I was the portfolio holder, had an income of £1.25 million from its parking charges. We cannot cast that out of the council’s budget and assume that it will provide the same services. Last week my hon. Friend the Minister was in Scunthorpe, which is part of North Lincolnshire council and has a very successful parking scheme that benefits local shopkeepers. It can be done, but I urge Members not to think that it is as easy as can be.

Finally, as has been mentioned, every town in the country has far too many empty retail shop units. We need urgent Government help to regenerate those and bring them into residential use.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

I have one Back-Bench speaker left to fit in. I hope you will be able to confine your remarks to three or four minutes—I call Caroline Dinenage.

15:39

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Alan. I will speak really fast, and I apologise to anybody who cannot keep up with me. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing the debate. I also have a background in retail; my first job was at Marks and Spencer when I was 16, and I am still very good at packing groceries.

The debate takes place against a backdrop of record profits for some retailers such as John Lewis and Primark, while we have seen others disappearing over the past few years. On one hand, the growth of internet shopping does not help high-street retailers, because it results in redundancies, and it does not even always result in the same levels of corporation or income tax being paid, as we have seen with some high-profile online retailers. In the modern world, however, we have to realise that online shopping is here to stay, because people will not want to give up the luxury of shopping from their armchairs. It is important that we look at the pros and cons of the move online, including the fact that Britain is at the forefront of e-retailing and provides unique opportunities for kitchen-table entrepreneurs. There is no doubt, however, that it is changing the face of our high streets and threatening jobs in an industry that employs 4 million people.

However, we see success where things have come full circle and people are getting on our high streets things that the internet did not provide for them. I am talking about opportunities to see and touch things and to try on clothes and accessories that they might previously have bought on eBay, and without the hassle of waiting for delivery. That is what a shop in my constituency is providing, and as a result it has smashed its first-year growth targets.

There is also an increasing trend of retailers who started on the internet and now want to dip their toes in the waters of shop trading. Markets offer a great opportunity for them to do that, as do pop-up shops— small spaces that people can use for a couple of weeks and with low overheads—which the Department for Communities and Local Government has been trying and testing.

Given that retail represents about 11 % of the economy but accounts for 32% of business rates, the burden of taxation on the sector is a major issue. The overheads of retail outlets are a huge disincentive, so reform of business rates is desperately needed, and I hope that there will be good news on that in the Budget.

The importance of regenerating the retail sector cannot be overstated. The industry is responsible for nearly 15% of total employment and is crucial to the resurgence of our local economies. It is just as vital to our national economy, generating almost 11% of GDP if we include wholesale. Business, like life, is not plain sailing, but the fact that retailers are continuing to do well is testament to the hard work and support of communities and shopkeepers. I hope that they will be supported by the Government as well.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Lady for an extremely full and helpful speech.

15:41

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

As colleagues have said, it is a tremendous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. This is one of those rare occasions when Chesterfield is under Mansfield. That has not happened in the football leagues for many years. None the less, it is a tremendous pleasure.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) not only on securing the debate, but on the contribution that he made to it. It was very important that we got this debate, as the contributions that we have heard and the interest that we have seen from so many colleagues have shown.

I would like to reflect particularly on the point that the hon. Member for Watford made about the importance of the retail sector as an employer of apprentices. He reflected on his own background as a graduate trainee at John Lewis and how that may have given him skills that he subsequently took forward in order to set up his own business. That is one of the things that can happen and it is vital for the UK economy. He also argued that consumer choice is wide, albeit different from how it looked previously. That is a question to which I shall return.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) reflected on the significance of retail’s contribution to UK GDP and employment, and on the measures taken in Stockport to make alternative use of retail units. That was a very important point.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) tantalised us by suggesting that he might be able to come up with a freeze on business rates, which he and many other hon. Members were calling for in different ways, on a cost-neutral basis. I am sure that if there is a way in which that can be done, he will have huge support on both sides of the House. He also reflected on the potential for Government to incentivise councils, which we all know are incredibly hard-pressed at the moment, to reduce the level of parking costs. We all recognise that parking is a barrier in town centres. Again, it sounded slightly like a spending commitment, but perhaps it was not. If something could be done in that respect, that would be very important.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) reflected on great news for Croydon—the big development that is happening there—and on the success of business improvement districts. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) was critical of the disproportionate level of business rates and called for reform of the whole system.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) reflected on how, after 15 years on the straight and narrow in retail, he wasted the next 15 years of his life in the service of the Conservative party, but he did hold out a glimmer of hope that Conservative offices are now being closed down and turned into tattoo parlours. As a growth policy, that is not the worst I have heard.

[Martin Vickers]

I must intervene just to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative office moved to make way for the tattoo parlour.

[Toby Perkins]

Like so much that we have heard from those on the Government Benches, it was not quite as good as it originally sounded. None the less, it is an idea to consider. More seriously, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes also revealed statistics that graphically exposed the challenges facing our retail sector.

The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) reflected, at amazing speed, on her own background in retail and the importance of the retail sector in her constituency and more broadly.

We are all conscious of the pressure on the retail sector at this time. We have seen some very high-profile failures on the high street in the past few months. The lesson from those failures is that businesses that do not modernise—that do not harness the power of the internet and take the opportunities that are available out there—simply will not continue to succeed.

We all want to see a diverse offering on the high street. We need to consider how the power of Government can be used to support small businesses to strengthen their internet presence. With regard to the reduction in business support that is out there, anything that we can do to support small businesses to harness that power would be tremendously important. With that principle in mind, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has launched Small Business Saturday, copying an idea that is already successful in America. Many Labour local authorities are involved, and I hope that local authorities of all political persuasions will sign up to have a Small Business Saturday identified every year on which local authorities and the local small business sector can work together to encourage people to shop locally. Local authorities are coming up with very innovative ideas to promote their local small businesses.

In Chesterfield, where I am the Member of Parliament, we have a tremendous retail offer. We have a huge market. We have a market festival, which has brought a lot of publicity. It supports not only our retail offer, but our tourism offer. However, an issue that we have had in Chesterfield and that I touched on earlier is the massive emergence of the big supermarkets and particularly Tesco in the convenience store sector. We already have a huge Tesco Extra store. We have a Tesco petrol station and convenience store on Newbold road. We have a supermarket in the town centre. We have a Tesco that has moved into the former Angel pub on Derby road. There is a Tesco moving into the White Horse at Old Whittington, and there are now plans for a Tesco at the site of the Crispin Inn on Ashgate road. That will be six in one town. People in Chesterfield have been calling it Tesco Town and are very concerned that the offer available is far too limited.

I recently met with Tesco. When I asked whether it felt that six stores was going to be enough, I was told, “No, not nearly. We think there’s going to be loads more growth in Chesterfield and we see a lot more opportunities right across the country for many more of these Tesco stores in the convenience sector.”

I am not anti-Tesco, but I do think that something radical is happening that has the power to change dramatically our communities and the diversity of food on offer. I do not think that we have really stopped to think about whether we want that to happen. It is important that we have a debate about what we want the convenience sector to look like. Are we happy for all food shopping to be in the hands of three or four major retailers, or do we want to say something about that? Are there things that we can do through the planning system to ensure that local authorities have the opportunity to say, “No, this is not what we want in our area”? This is not just about Tesco. Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Asda are also moving into the convenience store sector. Those stores provide very good value and are popular among consumers, and we do not want to stop people having the right to shop where they want, but it is a debate that we need to have and an area that we need to think about.

This debate is incredibly important. The Portas review was a tremendously useful piece of work. What Mary Portas identified in her work was that planning and regulation, if they are done correctly, can boost and support the diversity of the retail offer, rather than necessarily always being a barrier. We need to get the right balance between planning controls that give local authorities and communities the opportunity to say what they want, and giving businesses the freedom to operate in the way they want. There is a fine balance. It is not always true that less regulation is good and more regulation is bad, but good regulation is important and ill-thought-out regulation is problematic. I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford on securing the debate and I congratulate everyone who has spoken on contributing so well to it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution.

15:50

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

Thank you, Sir Alan, for enabling at least nine other Members to contribute to this important debate. All the points made today will be digested, and I will ensure that I reply to particular points later if I cannot do so directly in the remaining minutes of the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing the debate. He almost apologised for being parochial, but there is nothing parochial about the retail sector. It is our largest private sector employer, employing one in nine of the workforce. It is a £300 billion industry and the end point of many supply chains. As we have heard, retail plays a vital role in the national economy, local economies and communities, and the Government fully recognise that.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done to ensure a healthy future for the heart of Watford. I hope the senior management at John Lewis fully appreciate that their loss is Watford’s, and indeed Westminster’s, gain. I know how important retail is to his constituency. Watford was one of 100 towns sharing the £10 million high street innovation fund, which is contributing to the widespread regeneration and revitalisation projects that are under way.

As we have heard, retail is a diverse sector in the size and structure of businesses, what retailers sell and to whom, and where and how retailers operate. From micro-businesses to international players and from high-end luxury to providing for our daily needs, it is a lively, competitive and innovative industry. There are some outstanding success stories of competitive retailers operating here and in international markets. Conversely, many smaller retailers are battling to survive—we have all seen the reports.

A high street or town centre needs a thriving and diverse retail sector, and retail needs thriving town centres, but as we have heard today, the town centre is no longer just about shopping—it is about eating and drinking, entertainment, services and culture. Successful towns know that and nurture it. Because retail is so important, it was chosen as one of the first sectors to be the subject of a growth review and was the first theme chosen for the red tape challenge. The initiatives identified several barriers to retail performance and growth, which we are addressing. We are delivering measures to support retail, including doubling small business rate relief for three and a half years to help small shops and making it easier for small firms to claim. More than 500,000 businesses in England are expected to benefit, with about 300,000 paying no rates at all.

We are focusing retail development in town centres through the “town centre first” planning policy; changing planning rules to allow councils to provide more parking spaces in town centres; and issuing guidance encouraging councils to set competitive parking charges. We are also working with the retail sector to develop the retail strategy, published last September, which focuses on what we can do at national, local and European level while avoiding market distortions. That includes reducing the burdens of regulatory compliance through better inspection and performance and helping to understand and analyse town centre performance.

As we have heard today, we cannot discuss retail without talking about help for high streets and town centres, especially where there are empty shops. Many hon. Members have spoken about empty shops in their high streets and town centres and will know the impact that closures have had on retail employees and their families. To alleviate some of the problems that causes, new planning measures introduced in January will ensure that empty shops and offices can be swiftly converted into much-needed housing. That will help town centres by increasing footfall and providing badly needed homes for local people.

The Government have always recognised that high streets are important for communities and growth, which is why we commissioned Mary Portas to carry out her review of the high street. We published our response to the review last year, accepting nearly all the recommendations, and we are going further with the Portas-plus package, designed to revive ailing high streets. We have doubled the number of Portas pilots—there are now 27—and announced a £10 million high street innovation fund, which is benefiting Watford. We received 55 nominations for the £1 million future high street X-fund, which will make awards to locations delivering the most creative and effective schemes for revitalising their high streets. Winners will be announced in March.

In October, we announced support for over 300 towns that had come forward to be town team partners. They are receiving funding, plus a package of support through the Association of Town and City Management. We will publish a further response to the Portas review later this year, building on what has been learned across the country and the progress we have made on the other recommendations.

The debate is not about high street versus out of town or the internet. A feature of today’s debate has been that every speaker has accepted that high streets must change and evolve to compete, and in some cases to survive. The Government are committed to supporting high streets, but we cannot dictate what should and should not be done; the vision and innovation has to come from places and communities, with the public and private sectors playing their part.

I turn briefly to two particular questions that my hon. Friend asked about business rates. The estimate from the valuation office was that the revaluation would have increased bills for about 800,000 properties and decreased them for only about 300,000. We would have seen significant tax increases for food, retail and convenience stores. We think it better to give businesses more certainty, which is why we postponed the revaluation. He also asked why we could not index the annual rise to the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index. He will know that RPI is much lower for the year beginning in April than it was for the year beginning the previous April, but we are continuing to review the situation.

I turn to the main feature of the debate: the future of retail. Analysts at Verdict research have predicted that UK retail will grow by about £4.9 billion in 2013—the highest increase since 2008. Online sales are increasingly important. They accounted for 5% of all retail sales back in 2008 and more than 9% in 2012. Verdict predicts that they will account for 12% of all retail spending this year and 17% of all non-food spending.

Those numbers do not really tell us what is happening and why. What are the drivers of change? UK retail faces challenging trading conditions, but it is simultaneously having to adapt to massive structural challenges driven by changes in consumer lifestyles and preferences, the impact of new and emerging technologies and the constant evolution of how technology is used. Technology is driving change. Tablets and smartphones are making it easier for consumers to buy online in any location, and new delivery options such as click and collect are reducing the problems customers face with home deliveries.

I shall conclude, because I want to allow my hon. Friend a few minutes to sum up at the end. Retail is an important barometer of our economic and cultural well-being. It is going through a period of rapid change, but Britain has the companies, the brands and the entrepreneurial spirit to ensure that we will always have successful retailers. It is part of the Government’s job to ensure that we have the right environment for them to thrive, prosper locally and compete globally. There are no easy answers or quick fixes for either the retail sector or the high street. We all have to play our part—central and local government, businesses, communities and local partnerships—in helping the adaptation of the future of retail and helping to shape that future.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Mr Harrington, would you like a few seconds?

[Richard Harrington]

No, thank you.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

I am grateful.

Youth Participation: First World War Commemorations

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I thank the Minister for his time.

It probably does not take me to alert the House and the nation to the fact that we are rapidly approaching the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of world war one, which will unfurl four years of solemn remembrances of different events. None of us would disagree that it is important that we remember and commemorate, but equally important is how we commemorate and what we do as part of the commemoration. That matters as part of our sense of national identity.

For our close allies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, sites such as Vimy ridge and Gallipoli are not just sites of memory or commemoration, but part of a national story, not of constitutional development so much as the birth of real nationhood—of real people losing their lives on the battlefield. That is why nations truly came into being; it is not just that they received a constitutional charter.

I pay tribute to what the Government have already announced as part of the commemorations of world war one, to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who has chaired a group, and to the Minister’s work. I pay particular tribute to the notion of spending of £5.3 million on sending children to visit the battlefields, not least because my own constituency is a hotbed of school travel—bizarrely, it is our one growth industry. I know that it is a particular pleasure to the WST school travel trust and the school travel forum.

I went on such a journey for the first time last autumn. I studied history at university and I have studied the period, so I have always wanted to go and see what I had been studying. I had never been; I have driven past quickly on the motorway, if ever at all.

What the visit brought home to me was that the work of the Imperial War Graves Commission is the one of the greatest publicly funded pieces of civil art ever undertaken in the history of humanity. We do not fully appreciate that in this country. The work of Sir Edwin Lutyens, Sir Herbert Baker and Sir Reginald Blomfield is testament to the ability of architecture to inspire emotion and encapsulate complex feelings. Even to this day, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is one of the best run and best presented of our public bodies.

It is hard not to feel a sense of hopelessness when standing at a memorial such as the one at Thiepval—those grand Indo-Saracenic arches. All the schoolchildren were running around and making noise. Then the rain started to fall and they all scattered to the shelter of the visitors centre. I was left in the silence of a Somme morning—misty and cloudy—and I had a real sense of the tragedy of the loss of 20,000 people in one day. It is hard to imagine just how many people that is, but that is what occurred. At a time when we are once again debating what should be in our history curriculum, 1 July 1916 rarely seems to feature as a focal point for our national story, yet I believe it should be at the heart of what we think about when we study history.

I was fascinated and inspired by Thiepval, but I also visited some of the Canadian sites at Beaumont-Hamel and Vimy ridge, to which I referred earlier. The reason why I secured today’s debate is to promote a Canadian idea that we could learn from. Visitors to those two Canadian sites are greeted by a young Canadian student, who is there for four months, and explains what is available to people of all ages, what they could do on their visit, why the location is there and what it means to Canadians.

There is an interesting contrast with Thiepval. We have put great effort into an excellent visitors centre there, which I cannot praise highly enough, but on arrival, people are not greeted by a young person or someone who can explain to them why the place matters. For visiting schoolchildren, being welcomed by someone of their own age group would connect them more to what they are about to see; it is not just a theme park, but something that someone of their own age thinks is sufficiently important that they are spending a long time there welcoming people.

The scheme might also benefit more elderly visitors, who often visit battlefield sites. Perhaps it is unfair to cite reported speech, but we often hear criticisms such as, “Oh, the children run around. They don’t show respect. They don’t understand what they are coming to see.” I do not think that that is true, but such a scheme would encourage older generations to think that what they had done in world war two and indeed in world war one was not in vain, because younger generations were still explaining it to their children and their children’s children.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on an important educational and historical issue. The first world war is important in Northern Ireland. The 36th (Ulster) Division suffered and gave greatly at the battle of the Somme. In Northern Ireland, we have tried to bring both communities together on the back of the story about the battle of the Somme. There were Ulster divisions, but there were also Irish divisions that died and fought together in the first world war. It is a good historical issue.

The Bowtown community group in Newtownards try to educate young people on the estate about the importance of the first world war and to bring together other communities, so that nationalists and Unionists can look at what happened in the first world war together.

[Paul Maynard]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s observation is replicated in all our constituencies, up and down the country. Everywhere we look, we can find examples where we utilise world war one as a means of communicating across generations.

It would be naive of me to pretend that the Canadian model is cost-free. As we approach the Budget, cost considerations become all the more important. The cost of the Canadian scheme is roughly £400,000 per annum, of which about three fifths are salaries for the guides. University students are subsidised for four-month stays at the two sites. The Canadian Government own accommodation in Arras where students can lodge, and air fares are refunded on the successful completion of the course. The Veterans Minister, Steven Blaney, wrote to me:

“Without a doubt, the student guides’ enthusiasm serves as an inspiration to the many school and other tour groups that visit Vimy and Beaumont-Hamel each year, as well as to their peers when they return to Canada.”

That is an angle that I have not yet touched on. Once someone has served the four-month internship, they can return home and spread the message of what they have done. That is doubly welcome.

We have an eminently sensible opportunity to build on what the Government are already doing with the National Citizen Service—a chance to recruit young people who are between A-level and university or other employment to spend a set period of time at one of the major memorials to the missing, to welcome visitors, explain the facilities and the opportunities available and to try to connect each visitor with their own experience of what they are about to see. What connects them to the location?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

One of the key things that young people notice when they go to such cemeteries is the age of the people slumbering beneath the earth. That has a dramatic impact on them, especially when they consider that often they are older than the poor fellow beneath the ground.

[Paul Maynard]

It is fair to say that before people visit one of the sites, they never quite know what their response will be. Many young people are often surprised by what they discover there and even by what they discover in themselves. They are emotional visits, and they should be.

It is essential that we do all we can to maintain the golden thread of remembrance. We have now reached the point when the last living veteran of world war one is no longer with us. He passed away last year.

[Bob Stewart]

In this country.

[Paul Maynard]

Indeed. In not so many years’ time, that will also be true of the second world war. We do not want to reach the stage when we have forgotten our past. I want places such as Thiepval to have as important a part in our national story as Gallipoli and Vimy do in other countries’ national stories.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I am hugely impressed by my hon. Friend’s speech and the points he is making. Does he agree that as well as encouraging people to see those sites overseas, we should celebrate the heritage connected with the first world war in our towns and cities? For instance, Gheluvelt park in Worcester commemorates the battle in which the Worcestershire Regiment stopped the German advance and achieved great success. We should ensure that we engage young people in understanding the relevance today of the monuments that exist in towns and cities throughout the country.

[Paul Maynard]

I entirely take the point made by my hon. Friend, who has pre-empted my final comments. Every time I return to my constituency, I get off at Preston station, and I tend to get out of the carriage in front of the waiting room, above which is a plaque to the Pals, because that is where the feeding station was during world war one. Every time I get off the train, I am confronted by that memorial.

The biggest issue in the first few weeks after I was elected was the desecration of the cenotaph in Blackpool. That got me interested in the protection of war memorials, and in ensuring that they have better statutory protection. A common theme in all our constituencies is that how we commemorate and how we remember matters.

I hope that the Minister will take away my ideas. I believe that he already has a hard copy of my letter from Canada, which I hope he will consider. It may be too soon to do it in time for 2014, but I hope that in years to come we can make progress towards better involving our young people in meeting and greeting at those important sites.

16:12

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

I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for the chance to participate under your chairmanship, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for securing this important debate. It gives me an opportunity not only to debate his ideas but to set out some of the Government’s plans for the commemoration of the anniversary of world war one—the great war.

I commend the contributions made during this short debate by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for Worcester (Mr Walker). For the record, I also note the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). He was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy to oversee the commemoration of world war one, a role that he continues to hold despite being elevated to being a Defence Minister. I shall set out that role in detail later.

It goes without saying that the first world war was a period of almost unparalleled importance in our country’s history, and the Government are therefore committed to commemorating its centenary appropriately. The scale of the figures that we have to contend with is overwhelming. I do not think that I can match the poetry of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. Certainly, 16.5 million deaths, both military and civilian, are directly attributable to the conflict, including those of 1.25 million people from the British empire, colonies and dominions alone.

It is appropriate that remembrance—both of those who died and, of course, those who returned with physical and mental scars—should lie at the heart of our plans. However, to pick up on my hon. Friend’s theme, it is also important to secure an enduring legacy from the centenary commemorations, so youth and education must be absolutely at the heart of everything that we do.

My hon. Friend was kind enough to congratulate the Prime Minister on his work to ensure that we have the resources to create an appropriate commemoration. As he will know, last October, the Prime Minister announced a £53 million programme of funded activity, including not only national commemorations to mark the key events of the war but measures specifically designed to engage young people.

In particular, the Government are providing £5.3 million to offer every maintained secondary school in England the opportunity to send a teacher and two pupils to a first world war battlefield. A key objective of the project is to improve teachers’ understanding of the war and to deliver more effective lessons and future battlefield tours. Pupils will develop a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of world war one and its impact on people’s lives.

I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester about the local impact of the great war on individual areas. It is vital that our students can learn the stories of people from their local area who were involved in the war and establish related projects and events in their schools and communities.

It is important to say that the £5.3 million will effectively establish a bridgehead. We want to engage teachers in an understanding of the battlefields, and to have two pupils who might become ambassadors in their secondary school community. We certainly hope that schools will use that as a jumping-off point for sending more of their pupils on battlefield tours, which are important. I hope that the message goes out that Government assistance is available, but we certainly do not expect schools necessarily to limit their engagement with battlefield tours only to the teacher and two pupils who will benefit from the direct assistance.

The second important element of the £53 million is the £35 million project to refurbish the Imperial War museum’s first world war galleries. They will obviously provide a huge and highly visible centrepiece to the Government’s programme of commemoration, benefiting adults and students alike. The new galleries are set to open next year; getting them ready has involved closing the museum for some six months.

The Imperial War museum will lie at the heart of a range of activities across the UK. It has put together a centenary partnership that involves 900 members across 25 countries and will bring together a programme of cultural events and activities. It will use technology and digital platforms to enable millions of people across the world to benefit from the museum’s information and vast expertise, and to discover more about life in the first world war.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the Minister and you, Sir Alan, for letting me intervene again. Is it possible for the Imperial War museum to put together a pack for schools—the Minister mentioned maintained schools—so that they could pre-brief or post-brief their classes about such visits?

[Mr Vaizey]

I understand that digital tools will certainly be available to all secondary schools. They will be able to visit a website to understand what the opportunities are for battlefield tours. When invitations for the battlefield tours programme go out to schools, they will obviously be accompanied by appropriate material showing schools how to take advantage of it. It is important to have a digital portal to support schools in engaging not only with battlefield tours, but with a whole range of potential activities commemorating the first world war.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his positive response. As a Northern Ireland representative, I am keen to see everyone in the United Kingdom involved in the scheme. The Minister mentioned partnerships. Through the scheme, will it be possible to have a partnership arrangement between a school in Northern Ireland and one in the Republic of Ireland, so that we can take advantage of building on relationships that clearly exist through service in the Ulster and Irish Divisions?

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. It gives me the chance to mention the fact that the Government recognise the enormous contribution to the allied cause of more than 200,000 service people from all parts of Ireland during the first world war. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Administrations in Belfast and Dublin are working together to commemorate a decade of anniversaries, which will run from 2012 to 2022, to cover not only the first world war but events subsequent to that including the partition of Ireland. It goes without saying that there are political sensitivities involved, so I hope that all Members will welcome the positive approach.

While we are on the subject of Northern Ireland, I should also say that the Northern Ireland Executive has welcomed the National Heritage Memorial Fund’s award of almost £1 million to restore HMS Caroline, which is the last surviving warship of the battle of Jutland and was decommissioned at the headquarters of the Ulster division of the Royal Naval Reserve on 31 March 2012. It has been berthed in Belfast since 1924.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and the important point about the tone of the debate is that although our plans for the commemoration of the first world war are well advanced, it goes without saying that we welcome contributions and proposals from all Members who are well versed in the ways and wishes of their community. For the record, I note his proposal of potentially twinning schools across the border in Northern Ireland and Ireland to take advantage of the opportunity to commemorate world war one.

I should of course say, in relation to the partnership put together by the Imperial War museum, that universities, colleges and schools are members of the partnership. The Imperial War museum already has excellent education resources aimed at supporting the national curriculum. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is also a key programme partner, and provides a range of impressive educational resources to support the learning of young people. There is also the Heritage Lottery Fund’s £6 million grants programme, which will encourage young people to learn more about their local first world war heritage. That goes to one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, which is that the Heritage Lottery Fund will encourage applications that show that young people will benefit from a grant in order to learn about the history of their local community and its involvement in the great war.

The HLF has also been supporting for some time an open grants programme for first world war themed projects, and more than £10 million has been allocated to it. It goes without saying that many of those programmes involve children or young people. The Government, therefore, are leading the nation in appropriate commemoration. They are supporting the participation of local communities and interests, with a particular focus on young people.

It is entirely appropriate that the theme of youth is central to our plans given that people as young as 18 could enlist in Britain’s military for service in the great war. There is plenty of evidence that people even younger than that served, including Jack “Boy” Cornwell, whose actions at Jutland at the tender age of 16 and a half years were recognised with a posthumous Victoria Cross. Again, it is important to stress that the first world war involved many more than those just fighting at the front. There was of course the home front—the young women and children who contributed to the war effort in factories and on the land.

Civilians were also in the firing line, whether from bombardments from the sea or from air raids. One of the less known but most poignant stories of the first world war concerns the bombing of North street school in London’s east end, resulting in the deaths of 18 children, nearly all of whom were under the age of seven.

Our key objective in the commemorations will be to provide younger people with a better understanding of the enormity of what happened between 1914 and 1918 to secure a legacy of remembrance for generations to come. We must not forget that this was a conflict that involved more than 30 countries across the world, and we are in contact at ministerial or official level with 22 Governments from countries that were on either side of the war, acknowledging that the loss and suffering recognised no national boundaries. I hope that there might be opportunities for closer international understanding, particularly among younger people.

The Government are working hard to deliver and support a commemoration that is wide in its focus, inclusive in its nature and appropriate for an event of almost unparalleled importance. We will shortly be announcing our plans for the opening day of the centenary on 4 August 2014, and it will reflect our themes of remembrance and youth and education. There will be a number of announcements thereafter as our plans unfold. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire sit on a Committee that meets regularly to take forward the proposals. A range of stakeholders take part, including organisations involved in commemorating the first world war and some of our most distinguished historians. We are committed to ensuring that we keep the House fully informed as our plans develop.

It is telling that the Imperial War museum’s conception was during, not after, the first world war. At the museum’s opening in 1920, Sir Alfred Mond described it as

“not a monument of military glory, but a record of toil and sacrifice.”

I can think of no better words to guide our work today in both staging a fitting commemoration and creating a legacy for the future.

In conclusion, I welcome the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. In looking at the Canadian scheme, he recognised that there was an opportunity to involve young people in commemorating the first world war. Whether we take the Canadian scheme lock, stock and barrel or just take the sentiments that he expressed in his support for the Canadian scheme remains to be seen. Although our plans are well advanced and we have certain fixed proposals that we are ready to take forward to ensure an appropriate commemoration and support the education and involvement of young people, the door is always open. We are committed not only to informing the House but to hearing from hon. Members about their thoughts and proposals for commemorating the great war and to seeing whether we have an opportunity to take them forward.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on his contribution, particularly his reference to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We are all very grateful in that respect.

Managed Motorway Scheme (South Yorkshire)

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Westminster Hall

16:27

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

I am pleased to have secured today’s debate on the managed motorway scheme consultation for the M1, between junctions 32 and 35a. The consultation that could have such fundamental consequences for the safety of motorists on this section of the M1 was just eight weeks long over the Christmas period.

The Highways Agency’s proposals recommend the implementation of variable mandatory speed limits between junctions 32 to 35a, which is a section of motorway around the city of Sheffield. The section carries around 110,000 vehicles per day, and is congested during the weekday morning and evening peak hours and, like all roads, at other times.

The consultation document recommends that variable speed limits should be set in response to traffic conditions, automatically calculated from sensors buried in the road. Speed limits would be displayed on the motorway indicator signs above lanes, mounted on existing overhead gantries, and on additional verge-mounted signs. Where no speed limit is displayed, the national speed limit would be in force. However, the proposals, unlike other managed motorway schemes, include the use of the hard shoulder 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Emergency refuge areas would be created at intervals of a maximum of 2,500 metres, and would include emergency telephones. All other telephones would be removed from the hard shoulder, as it would in effect become a permanent fourth lane.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, as I wanted to have the opportunity to intervene on the issue of refuge areas. I note that the Highways Agency website refers to the emergency refuge areas that will be in operation, saying that they will provide

“an area of relative safety”.

Is she satisfied with the concept of “relative safety”, and does she hope that the Minister, in his response to the debate, will define what that means?

[Meg Munn]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about “relative safety”. There are lots of concerns about “relative safety”. Having driven down the M1 on Sunday and having looked at refuge areas in other managed motorway areas, it concerns me that “relative safety” is not equivalent to the kind of safety that we expect for people on the edge of motorways.

The consultation document suggests that the benefits would lead to an increase in motorway capacity and reduced congestion; smoother traffic flows; more reliable journey times; an increase and improvement to the quality of information for the driver; and lower costs and less environmental impact than conventional widening programmes. In effect, the Highways Agency is suggesting that this proposal is the best solution to add capacity to the existing strategic road network. It claims that these benefits can only be achieved by the use of variable mandatory speed limits and the use of the hard shoulder as an additional lane 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I do not agree with all the recommendations, and I challenge some of the argumentation set out in the proposals. Worryingly, there is no objective to increase road safety on this section of the motorway, which I would have thought should have been a priority.

Managed motorway schemes have been introduced elsewhere, notably on the M6 and M42. As I said earlier, schemes on those motorways differ from the proposals for the section of the M1 that I am discussing. Other schemes have only been introduced at peak flow times—weekday morning and evening rush hours—and with the overhead gantries spaced at 500 metres. The hard shoulder then reverts to just that—a hard shoulder—when congestion is not an issue. Evidence suggests that the introduction of a managed motorway scheme on those motorways has indeed led to a reduction in congestion and an improvement in traffic flows, resulting in fewer accidents and more reliable journey times.

In response to a parliamentary question that I asked, the Minister said:

“The safety risk analysis of all lanes…of the M42… showed that the average number of personal injury accidents reduced from 5.08 per month…to 2.25 per month following the introduction of hard shoulder running.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 846W.]

That is a statistic for which the Highways Agency should be applauded, but my concern is about the very different proposals for the M1. The two schemes are not directly comparable and it is misleading to suggest, both in the consultation documents and in the reply to my parliamentary question, that they are. What is different, and what has not been taken fully into account, is the issue of hard shoulder running for 24 hours, seven days a week. I am particularly concerned that this part of the proposal, if it is adopted, would have a detrimental impact on safety and the ability of the emergency services to respond to major incidents.

It is in non-peak times that accidents are most likely to occur, a situation that could potentially be aggravated by poor visibility. The detection of a stranded vehicle would be very difficult unless CCTV cameras are constantly monitored, and as I understand it the electronic detection system will only activate when traffic slows and therefore it would do little to warn approaching drivers.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. I think that she is aware that I have written to the chief constable of South Yorkshire police, David Crompton, about these matters. In his reply, he says:

“Of main concern to the partnership”—

the South Yorkshire Safer Roads Partnership—

“is the anticipated 200% increase in risk of having stationary vehicles in live lanes, which by its very nature may result in collisions.”

That is a very different situation from the one on the M42 that she has just referred to.

[Meg Munn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a vehicle broke down where a refuge could not be reached, its occupants would have to exit the vehicle in a live lane, which would be an increased risk to them—as the chief constable said, an increased risk of “200%”—as well as endangering other drivers, who might hit the stationary vehicle. Information provided to the South Yorkshire Safer Roads Partnership indicates that, while the Highways Agency predicts an overall decrease in risk, certain risks will increase significantly, as my hon. Friend has outlined, including the risk of a collision with a vehicle that has stopped in a running lane outside of peak periods. That risk would be further increased by the volume of lorries, which are often driven by foreign drivers, that use this stretch of the M1 particularly at night, when the traffic is fast-moving and the lighting is turned off, as it now will be.

The proposals make much of verge-mounted speed enforcement equipment and traditional enforcement by the police to ensure that speed limits are not being exceeded. However, the roadside speed enforcement equipment that has been cited has not been approved by the Home Office. Also the traditional enforcement action by police of pulling over drivers on to the hard shoulder when they are in contravention of the law will be taken away, because there will not be any hard shoulder. This is already reflected in the enforcement strategy within the existing schemes in the west midlands, where different and more challenging methods of policing have had to be adopted, but only at peak times; at other times, which of course is the majority of the day and night, the police can revert to traditional enforcement methods.

Let me give the Minister some examples. The police chase a 16-year-old in a stolen car late at night. They manage that situation by forcing the car on to the hard shoulder. That will not be an option for them if these proposals are adopted. Similarly, in the case of an accident leaving debris on the road, the police use the hard shoulder to drive ahead and create a sterile area to protect other road users. That will not be an option for them if these proposals are adopted. Also, police chase suspects at high speed and the cars enter the motorway system. The police use the hard shoulder to intercept and contain the perpetrators, and to minimise danger to other road users. Once again, that will not be an option for them if these proposals are adopted.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I was interested to hear the first example that the hon. Lady gave. Of course, South Yorkshire police is quite different from other police forces around the country. I am not sure whether she was saying that that was an incident that had happened on the motorway, or that South Yorkshire police—using a practice that is quite contrary to that of a lot of other police forces—actually sees the motorway as a device that it drives offenders on to, which is quite a different way of operating.

[Meg Munn]

I am not sure that the Minister understood what I said.

[Stephen Hammond]

I said that I was not sure whether the hon. Lady was saying that the offenders in the speeding car start on the motorway or that the police force them on to the motorway, which I understand is a practice prevalent in south Yorkshire.

[Meg Munn]

No, I am not talking about a situation in which the police are forcing a driver on to the motorway. I am saying that they can manage the situation of a stolen vehicle on the motorway, which is a dangerous situation, by using the hard shoulder. If the hard shoulder is being used for permanent running, that possibility is no longer available.

A major incident in south Yorkshire would require a response by fire and rescue services from all bordering areas. Emergency services use the hard shoulder to speed up response times. Again, that will not be an option for them if these proposals are adopted. Even normal operations to reinforce good driving would no longer be an option. I recently spent time with police officers who were specifically looking at the behaviour of lorry drivers, which included identifying one who was watching a DVD. With no hard shoulders, such routine operations could no longer take place and drivers’ bad habits would not be identified and prosecuted. Such operations have been normal practice, in order to improve driving on this motorway.

[Stephen Hammond]

rose—

[Meg Munn]

The Minister will have a chance to respond to the debate later, so I will continue.

South Yorkshire police said publicly that if the proposals are adopted, they would cause fundamental operational difficulties, and it has gone on to say that the proposals could also cost lives. In addition, I am sure that the proposals will undoubtedly place a greater burden on hard-pressed police officers and other members of the emergency services.

South Yorkshire Safer Roads Partnership is a multi-agency partnership consisting of representatives of the south Yorkshire local authorities and the accident and emergency services, and it is chaired by the South Yorkshire police chief inspector responsible for roads policing. The partnership has welcomed the proposal to introduce hard shoulder running in peak flow time—the morning and evening rush hours. However, like me, the partnership is opposed to the suggestion of hard shoulder running 24 hours, seven days a week. This opposition is based primarily on safety grounds. The partnership contends that variable messaging for speed management purposes should use signs on the well understood and widely established gantry system, rather than using verge-mounted signs. Verge-mounted signs are not as visible; they are often obscured by high-sided vehicles in the slower lanes; and drivers have to take their eyes off the road ahead to view them. Gantries that are properly spaced are visible by drivers when they are looking straight ahead; therefore, they are easier to see at a glance, and importantly a glance ahead where any traffic or debris would still be visible. It agrees that the reinstatement of the hard shoulder outside peak flow times would also ensure that emergency services could use the motorway system more effectively to attend major incidents, and that safety would not be compromised by having no hard shoulder when traffic is light and fast moving, and when visibility is poor.

The proposals suggest that, where danger exists, red X signs would flash and a lane divert signal would be shown over a lane, but accidents can only be avoided if sufficient gantries are provided. Safety cannot be enhanced by the use of roadside signs, which are not as clearly, safely or instantly visible. Therefore the proposals will not be as effective or safe as having the hard shoulder available outside rush hours and using overhead gantries for messages.

The safer roads partnership also disputes the passing reference to safety in the consultation documents, where it is claimed that this section of the M1 has a trend of increasing accidents and casualties. Its data suggest the opposite: in the past six years there has been a 25% reduction in collisions on this section of the Ml.

In this short debate I have not had time to go into other concerns in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who wants to make a brief contribution, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who cannot attend, are particularly concerned about the impact on their constituents of increased noise and pollution, with nothing being offered by the Highways Agency to mitigate the effects.

I welcome the proposals to introduce a managed motorway scheme on the M1 in south Yorkshire during peak times, but only peak times, with proper regard to safety and signage delivered via overhead gantries. I cannot support proposals to have 24-hour, seven-days-a-week use of the hard shoulder. The adoption of the proposals will be the thin end of the wedge, and further schemes to use the hard shoulder permanently as a fourth lane will be forthcoming for all stretches of our motorway system. That will reduce road safety and have a detrimental impact on the police’s ability to uphold the law and on emergency services’ response times.

I suspect that the Minister’s reply will repeat much of the misleading and inaccurate information. I understand that he will not be able to respond immediately to all the issues I have raised today. I know he cares about road safety—he has recently been involved in campaigns about it—and will want to consider what I have said. I am asking him to go back to his officials and the Highways Agency and consider all this information carefully. I am asking him to recognise that it is highly unusual for the police to say, without good reason, that something will cost lives.

We need a proper managed motorway scheme built on facts, not one built on cutting corners, to be done on the cheap without regard to road safety.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

For the record, Mr Betts, I realise that you have the permission of the hon. Member who secured the debate, but do you have the permission of the Minister to make a speech, however brief?

[Stephen Hammond]

indicated assent.

16:43

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I asked the Minister for permission beforehand, and I thank you, Sir Alan, for reminding me of that and for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn).

First, I quoted the chief constable’s letter, which indicates that he is concerned that the Highways Agency’s proposals are constrained by budgetary matters. It would be a matter of concern if the safety of people on the M1 around Sheffield was put at risk because of budgetary constraints. We are looking for absolute assurances from the Minister that the scheme will not go ahead until the chief constable in particular and the South Yorkshire Safer Roads Partnership in general are satisfied that there is no risk of a reduction in safety under the scheme.

Secondly, I think that the Minister is aware that I wrote to him about noise levels on the M1 in this area, particularly near Tinsley junior school, where on a hot summer’s day the windows cannot be opened because the noise from the motorway means that teachers cannot be heard by their pupils. That is unacceptable. The Minister said that he does not expect hard shoulder running to increase this problem. All I would say to him is that the problem is there anyway. I am looking for assurances that noise on the motorway, right next to Tinsley junior school, will be dealt with by the Government, irrespective of the hard shoulder running and particularly if the proposals go ahead.

Thirdly, and finally, the Minister is probably aware of a report by the Highways Agency and Sheffield city council about pollution levels around the M1 in the Tinsley area. Surveys of nitrogen dioxide levels, arrived at as a result of EU directives and translated appropriately into UK law, which were carried out in that area showed that in virtually every instance levels were 25% to 50% higher than the maximum allowed in 2010. Anything that worsens those levels should not happen. I say again to the Minister that we are looking not merely for assurances that the scheme he is proposing will not worsen those levels, but for assurances that action will be taken to deal with the unacceptable pollution that already exists in this area.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Before you proceed, Minister, it is not practice or acceptable for officials to pass notes to you. You have a Parliamentary Private Secretary and they should be present; that is their role. That is just a reminder for the future.

16:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

Thank you, Sir Alan. I will remember that for the future.

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) for initiating the debate. I hope to address a lot of what she said. If there is anything that she thinks I have not dealt with, I am happy to write to her.

I was quite disappointed by the hon. Lady’s remarks at the end of her speech and by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). This is not about cutting corners; it has never been about that or about downturn in money. It has always been about ensuring that we get the most efficient and safest motorways. I hope that they see, from my remarks, including my responses to points that they made, that that is exactly where we started from.

[Mr Betts]

I made my comments in light of a response that I received from the chief constable, in which he raised the possibility that budget constraints were causing the scheme to be produced in such a way that safety could be put at risk. I wrote to the Secretary of State about that, enclosing the chief constable’s letter, so perhaps the Minister will have an opportunity to respond to that point in due course.

[Stephen Hammond]

It might have been helpful if the chief constable had spoken to the Highways Agency before making that remark, because substantial work has been done with the agency and the South Yorkshire Safer Roads Partnership subsequent to some of the information that was mentioned. It would have helped if that had happened, rather than that remark being bandied around.

The managed motorway design and operation is well established and is already successful on the M42 in Birmingham, which we spoke about, on the M6 between junctions 4 and 5, and in other places on the M6. The latest refinement to the design is called managed motorways, with all-lane running, and it builds on our experience of operating similar schemes over the past seven years.

The infrastructure growth review in November 2011 supported the move to the revised design, recognising that the congestion and safety benefits from previous experience could be brought into other schemes. The latest design is being applied to all future managed motorway schemes, not just the project on the M1. It is the first scheme subject to some things that I will mention. Construction will start this year and the first section is scheduled for operation in 2014.

Managed motorways are about supporting safer motorways and the economy, providing much-needed capacity on our busiest motorways. They bring benefits to road users in terms of reduced congestion and improved reliability on journey time; they support the local economy and, by improving the key link, they help move people and goods around, and give people better access not only to the things they want to do in their lives, but to jobs. By providing that additional capacity, we reduce congestion and smooth the flow of traffic, which can reduce the cost of delays.

A cost saving of between 40% and 60% is associated with managed motorway schemes, which goes towards some of the motorway widening schemes. We can build more of those and benefit far more people, right across the country. The scheme makes best use of the existing infrastructure, providing maximum value for money for the taxpayer.

We know that managed motorways work. They reduce congestion and improve journey times by using variable speed limits, by giving more road space to road users and by making the hard shoulder available as a traffic lane. There is evidence that the hard shoulder can be used as a traffic lane without worsening the safety experience. Although the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley is right to say that the hard shoulder is not used exclusively on the M42, there is plenty of experience of the safety aspects of using the hard shoulder as a traffic lane and very few vehicles have experienced the issues she outlined. Moreover, there is an improvement because a number of drivers found it difficult to switch from hard shoulder running to non-hard shoulder running.

[Meg Munn]

That goes to the heart of my point. It is easy to see why using the hard shoulder would reduce accidents when there is a lot of traffic, when people can see the car in front and when people are running at managed speeds. I entirely understand that, but only this afternoon, following all the publicity, I was contacted by someone—not one of my constituents—who was hit by a lorry on the hard shoulder. The problem is that vehicles will be going at faster speeds on all lanes, with nowhere to go, unless they happen to be by one of the refuges, which are very small.

We all know that we are advised not to get out of the car on to a live motorway lane, which is what is proposed—and at faster speeds. It is simply not good enough to replicate the peak-time experience, when there are a lot of vehicles, at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning or at 7 or 8 o’clock at night, when people are going much faster and cannot see far enough ahead to know whether there is a problem in one of the lanes.

[Stephen Hammond]

There is no evidence that that experience is often seen on the M42. I will look at that point again and consult officials on the experience of others, and I will write to the hon. Lady.

Variable speed limits do not only allow faster traffic flows; they allow the smoothing of traffic flows, thereby making journeys more reliable. Variable speed limits also allow the eradication of the stop-start effect, and smoothing means that traffic sometimes moves more regularly without the speed that the hon. Lady describes.

When the M42 pilot scheme was designed, the target was to ensure that there was no worsening of safety as a result of implementing the active traffic management pilot. There was a three-year safety report and trial on the M42, although I accept that the hon. Lady will want to point out that there are differences. The pilot showed considerable improvement in safety—accidents involving personal injury were reduced by some 55%—and that was with hard shoulder running. Overall, there was a reduction in the severity of accidents, with no fatalities and fewer serious injuries, so to suggest that a move to managed motorways, or indeed to hard shoulder running, necessarily represents a decline in safety is not shown by the evidence.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister respond to the point I made in my intervention? The Highways Agency’s website states that refuge areas provide “relative safety.” Relative to what? Are we not seeking maximum safety on our motorways, rather than making the sort of compromise implied even by the agency’s website?

[Stephen Hammond]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. There are two ways of answering it. There can never be total safety. As to whether or not we describe refuge areas as being as safe as possible, let us not play with semantics. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that anywhere on a working motorway is totally safe; even motorway service areas can never be totally safe. I am not sure that it would be right for the agency to say, “This is a totally safe area.” We can play around with that. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the words, we can look at the description, but if I were to suggest that the proposed refuge areas are totally safe, I am sure he would attack me because I cannot possibly give that guarantee. I understand his point, but I hope he agrees that it is sensible to indicate that even in the refuge areas there is an element of risk.

[Paul Blomfield]

I framed my comments in the context of remarks by Chief Inspector Stuart Walne, head of roads policing in South Yorkshire. He talked about fundamental operational difficulties and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) said, about lives being at risk. The problem is that the scheme, as proposed, will be relatively less safe than the current arrangements.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that the Highways Agency met South Yorkshire police in several workshops, the most recent being on 5 February. My understanding is that the police at senior level and the Safer Roads Partnership are no longer opposed to the proposal in principle, and they are now working with the agency to find ways of operation.

[Meg Munn]

I assure the Minister that my speech was prepared in discussions and it is up to date. The South Yorkshire Safer Roads Partnership and the police do not think the proposal is safe. The police are very professional; they say that if things come in, they will have to manage them, but they do not accept that the proposal is safe.

[Stephen Hammond]

The Highways Agency met both the police and the Safer Roads Partnership. The agency has demonstrated its safety rigour and experience, and it is now working on the operating principles. I will check again, but there is plenty of evidence from pilot schemes, safety records and the safety trial to suggest that the proposal will be as safe, if not safer, than the current system.

There are three managed motorway projects on the northern section of the M1 in south Yorkshire: between junctions 28 and 31; between junctions 32 and 35a; and between junctions 39 and 42. The managed motorway scheme between junctions 32 and 35a aims to do exactly what we have done with other managed motorway schemes —to reduce the frequently experienced congestion, to provide more reliable journey times and to ensure that the road remains as safe as it is now.

The work between junctions 32 and 35a will support and enhance the role of the M1 as a national and inter-urban transport artery. The estimated cost of works for the scheme is some £150 million. The scheme requires no additional land and is built entirely within the highway’s existing boundary. As a result, the scheme can be built more quickly than would be the case with conventional motorway widening. That means we can start to reap the benefits sooner. The scheme’s environmental impact is also minimised.

The hard shoulder between the junctions will be converted to a permanent traffic lane. We are currently undertaking a thorough assessment of the environmental impact of the proposals for the M1 in south Yorkshire. The assessment is nearing completion, and I am happy to share it with the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley, for Sheffield South East and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) when it is completed. The assessment will confirm whether the scheme will result in any perceptible change in noise or air quality levels. If additional mitigation is needed, it will be provided as part of the scheme. The environmental assessment is being undertaken in accordance with best practice guidelines, and it will be used to judge whether the scheme is detrimental in any way.

We know managed motorways work well and improve journey times. The evidence from a number of trials is that managed motorways are as safe, if not safer, than current motorways. I am convinced that the scheme will enable us to reduce congestion, thereby benefiting the people of south Yorkshire, earlier than had we carried out conventional motorway widening.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Written Statements

Wednesday 6 March 2013

Consumer Credit

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

Today I am making two key consumer credit announcements.

First, I am publishing the Bristol University report on the impact of a cap on the total cost of credit and our Government response to that report.

Secondly, together with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am also publishing the Government consultation on the planned transfer of consumer credit regulation to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) from April 2014.

This Government have a clear vision for the consumer credit market: we want to see firms meeting high standards, lending responsibly, and offering competitively designed and priced products that meet consumers’ needs. We want to see consumers borrowing sensibly, able to exercise choice and having confidence in the system, secure in the knowledge that they can expect to be treated fairly by firms and that, if things do go wrong, the regulator will step in swiftly and decisively to put it right.

But the consumer credit market today is not functioning well. The National Audit Office recently estimated that there was £450 million of unaddressed consumer detriment in the market last year and concluded that the current regulatory regime under the Office of Fair Trading lacks the capacity and powers to tackle consumer detriment effectively.

There are particular problem sectors. The Bristol report, and the OFT’s final report on payday compliance, also being published today, clearly set out that the high-cost credit market, and most particularly the payday lending market, is not functioning well in consumers’ interests. Too many firms are not complying with the legislation and guidance in place. There are concerns that the business model of the payday industry itself may be flawed and competition may not be working effectively. As a result, consumers are suffering serious detriment. Both reports have identified clear evidence of problems in the way in which lenders advertise and market their payday loans to consumers, provide the loans to consumers and manage their relationship with customers once they have a loan.

The Government are deeply concerned about the evidence and scale of consumer detriment identified and the evidence of widespread non-compliance by payday lenders.

Our announcement today that we plan to transfer the regulation of consumer credit to the FCA in April 2014 is part of the solution to make sure that the consumer credit market functions better for consumers and for lenders. The transfer will, for the first time, bring conduct of business regulation under a single financial services regulator. This will end confusion for consumers, remove unnecessary duplication for many firms, and create a single strategic regulatory view across retail financial services. The FCA will have tough, responsive and dynamic powers to tackle emerging problems in credit markets quickly and effectively from April 2014.

While the Government are confident that the new regulatory regime that will be in place from April 2014 will deliver better outcomes for consumers in the medium and long-term, it is vital that consumers are adequately protected through the period leading up to the transfer. The evidence from the Bristol report and the OFT final report on payday lending demonstrate that urgent intervention is required in the high-cost credit market, in particular in the payday lending sector. That is why we have set out in our Government response to the Bristol report how we intend to work with the current and future consumer credit regulators to ensure a strong and co-ordinated response to the problems identified, now as well as from April 2014.

Today I am announcing that:

The OFT will clamp down now on irresponsible practices and in some cases blatant non-compliance by payday lenders;

The OFT is consulting on a provisional decision to refer the payday lending market to the Competition Commission;

The Government will begin immediate work with industry and regulators to clamp down on advertising of payday loans;

The Government are strongly pressing for the industry to improve compliance with payday lending codes and to put in place new provisions within the codes in specific areas of concern, notably continuous payment authority; and

The FSA has committed to prioritise action on payday lending as soon as it takes on the regulatory responsibility in April 2014. During the rest of this year, it will consider whether there are gaps in the regulation of payday lending that need to be addressed by the FCA from April 2014 and will turn existing OFT guidance into rules that are binding on firms.

I am not announcing a cap on the total cost of credit. The Government asked Bristol University to consider the impact of such a cap. This Government’s view is that a cap would not be the best solution now to the problems that have been identified by the Bristol report and the OFT payday compliance review. The Bristol report’s findings indicate that such a cap could reduce access to credit, reduce the supply of credit and weaken competition. It could also lead lenders to shift more to charges which fall outside the cap and to optional fees which are generally less transparent to consumers. However, the Government recognise that a cap might be appropriate at some point in the future. This is why we have provided the FCA with specific powers to impose a cap on the cost and duration of credit, should they deem it appropriate once they take over the responsibility for consumer credit in April 2014.

This Government believe that tough enforcement and compliance action today, combined with a move to a new consumer credit regulatory regime that is equipped to deliver more robust consumer protection in the future, will do much to address the key concerns in this market. It will weed out rogue lenders, ensure that consumers have tools to make the right borrowing decisions for them, and provide important protection and help for consumers who find themselves in difficulty.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 7 and 8 March in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.

The Council will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states) where there is expected to be agreement on a proposed date of 9 April 2013 for the entry into operation of the European central second generation Schengen information system (SIS II). The UK supports this date and continues as scheduled for its integration into SIS II in the fourth quarter of 2014.

There will be a discussion on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen acquis. The UK will not vote on this item since the measure builds on the part of the Schengen agreement in which the UK does not participate.

There will be two items under Schengen governance, collectively known as the Schengen package; the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls in exceptional circumstances (the Schengen borders code (SBC) amendment) and political agreement on the Schengen evaluation mechanism (SEM). On SEM, the Council position agreed in June 2012 secures all UK negotiating objectives but it will not be agreed until a deal is reached on the SBC. The SBC file is currently in trilogue between the Council and the European Parliament. The UK will not vote on this item since the measure builds on the part of the Schengen agreement in which the UK does not participate. In addition we have yet to receive compromise texts that we can officially send to the parliamentary Committees.

The European Commission will present legislative proposals for a future EU entry/exit system alongside a registered traveller programme under the banner of “Smart Borders”. Each of these initiatives would apply only to third-country nationals crossing the external Schengen land, air and sea borders. The entry/exit system will register electronically the dates of entry and exit of all third-country nationals admitted for a short stay into the Schengen area. The registered traveller programme envisages that frequent third-country travellers, who have undergone successful pre-screening, would benefit from a facilitated border check into the Schengen area. The UK will not be able to take part in either component of the Smart Borders measures as they build on the part of the Schengen agreement in which the UK does not participate. However, there is value in the successful introduction of an entry/exit system that would enable better measurement and control of illegal migration.

Over lunch there will be a discussion on expected pressures arising from migratory flows over the next year, with Ministers discussing the EU’s approach to dealing with these pressures. The Government believe that any cohesive effort to deal with migratory pressures should include proper safeguards in relation to tackling illegal immigration and action to combat abuse of free movement rights.

During the main Council the EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, will present a paper on the security situation in the Sahel and the Maghreb, and the implications for EU internal security. The UK will argue that the threat needs both an international and regional response and will note that we have supported the UN Security Council Resolutions on Mali, as well as regional leadership from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union, and EU training to help rebuild the Malian army.

Finally, the Commission will debrief on January’s high-level Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) conference entitled “Empowering local actors to counter violent extremism”. The RAN is a network across different disciplines of front-line counter-radicalisation work (RAN Health, RAN Police) which brings together practitioners to share knowledge and experience. The Irish presidency has indicated that it will seek adoption of Council conclusions on radicalisation and recruitment at June’s JHA Council.

The justice day will begin with an orientation debate on the general data protection regulation. The presidency will report on discussions at the Council working group on adopting a risk-based approach towards data protection. There may also be some discussion on providing member states with flexibility as regards the public sector.

The Commission will present its new proposal on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law. There will also be an orientation debate. This proposal builds on a framework decision, which would be repealed and replaced, aimed at deterring counterfeiting by further approximation of criminal law, including enhanced penalties. The directive was published on 6 February and the UK’s JHA opt-in protocol will apply.

The presidency will also seek to gain a general approach to some remaining issues and additional recitals on the proposed regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. A partial general approach was achieved at the December Council. The Government support the overall policy aim of the proposal and have opted into it. The proposal has yet to clear scrutiny in either House.

Group of States Against Corruption

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

The Council of Europe’s group of states against corruption (GRECO) has published today its fourth round evaluation report on the United Kingdom. This report focuses on the prevention of corruption of Members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors. Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The report acknowledges the important steps to strengthen financial control across the Government following the expenses controversy but nevertheless, encourages the further reinforcement of transparency and accountability of Members of Parliament. In particular, GRECO notes the plans under way to regulate lobbying and to further develop the internal mechanisms for preventing and sanctioning misconduct. The report praises the reform introduced in recent years to safeguard the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and prosecution services. The report stresses, however, the need to ensure that judicial office holders are guaranteed permanent appointment and thereby recommends reducing the numbers of fee-paid judges in England and Wales.

The report contains eight recommendations, which are not legally binding, on which the United Kingdom is expected to report back to GRECO by 30 April 2014. A compliance report on the UK’s progress will follow.

Grand Committee

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 6 March 2013.

00:00

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Global Green Growth Institute (Legal Capacities) Order 2013

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:45

Moved By

[Baroness Northover]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Global Green Growth Institute (Legal Capacities) Order 2013.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the draft Global Green Growth Institute (Legal Capacities) Order 2013 was laid before the House on 29 January.

There has been no poverty reduction at scale without strong and sustained economic growth. The sustainability of current growth models is, however, a serious concern. Although economic growth relies on environmental resources, at the same time it drives their depletion. Green growth seeks to promote actions that simultaneously improve both growth and the environment.

The Global Green Growth Institute was established in 2010 to advance the practice and theory of green growth. It hopes to work with a critical mass of countries to explore the potential of green growth and, through demonstrating its potential, to act as a transformational catalyst for change. The institute’s focus is on helping to prepare economic development strategies in countries that have expressed interest, and then helping to ensure that there is appropriate capacity and means to implement these strategies. The UK has been a keen supporter of the Global Green Growth Institute, acting as a founding member with the Deputy Prime Minister representing the UK at the agreement of its establishment in Rio in 2012.

The International Organisations Act allows us to grant international organisations legal capacity by making an Order in Council. This will enable the institute to attain formal status in UK law and so enable it to operate effectively here. Her Majesty’s Government fully support all these changes. We firmly believe that the Global Green Growth Institute may help to create a new model of environmentally sustainable economic growth. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Teverson]

I shall just rise to congratulate the Minister on her excellent exposition of the connection between green growth and economic growth, for the good not just of the planet but of this nation. I hope that she will spread this message well and truly throughout the land, particularly towards 11 Downing Street, and reinforce that message as much as possible. I congratulate her and I fully support the Government in their support for this very important institute and its future work. We will see how well it does over the years.

[Lord Liddle]

On behalf of the Opposition, I also rise to support this measure. In government we fully backed international action against climate change, of which this is a useful part. I would like to hear from the Minister what the plans are for the future of the institute. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I would also like reassurance that the Government are not falling into the hands of climate change deniers.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson for his strong support and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his support. I assure both noble Lords that I will do my very best to promote green growth, which is strongly supported, as they know, by DfID and this Government. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, of that.

As to the future of the institute, we are very optimistic about its future programme, but that will be its responsibility. This order enables the institute to operate in the way that I have said in the United Kingdom, and we look forward to its further work in the future. On that basis, if the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is content, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

15:50

Sitting suspended.

Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2013

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:00

Moved By

[Baroness Verma]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2013.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)]

My Lords, the renewables obligation is currently the Government’s main mechanism for supporting large-scale renewable electricity generation in the UK. Since it was introduced in 2002, the renewables obligation has succeeded in tripling the level of renewable electricity, from 2.9% of total UK generation in 2002 to 9.4% in 2011. It supports some 11.5 gigawatts of accredited capacity. As such, the renewables obligation plays a major role in helping the UK meet its renewables targets and carbon reduction goals.

The renewables obligation places an annual obligation on licensed UK electricity suppliers to source a specified proportion of the electricity that they provide to customers from eligible renewable sources. The scheme is administered by Ofgem, which issues renewables obligation certificates to electricity generators in relation to the amount of eligible renewable electricity they can generate. Generators sell their ROCs to suppliers who use them towards meeting their obligation.

The banding of support—allowing different technologies to receive different levels of subsidy—was introduced to the RO in April 2009 to drive greater and more rapid deployment of renewable electricity generation. This order will implement the outcome of the second major four-yearly review of banded renewables obligation subsidy levels, which took place between 2010 and 2012. The review attracted more than 4,000 consultation responses and substantial amounts of new evidence from a wide range of stakeholders across four separate consultation exercises, which was used to refine our original proposals. The results are set out in the government responses to the RO banding review, published on 25 July and 18 December last year. The order will set the support levels in England and Wales for the next four years from 1 April 2013 until 31 March 2017 for new developments or capacity added to existing generating stations accredited under the RO during this period.

Before I outline the key changes being introduced by the order, it is worth reflecting on the importance of the UK renewables electricity sector and how the new subsidy package will help us achieve our goals. The changes in subsidy levels in this order recognise the key role of renewables in the UK’s future. Renewable energy generation is a crucially important low-carbon technology with a central role to play in helping us reach our carbon emission reduction targets. It is also essential to our economic growth and energy security. It reduces our reliance on imported fossil fuels, and helps keep the lights on and our energy bills down. We have some of the best renewable energy resources anywhere in the world, and the Government are absolutely determined that the UK will retain its reputation as one of the best places to invest in renewables. We have also legally committed to ensuring that 15% of our energy will come from renewable sources by 2020.

The subsidy package balances growth and affordability, providing reassurance to investors and value for money for consumers. The subsidy levels introduced through the order provide certainty for developers and will ensure continuity of support as we transition towards the new contracts for difference to be introduced as part of our electricity market reforms. It will help unlock generation and network capital investments worth around £20 billion to £25 billion at today’s prices in the period 2013-17, and deliver the kind of sustainable, long-term growth and green jobs that we need to get the economy moving again. This represents a very significant part of the £110 billion that we need to attract this decade to overhaul our ageing power system.

It is not the Government’s policy to support renewables at any price. Our ultimate aim is for renewables to become competitive without the need for subsidy. The Government’s decisions on RO subsidy levels send a strong signal to industry that we expect this to happen over time. To get this moving in the right direction, we are reducing support where it can be done, while bringing on the deployment that we need from key technologies such as offshore wind, onshore wind and biomass, to achieve our aims.

The order contains a large number of changes and I do not wish to detain the Committee by going through them all. I therefore turn to the main changes that we are introducing.

We are setting the level of support for offshore wind at two renewable obligation certificates per megawatt hour in 2014-15, reducing that to 1.9 ROCs in 2015-16 and to 1.8 ROCs 2016-17. This is consistent with our consultation proposals and reflects our expectation that the costs of offshore wind will fall as mass deployment takes place and industry innovates. We are already working closely with key representatives from industry to reduce costs. The new support levels will ensure that the UK retains its position as the leading location in the world for offshore wind deployment.

Onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective forms of large-scale renewable electricity generation. The Government are committed to onshore wind as part of a diverse energy mix. We believe it is right to continue supporting onshore wind through the renewables obligation, but propose to reduce support by 10% to 0.9 ROCs per megawatt hour for new developments coming online from 1 April this year. This cut in support is in line with evidence of falling costs. We also know that the cost of onshore wind may fall faster than expected. To ensure that support continues to reflect costs, we are running a call for evidence and if we find that there is a significant change in costs, the Government will expect to review onshore wind support rates again. Any new arrangements arising from a potential review would not take effect before April 2014, and financially committed projects would be protected through grandfathering and grace periods.

We understand that some people have concerns about the pace of wind turbine developments in the British countryside and believe that communities should have a greater say over, and stake in, onshore wind developments in their area. Our planning reforms are already putting local communities in the driving seat by giving them new powers to write their own plans. However, because this is a priority, our call for evidence is also looking at what should be done to improve engagement with communities and ensure that communities that host onshore wind receive appropriate benefits. We expect to publish in May a final report on costs and, in the summer, a final report on community engagement and benefits.

Around 30% of our total renewable energy in 2020 could come from biomass heat and electricity. To ensure that we support the most cost-effective and sustainable forms of biomass, we are creating several new support bands for coal plant converting fully to biomass generation or increasing the amount of biomass they co-fire. These offer the quickest and cheapest ways to decarbonise electricity from biomass and will extend the life of existing assets, thereby helping to maintain the security of electricity supply.

Our policy on new dedicated biomass plant remains cautious because this technology is a relatively costly means of decarbonisation. Support levels are set at 1.5 ROCs from 2013-14, reducing to 1.4 ROCs in 2016-17. Last December, we announced our intention to introduce a 400 megawatt cap on the deployment of new dedicated biomass plant. We are currently working with industry to develop a process requiring developers to preregister potential projects. We will bring forward legislation later this year to introduce the registration requirements into law.

We will continue to support innovative technologies that can play a long-term role in our energy future, such as energy from wave and tidal stream and innovative processes for generating electricity from waste, such as anaerobic digestion and advanced conversion technologies. Both AD and ACTs will continue to receive two ROCs in 2013-14 and 2014-15. Support will reduce to 1.9 ROCs in 2015-16 and to 1.8 ROCs in 2016-17 in line with our aim to reduce subsidies over time.

I am sure the Committee will welcome the news that support for wave and tidal stream technologies will more than double from two ROCs to five ROCs from 1 April this year. This level of support will be available for installed capacity up to 30 megawatts at each generating station. The UK has an unrivalled abundance of marine energy and is currently the world leader in developing wave and tidal stream technologies. Increasing supporting for marine energy recognises the potential and importance of marine energy for the UK.

We are establishing two separate bands for solar PV under the RO: one band for building-mounted solar PV and the other for ground-mounted solar PV. We want to see a healthy solar industry that grows in a sustainable way and moves away from the boom and bust cycles that we have seen in the past. That is why the lower support levels for these new bands reflect the substantial fall in technology costs in recent years.

We have listened to industry about the need to differentiate support between building-mounted and ground-mounted installations, and we have introduced two bands as a result. In order to incentivise solar projects on buildings, building-mounted solar PV projects will receive higher rates than ground-mounted projects. Our proposals for solar projects on commercial buildings will encourage businesses to consider solar PV as a serious option for meeting their power needs.

Hydro-electricity makes an important contribution to our renewable energy generation. While opportunities for further large-scale developments are limited, we believe it is right to incentivise as much of the remaining cost-effective hydro-electricity potential in England and Wales as we can. For that reason, and following careful consideration of new consultation evidence, we are proposing to set support at 0.7 ROCs instead of the 0.5 ROCs that we proposed in consultation.

The RO is paid for by consumers through their energy bills. For that reason, delivering the best possible deal for consumers has been at the heart of the RO banding review. In considering the final shape of the banding package, we have focused on the need to balance cost-effectiveness with the range of objectives that the RO must deliver. This package therefore reduces the lifetime subsidy cost of the renewables obligation per megawatt hour of renewable electricity generated by 11% compared to current bands.

These proposals cost around £900 million less than implementing the consultation bands while driving higher deployment. The banding changes, therefore, will deliver more clean power at less unit cost, representing better value for money than the current RO subsidy levels. They will also reduce consumers’ energy bills by £6 next year and £5 in 2014-15 compared to the current subsidy regime, a total of £11 across the remainder of this Parliament.

The changes that I have set out today apply to the RO for England and Wales. There are separate but complementary obligations for Scotland and Northern Ireland. RO policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland is devolved, but colleagues there have advised that they intend to make changes to their obligations similar to those I have set out today. Similar orders will be laid before the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly shortly.

The European Commission is in the process of assessing the changes made by the order for the purpose of providing state aid approval. We anticipate that we will receive this approval before this instrument is made.

The measures contained in this order are good for the country and good for consumers. The renewable energy infrastructure that this package will bring forward will create a multibillion-pound boost for the UK economy, driving growth and supporting jobs across the country. This investment will have lasting benefits for our country, helping to modernise the electricity grid to keep the lights on, building resilience against spiralling fossil fuel prices and keeping carbon emissions down. Importantly for consumers, the changes we propose will deliver real reductions in energy bills across the current Parliament. I commend this order to the Committee and beg to move.

16:14

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive explanation of the order before the Committee. She has correctly identified it as the main financial policy mechanism for encouraging large-scale renewable electricity generation to put it on a sustainable footing as part of the UK energy mix. The order updates the band support levels, introduces new power sources and increases the importance of certain fuels such as biomass. I certainly support the order. A lot of what the noble Baroness has said is eminently sensible and can agreed by noble Lords all around the Committee. It will help to deliver the UK target of 15% from renewable generation by 2020. It will help UK energy security by reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. It will assist in the conversion to cleaner generation and it will deliver on decarbonisation targets. It will also help to secure necessary capital and supply chain investment and, not least, it will help to deliver good value for money for consumers.

That said, the Government have presided over a rather disruptive process. There have been public disagreements between Ministers in the noble Baroness’s department and challenges with the Treasury. These do not engender the certainty that is so necessary to the industry if it is to invest with confidence. Uncertainties remain over elements of biomass and solar generation which will be subject to further separate consultation and orders. It is extremely damaging to the industry’s confidence if it experiences constant downward revisions of its support and to the targets of the renewable transport fuel obligation as well as the carbon reduction targets. Can the Minister confirm that the target under the renewables directive is safe? New renewables stations will be ineligible from 1 April 2017. This amending order increases generation per annum to 79 terawatt hours a year by 2017, as explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. However, the target for 2020 is 108 terawatt hours a year. By what measures is the Minister confident that the shortfall of 29 terawatt hours per year will be generated?

One of the key points of the order before us is that from 2014 onwards, support for large-scale renewable electricity will be through a new feed-in tariff with a contract for difference scheme, as proposed under the forthcoming Energy Bill. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for a smooth and well managed transition from the renewables obligation to the contracts for difference regime? If there is any delay for whatever reason, can she confirm that the RO scheme can be extended to give investors the certainty that projects which need longer timeframes have the necessary clarity in terms of levels of support that are needed for their investment?

In its examination of this order, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that the lives of some existing coal-fired generating plants, which had been expected to close due to carbon emissions reduction targets, may be extended through support to convert to cleaner biomass generation. The committee asked for clarification on how the banded support would allow this to happen. In its reply, the Minister’s department pointed to Ofgem’s Electricity Capacity Assessment 2012, which identifies a tightening of generating margins from 15% this winter to 4% in 2016. While it makes sense to utilise existing stations and convert them, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that not only may this delay decarbonisation targets, it will delay the necessary urgent investment in fit-for-purpose energy generation. Are the Government seeking the flexibility that will allow them to rely on coal as a back-up supply to help keep the lights on? Is that the more pressing reason, and will it comply with the industrial emissions directive, which replaces the large combustion plant directive with more stringent emissions limits, that is to come into force from 1 January 2016?

Having made that point, I note that both the Committee on Climate Change’s bioenergy review and DECC’s own energy strategy conclude that coal firing with biomass offers a cost-effective way to decarbonise existing coal-fired power stations. The Explanatory Memorandum is also correct to point to energy efficiency and demand reduction as important elements in the calculation of targets that renewable generation needs to fill. However, I do not see any figures in the Explanatory Memorandum to clarify that. Previously, I have asked the noble Baroness for her assessment of the success of the Green Deal and other measures to reduce demand. Is she now able to come forward and put any figures on these measures?

There is much in this order to consider and I welcome the support increase to five ROCs for both tidal stream and wave. That should help reduce the risks of not achieving decarbonisation targets. I welcome the section on rural-proofing within the context of the Government’s overall reforms of the planning system.

The final issue of importance concerns bioenergy crops. Quite rightly, there is anxiety over land use that may be taken away from food crops, and deforestation may also result. The use of palm oil has already been excluded from supply chains. Could the Minister clarify that her department’s bioenergy strategy has now taken account of the sustainability standards recommended in the RO recognition of the environmental assurance scheme’s requirements? To sum up, I support the order and would be grateful if the Minister could give reassurances on the points that I have raised.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I must admit that when I saw this order on the Order Paper, got a copy of it from the Printed Paper Office and opened it, I thought it was my maths O-level paper all over again. It took me back I will not say how many years to that dreaded moment. I passed in the end but it was quite a struggle. The formulae in the order as I went through it got more and more complicated: E=MC² was rather simple by comparison. I hope the people that have to interpret this have a lot more time and mathematical and computerised power than my brain normally does.

I thank my noble friend for going through the order and particularly for highlighting something very important to the south-west and my part of the world: the wave side. Yes, DECC and the Government have put that back up to five ROCs but what is important about this, which my noble friend did not mention, is that that has put it back on a par with what they pay in Scotland. We in the south-west can now compete with our northern brothers and sisters in terms of marine energy. I very much welcome that.

One of the particularly good things about this is that we are moving into a much more professionally and better managed transition in terms of ROC values. I know that ROCs are about to disappear anyway but we are able to make measured and predicted changes in the regime to keep investor confidence, yet knowing that we will have the mechanism to, we hope, keep these numbers within what I thought was a very good settlement in terms of the levy control framework between DECC and the Treasury. That was a good outcome. I hope this approach now means that we will not have that backwards and forwards in trying to second-guess in the short term, and that we have an environment where the investor community is able to put its money where its mouth is—and where our mouth is—in getting renewable capacity, and that that actually happens.

My main question is very much the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We have a marvellous list here of all the technologies that there are in renewables, some of them which even I forget about. Some, like co-firing bioliquids sounds definitely like something I would not want to get involved in but there are some really interesting technologies there. A number of them are biomass-related and I would also be interested to know where the Government have got to in terms of these quite complicated supply-chain issues around sustainability. It is sometimes all too easy to condemn everything and to give excuses for things not to happen, rather than to bring them forward. However, sustainability is important, and I am very interested to hear my noble friend’s comments in response to my question and to that of Lord Grantchester.

[The Duke of Montrose]

I would like to raise a couple of small questions. One is out of curiosity. We all understand that Scotland administers its own renewable energy regime and the quantities of ROCs that are administered. However, when it comes to providing the certificates, can the Minister tell us whether this is done centrally? Is a Scottish ROC equivalent to an English ROC, and able to be traded across the border? When we get to this horrible question of a referendum in Scotland and Mr Salmond asks whether the Scots want to be devolved, will they suddenly find themselves having to set up ROC administrations that they do not presently have? I am sure that if that is the case, it will be one of many aspects that have not been costed.

The other point comes from what the Minister said about the extent to which the Government expect to have a conversion of coal power stations to biomass. If conversion does take place to the full extent that the Government anticipate, how much of the biomass required is available from the UK and how much might have to be imported?

[Lord Teverson]

Before my noble colleague sits down, I would like to say something important about co-ordination between Scotland and the south: we definitely need a ROC concert.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I was trying to recover from that helpful contribution that we have just had from my noble friend. I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their support for this order and very much welcome what they have said in recognising the great benefits that it will provide.

I was slightly disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, does not recognise that it brings greater certainty for investors, simply through what we are trying to achieve. The expected benefits initially will be £20 billion to £25 billion in 2013-17. That gives greater certainty to investors, given that they will know that they are working towards the contracts for difference in the Energy Bill.

I will answer some of the questions that the noble Lord has put down, as have my noble friends, but if I fail to answer any questions I will write to noble Lords and make sure that there is a copy in the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the Green Deal. It is on track and doing very well. However, because I was not expecting a question on the Green Deal, I do not have the specific figures here with me. If he will allow me, I will also write to him on those figures and give him an update on where we are.

The noble Lord asked whether the target is safe. I can assure the noble Lord that it is. The target is unchanged and there are no plans to change it. He also asked if I am confident that the shortfall of 29 terawatt hours will be met. Through the contracts for difference, we expect that target to be met and, through our capacity mechanisms, to have some capacity in lieu in case there is ever a shortfall. Of course, we will have greater discussions on this when the Energy Bill arrives in our House.

The noble Lord also asked if the RO would be extended to allow a smooth transition to CFDs. We have no plans to extend the RO. The EMR and the CFDs are on track and we are working very closely with industry to ensure that the transition is as smooth and secure as possible.

The noble Lord also asked if coal would continue as a back-up supply. I have just mentioned the new-capacity mechanism and this will be a matter for that mechanism, rather than the renewables obligation, but renewables, particularly biomass, will have an important role to play in keeping our old coal-powered stations open in a much more sustainable way.

16:30

As always, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, poses a lot of questions and I shall try to run through as many as I can. He asked if the conversions will delay investment in new low-carbon technologies. We consider conversions to be an interim technology as a means of quickly decarbonising coal. It is a cost-effective technology, requiring only one ROC. I hope that that answers his question.

As to whether the department’s bioenergy strategy takes account of sustainability requirements, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that one of the key principles of the strategy is sustainability. It is underpinned by the Government’s assessment of how much biomass and bioliquid we could bring forward in changing land use and deforestation. These are key issues of which we are very mindful, and we will make sure that we address those concerns as we also support renewable energy through biomass and biofuels.

My noble friend Lord Teverson asked about the interpretation of the ROCs tables. We need to go back to school together. However, Ofgem will be issuing clear guidance setting out the ROCs that each technology will receive. I am sure that both the noble Lord and I will be able to understand the formulae far better.

My noble friend also asked if the order would give greater certainty. As I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the order will of course give greater certainty, particularly all the way through to 2017, which gives industry a much stronger case for how much it would like to invest in renewable energies.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about uncertainty regarding solar and biomass. In fact, conclusions have been reached and both areas are reflected strongly in the order.

My noble friend Lord Teverson asked where we have reached on sustainability. I think I answered that also, but sustainability is a key plank of our bioenergy policy.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about ROCs issued centrally and traded across borders. Ofgem administers the renewable obligations in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have the same value across the borders. Therefore, the situation is, by and large, the same.

I have galloped through the responses. I will read Hansard carefully and if I have missed anything out, I will write. I hope that the Committee will accept the order.

Motion agreed.

Electronic Commerce Directive (Trafficking People for Exploitation) Regulations 2013

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:34

Moved By

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Electronic Commerce Directive (Trafficking People for Exploitation) Regulations 2013.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, these regulations are a technical measure to implement the EU directive on electronic commerce, known as the e-commerce directive, in respect of the new Section 59A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on trafficking people for sexual exploitation, and amended Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, on trafficking people for labour and other exploitation. These changes to trafficking offences were made by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The e-commerce directive supports free movement in the provision of information society services; broadly speaking, commercial activities that take place online in Europe. It covers online activities, such as selling goods and services, hosting a website or providing web or e-mail access. The trafficking offences can be committed online where the arranging or facilitating takes place over the internet. Therefore the e-commerce directive needs to be implemented in respect of the human trafficking offences.

I should mention some of the history regarding the implementation of the e-commerce directive, which was originally implemented by regulations in 2002. Those regulations applied the directive to all offences that existed at that time. For offences created after that date, as in this case arising from amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have to implement the directive on a case-by-case basis.

I will address briefly some of the details of the regulations. Regulations 3 and 4 implement the directive’s country of origin rules. These rules broadly say that a provider of information society services must be regulated by the state in which the provider is established, not the state in which the services are received. This is provided for by Regulation 3.

Similarly, the country of origin principle means the UK must not restrict the freedom of service providers established in another European Economic Area state to provide their services in the UK unless certain conditions apply. Such providers will generally be regulated by the state in which they are based. We would expect EU member states, all of which are bound by the human trafficking directive, to pursue prosecutions under their relevant domestic trafficking offences.

Regulation 4 sets out that proceedings may not be brought against a service provider established in another European Economic Area state, unless specific public interest conditions are satisfied. The key question for these purposes will be whether a prosecution is proportionate. The CPS will take into account all relevant factors, including, first, whether a prosecution is to be brought under the domestic law of the state in which the service provider is established—if such a prosecution is to be brought, it will be difficult to show that it is proportionate to prosecute here as well; secondly, where the evidence is located; and thirdly, the nature of the offending that has taken place, for example, whether the service provider part of an organised crime gang focused on trafficking persons into the UK. Overall, the CPS will need to decide whether the conditions are met on a case-by-case basis.

Regulations 5, 6 and 7 implement the requirements of the directive in relation to intermediary service providers which carry out certain activities essential for the operation of the internet: those that act as mere conduits and those providers that cache or host information. The directive requires us to limit the liability of such intermediary service providers in specified circumstances. For example, a host is not liable if it had no knowledge, when the information was provided, that it was part of the commission of a trafficking offence. It is important that we do not unnecessarily criminalise service providers that will not always be aware of the use being made of their services.

The UK has always been a world leader in fighting human trafficking and has a strong international reputation in this field. In July 2011, the UK applied to opt in to the EU directive on human trafficking. Opting in sends a strong message that the UK is not a soft touch on this issue and supports the collaborative international work that is a vital element in dealing with such complex international organised crime. The UK already has a strong basis for such collaboration through the work the Serious Organised Crime Agency undertakes with foreign law enforcement agencies. In recent years, police forces have participated in a number of joint investigation teams, in support of the investigation and prosecution of traffickers.

The Government’s human trafficking strategy, published on 19 July 2011, identified four core themes: improving identification and care of victims; enhancing our ability to act early before harm reaches the UK; smarter action at the border; and more co-ordination of our law enforcement efforts in the UK. An update on the strategy was included in the first report of the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking, published on Anti-Slavery Day, 18 October 2012.

At its heart, human trafficking involves the movement of individuals for the purposes of exploitation. That movement and exploitation, particularly when it has an international dimension, can involve extensive co-ordination in the planning, recruitment and transportation of victims. It is likely that criminals are using new technologies, or old technologies in more complex ways, to facilitate their communications and avoid detection. It is not known whether the use of new technologies has increased trafficking in persons, but it is believed that increased use of technologies has made trafficking activities much easier to perform.

We are commencing the amendments made by the Protection of Freedoms Act on 6 April, in line with the Government’s wider timetable for implementing the EU directive on trafficking in human beings. It is our intention that these regulations come into force at the same time. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. These are very technical regulations. They are the kind of regulations that you wade through as the sun goes down and hope that you will follow all the information they contain. Therefore, the Minister’s explanation was helpful. Although the regulations are technical, they are extremely important. He, like noble Lords on this side of the Committee, will fully appreciate just how awful human trafficking is.

In preparing for today’s discussion, I read some accounts of people who had virtually been sold into slavery to provide cheap labour for companies or often to engage in illegal activities and prostitution. It really is horrendous. Modern technology is usually a way forward, but it is not always a force for good. In this case, it is a force for evil and enabling illegal activities, which is why these regulations are so necessary. Therefore, I welcome the regulations and am pleased that they have been brought forward today. One of the reasons why we are pleased to see them is because the Government were rather tardy in bringing forward the relevant measure as regards the previous EU directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. In fact, they were going to opt out of those provisions. However, I am pleased to say that the Government subsequently changed their mind, for whatever reason, and rightly decided to opt into that directive. These regulations extend that commitment, and we are grateful for them.

However, I wish to press the Minister a little further on opting in and out. An issue that has concerned me, and which the noble Lord and I have discussed across the Floor of the House, is that the Government intend to opt out of policing and criminal justice measures. I am worried that if they do so, these regulations would no longer be valid because they would have opted out of these provisions. I entirely agree with the noble Lord about their importance and am very concerned that we may face a situation whereby the Government decide to opt out of these provisions, having already opted in—a bit of a hokey-cokey, really. I hope that we stay in.

I have specific questions in relation to these regulations and to the other anti-trafficking orders that the Government have brought forward. My understanding is that the Government are now consulting on and preparing for measures to opt out of police and criminal justice. In that case, what consideration are the Government giving to interim measures? As the Minister and I know, those who are subject to trafficking in this way are among the most vulnerable of humans, in the most vulnerable position and need protection. If we are to opt out, it is all very well looking to opt back in in six months, a year or whenever we are given permission to do so by other member states, but there would be an immediate problem that these regulations would not be valid because we had opted out. I am not clear whether, in that situation, the Government would need to revoke these regulations individually or whether there would be a general opt-out and we would automatically be opted out of all EU police and criminal justice matters. I hope the Minister is able to say something about that. I agree with him about the reasons why he has brought these regulations forward today and about why they are so important.

My only other question is on the review. What will be the timescale for it? Will it coincide with the Government’s plans to opt out of police and criminal justice or will there be a set period? Normally such regulations say that they will be reviewed within three or five years, but there is no timescale in these regulations, and I wonder whether that is connected to the Government’s intention to try to opt out of policing and criminal justice. We support the regulations and think they are right, which is why I am concerned about this opt-out hokey-cokey that the Government have announced.

16:44

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her broad welcome for the directive and the regulations arising from it. I think we are all agreed on it. The opt-out of police and justice measures would not affect this order or the UK’s participation in the trafficking directive. It is not part and parcel of that situation. That is important to know.

I know the opt-outs are a matter that concerns the noble Baroness. The work in relation to all the opt-outs is ongoing negotiation and discussion. She knows that I and my noble friends in the Ministry of Justice will do our best to keep the House informed of the implications of anything that comes forward.

The first review of the regulations will be after five years. By that time, we will see what the implications are. We hope that we can anticipate relatively few prosecutions under these regulations because their existence is the key to making sure that e-trafficking is not used to reinforce this terrible trade.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Did I hear the Minister say that the first review will be after five years? Regulation 8(4) states:

“The first report … must be published before the end of the period of five years”.

Perhaps I am saying this only to register my presence, but we should be clear about that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I had written in my notes that I should welcome her contribution to the debate, and I had to excise that on the grounds that the noble Baroness had not contributed. I am pleased to say that, although my notes say “after five years”, I am sure that the review will be in accord with what is required by the regulations. Whether the report is made at five years or after five years, I hope that satisfies my noble friend that I expect the Government to be in a position to comply with the regulations. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Legal Deposit Libraries (Non-Print Works) Regulations 2013

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:50

Moved By

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legal Deposit Libraries (Non-Print Works) Regulations 2013.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, legal deposit is the statutory requirement for individuals or organisations to deliver copies of their publications to designated institutions, known as legal deposit libraries. They are the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales, Cambridge University Library, the Bodleian Library, Oxford and Trinity College, Dublin. The legal deposit regime is crucial in enabling these institutions to preserve and maintain a comprehensive record of our published heritage for future generations.

Legal deposit was first introduced in this country in the 17th century and requirements changed little during the monopoly of the printed word. However, publishing has evolved considerably over the past 20 years, with the rapid rise of digital publishing and the phenomenon of the internet revolutionising how information is made available. Legal deposit arrangements now need to address the UK’s digitally published output in order to maintain a comprehensive record and to avoid the scenario described by deposit libraries and the wider research community whereby such output is lost to a “digital black hole”.

The Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 was one of the first pieces of legislation worldwide to regulate for the deposit of non-print material. The regulations considered by the Committee today allow the full framework of legal deposit envisaged by the 2003 Act to be put into practice, and specifically for works published in a medium other than print to be preserved on a systematic basis for the first time. Following extensive consultation with the publishing and research sectors, the Government are now in a position to introduce the landmark extension of the legal deposit regime to cover non-print works. These regulations will enable the full range of this nation’s published intellectual and cultural output to be preserved and secured for posterity.

The regulations have been designed to allow a light-touch means of archiving non-print works which balances the needs of both publishers and deposit libraries. This has involved designing, on the one hand, a manageable and efficient system for the deposit libraries to build a comprehensive archive of digital content, and on the other, a clearly governed, practical system which does not impose any disproportionate burdens on publishers, offers potential to realise savings and protects the commercial interests of publishers and rights holders.

The regulations apply to both work published online, such as content from the internet and e-books, and work published offline, such as CD-ROMs and microfilm. The requirement for depositing offline works mirrors the existing requirements for printed works, namely that publishers must deliver a copy to the British Library within one month of publication and that the other deposit libraries can also request a copy of any offline work.

Generally, works from the internet will be collected by a process of web harvesting. Web harvesting uses computer software to search the internet automatically and copy content from targeted websites. Importantly, this process imposes no burden on publishers. In addition, where a book, for example, is published as an e-book and a print edition, the regulations allow the publisher to do away with depositing the print edition, with obvious cost savings to both the publisher and deposit library. Although the collection of work from the internet will generally be cost-free for publishers, the delivery of offline material such as CD-ROMs will have a small cost.

In line with government policy to avoid any disproportionate burden on the smallest businesses, new businesses and micro-businesses in the publishing sector will be exempt until April 2014 from the parts of the regulations that have the potential to impose a cost burden. This phased implementation is important as over 80% of publishers are micro-businesses, and their inclusion within scope is therefore essential to meet the objectives of the regulations in full.

Storing digital content will cost the deposit libraries money, but they will have the benefit of a shared archive and potential savings from no longer needing to archive a proportion of printed works. Reader access to non-print works will be limited to computer terminals on premises controlled by the deposit libraries. In order to mirror the level of access to printed publications, at each deposit library only one terminal will show the same material at any one time. Where it is reasonable, in the commercial interests of publishers, to prevent reader access to material, the regulations allow deposit libraries to embargo material for a specified period.

The draft regulations were welcomed by the majority of stakeholders in last year’s public consultation. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will provide guidance on the regulations, and the British Library and other deposit libraries are preparing a joint implementation policy explaining in more detail how the regulations will operate in practice. The Government have made a commitment to carry out a post-implementation review within five years of the regulations coming into force. The review will consider the extent to which the preservation of the UK’s non-print published output has been achieved by the implementation of the regulations.

Legal deposit arrangements remain vitally important in preserving and making available the published record of previous generations for the researchers of today and of the future. We must now ensure that the long-standing legal deposit arrangements are brought up to date for the 21st century. I commend the regulations to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the background to these regulations. We welcome the proposals before the Committee and echo the thanks made to all those who have helped to craft a set of significant but workable rules to capture the output of the digital age. This is indeed a landmark development.

It is all too easy to regard material on the web as somehow inferior to printed works, but I suspect that history will increasingly demonstrate that works of enormous substance and creativity have found an audience solely through the digital medium. There is clearly a balance to be struck between the interests of our nation in preserving texts for future generations and the burden on business to make such information available. Given the significant thought that has gone into these draft regulations over the past 10 years and the positive response to the Government’s consultation, I do not intend to challenge the judgment; it feels about right.

I also welcome the commitment to keep the implementation under review in the way outlined by the noble Lord so that practical issues can be addressed as they arise. However, I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the operation of the embargo provisions will be kept under review to ensure that publishers are providing substantial justification for such requests. It would also be helpful if an assurance could be given that the copyright provisions will be kept under review to ensure that access is treated on par with that to printed material.

I have some specific questions with regard to audio-visual works. First, as the Minister will know, the British Film Institute already has a substantial national archive. These regulations include the concept of preserving “incidental” audio-visual works. Does the Minister agree that the logical recipient of such works should be the BFI National Archive and, as such, the regulations could be extended to list it as a beneficiary? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the preservation of web pages that include audio-visual works is outside the current specialisms of the six legal deposit libraries, and that therefore the BFI should have a more clearly defined preservation role in the regulations? Thirdly, now that we have a detailed plan for all other non-print works, does the Minister agree that there should be an urgent plan to extend the scope of the regulations to include audio-visual works which are, after all, a major aspect of our cultural heritage and will, no doubt, continue to be so? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:54

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:10

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her warm and broad welcome for these regulations. I shall respond to the outstanding points that she raised.

On copyright restrictions, the Government recognise that the scenario of restrictions on access to content following the expiry of copyright is a concern for the research community. This is an important issue, but will arise only once the copyright term of 70 years has ceased, so in practice the issue will not affect legal deposit for many years to come. It is, however, an issue that will be kept under review and will be revisited as part of the post-implementation review of the regulations.

The noble Baroness raised embargoes. The regulations specify that an embargo may be imposed for a specified period of up to three years if a rights owner demonstrates that a reader viewing the publication within that period would unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the person making the request. Requests for further embargoes may be made for the same publication provided that, as before, the case for an embargo can be demonstrated at the same time. I reassure the noble Baroness that the operation of the embargo arrangements will be scrutinised as part of the post-implementation review of the regulations to ensure that they are working as intended and that embargoes, where imposed, are fully justified.

Audio-visual works are undoubtedly an important aspect of our cultural heritage. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether the BFI National Archive is a logical recipient of audio-visual works and, as such, whether the BFI should be a beneficiary under the regulations. The BFI would not be able to receive such works as it is not possible to extend the institutions entitled to receive works under legal deposit arrangements without changing the primary legislation. Furthermore, non-print works consisting solely or predominately of film or recorded sound, or both, are excluded from legal deposit arrangements under the primary legislation. Audio-visual content within non-print works will be collected only if the accompanying text is more than merely incidental to the audio-visual element. The definition of “incidental” in this case refers to audio-visual material being a feature of the main body of work rather than its main purpose.

The noble Baroness asked if the preservation of web pages is outside the current specialisms of the deposit libraries. I can reassure her that the British Library’s UK Web Archive project, which has been operational since 2005, has allowed for the successful selective archiving of approximately 6,000 UK websites. This initiative, in collaboration with the national libraries of Scotland and Wales, the National Archives and others has allowed the British Library to make inroads into web archiving and to develop the infrastructure required to preserve efficiently and securely web pages in anticipation of the regulations that we are debating today.

The noble Baroness also asked if legal deposit arrangements should be extended to all audio-visual works. Any extension to the types of work covered under legal deposit arrangements would involve changes to primary legislation. In relation to film, the Government’s view is that a statutory scheme may not be appropriate at this stage but they are exploring with the British Film Institute other ways to secure more films. One option may be for the BFI to work with public funders of UK film to make supply to the BFI archive a condition of grants. In relation to recorded sound, the British Library’s Sound Archive has built up an impressive archive through existing voluntary arrangements. While future arrangements for the legal deposit of audio-visual works are not to be ruled out, the Government would need to look carefully at the need for further statutory intervention. It is a question of finding the most appropriate means of securing the preservation of all these different types of media, important though they undoubtedly are. I reiterate that these regulations will ensure that the nation’s intellectual record and published heritage is preserved and maintained for future generations.

The Joint Committee on Legal Deposit, the collaborative forum for the deposit libraries and publishing trade associations, has worked with great success in developing and agreeing practical policies and processes to bring about the effective implementation of the regulations. The deposit libraries are well advanced in their preparations to begin archiving digital content at the earliest opportunity. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Care Services: Elderly People

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:16

Asked By

[Lord Turnberg]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve care in the community for elderly patients.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, even though I suspect that many noble Lords might share a faint sense of déjà vu about this topic. However, the fact that care in the community keeps reappearing on our agenda suggests that, despite numerous impressive reports and repeated debates in this House, we are not yet anywhere near solving the problems.

I suspect that few here will admit to any ignorance of the facts, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I start by reiterating the nature of the difficulties we face. It may save others having to repeat them. First, the country has entered a prolonged period of severe economic constraint, so there is little new money available centrally. Secondly, we have no control over the demand for social care that is growing at a remarkable rate.

The population is ageing as life expectancy goes up in an inexorable straight line. The current 3 million people over the age of 65 will rise to almost 5 million in the next 20 years, while the number of over 85 year- olds will double from 1.3 million to 2.6 million. We would celebrate this extension of life were it not for the fact that the number with multiple chronic diseases will also increase by about a third, while the number of those with dementia is set to double from the current estimate of 800,000. If that is not enough to frighten you, there is the statistic that one in three people over the age of 85 will develop dementia. That is what I am told. Many of these people end up in an acute hospital, the place least suited to their needs, and the number lingering there unnecessarily is huge. Of the over 85 year-olds admitted, some 140,000 stay for more than 30 days, and the numbers are rising. A diagnosis of dementia is the primary reason for admission in some 55,000 patients a year, in the majority of whom the diagnosis had not been made before admission. Where, I wonder, were the GPs?

These patients are admitted, but too often there is nowhere else for them to go. Social services departments are sorely underfunded and about four-fifths of local authorities are now said to be restricting social care to those with needs graded as substantial or critical. There is a black hole of some £16.5 billion looming in social care funding over the next few years. The gap between the money needed to meet demands and that available is growing year by year. Here we have the nub of the problem—increasing demand from an ageing population acquiring multiple long-term illnesses and a veritable epidemic of dementia, together with social services departments stretched way beyond their capacity now and with a future in which they will be unable to deliver even the basics of care, and all against a background of severe constraints on the money available from government.

We cannot simply go on as we are and try to patch up the current system of an NHS designed for acute hospital care, essential though that may be, while the desperate need is for prevention and the long-term care of the elderly. We must start now to develop a long-term plan to meet these problems. My first question to the noble Earl is: is there any sign that the Government are thinking along the lines of long-term future planning?

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves where the money is to come from. Of course, some measures could be taken that would help a little. The poor co-ordination between care workers in hospital and in the community has been resolved in a number of well recognised places around the country and more should be done to spread that good practice. Of course, there may be efficiency gains to be made somewhere in the system. Then there is the recent government initiative in the wake of the Dilnot report to help the elderly pay for their care. Will that ease the financial burden on local authorities? I fear not, because although it offers some help to the elderly themselves, it seems more likely to add to the problems of local authorities than to help them.

Then there are the usual calls for funds to be transferred from the supposedly cash-rich NHS to social services. I am very supportive of proposals that NHS and social service budgets should be pooled to fund care for the elderly. That makes a lot of sense and I was happy to see something along those lines in Andy Burnham’s recent speech about a future Labour health policy. We need to think, too, not only about merging budgets but also medical and nursing staff so that they can work across the boundaries between hospital and community. We also need to look critically at how we can incentivise and support GPs who are really the key players in the community. It is far from clear whether they are prepared in the CCGs for commissioning long-term care. Will the noble Earl tell us whether any attention is being focused on the role of GPs there?

What about closing hospitals or beds and transferring the savings? Data showing that up to a third of acute hospital beds are occupied by patients who should not be in hospital at all provide ammunition for those who see considerable savings from cutting bed numbers. That is not easy. If we try to go along that route, we have to look at where the costs of acute hospitals really lie. They lie largely in the staff and relatively less in the number of beds. The workload for the medical and nursing staff of acute hospitals is not determined by the number of beds, or even by the number of long-stay patients, but by the rising tide of acute emergency admissions. It is hard to escape the conclusion that we are not well off in NHS hospital services. Hardly a day goes by when we do not hear of failings in the care of the acutely ill.

If wards or even whole hospitals were to close, that acute workload would not diminish. Indeed, the more rapid throughput of patients through a smaller number of hospital beds would increase the intensity of the work. I am not saying that there would not be any savings made on, for example, heating and lighting bills and perhaps on administration, but the savings to be made, especially on doctors and nurses, would be rather less than one might hope. That may account for the intriguing piece of research evidence from Julien Forder, who published a paper in the Journal of Health Economics in 2009 in which he showed that for every pound spent on community services it was possible to save only a third of a pound on hospital services. Caring for someone in the community is not a cheap option.

Meanwhile the NHS itself is under remarkable cost-saving pressures as it seeks to answer the Nicholson challenge. Hospitals are barely coping in many instances, and the prospect of diverting even more funds is likely to be impossible to bear. I am not suggesting that rationalisation of services into a smaller number of specialised centres is not a good thing—it clearly is—but closing acute hospitals to save money simply to transfer it into the community does not bear too close examination. In any case, there are the calculations suggesting that there will be a shortfall in NHS funding of some £30 billion per annum by 2020 on current trends, so the question remains: where will the funds for social services come from? It is difficult to see much coming from simply integrating NHS and social service budgets, desirable though that may be. Simply pooling two inadequate sources of money does not sound like an answer to me. We have to face the idea that the Government of the day, whoever they are, will have to give a higher priority to care in the community than they have currently been able to do. It is a political decision, and we must think more broadly than simply within the box of the Department of Health.

Are there are any discussions going on between government departments— housing, transport and so on—on plans for future care in the community? How much priority are Governments as a whole willing to give to this compared, for example, with a high-speed train or nuclear submarine, desirable though some may think they are? Do they have a higher priority? These are decisions that only a Government have to face. I do not envy them for that, but in a democracy such as ours I do not believe it is entirely wishful thinking to feel that a clear majority of the population would strongly favour a diversion of resources to areas that they think are of high priority, and I can think of few higher priorities than the way we care for our elderly.

17:26

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for bringing this important issue to the attention of this Committee. He has adequately covered areas of the economy, so I shall leave that. Care in the community is a critical component of our current health system and an even more critical component of our future health system, and we must ensure continued support for those who require and provide this vital service.

Today I wish to touch on a few distinct aspects of this issue. First, I want to highlight the growing demand for care in the community for the elderly population. As we are all certainly aware, the elderly population are particularly vulnerable to conditions that require long-term care which, if left untreated, can lead to a revolving door of hospital care for the elderly, which is both unhealthy and costly. Building on this, I want to draw attention to the ways in which the newly established clinical commissioning groups can work to improve the quality of care in the community as well as to encourage the use of this type of care. Finally, I will pose three questions to the Minister that reflect my concerns and hopes for the future of care in the community for elderly individuals.

Older people already represent the largest cohort of patients in the NHS, accounting for 60% of hospital admissions. Hospital days are dangerous for elderly people and expensive. Patients are susceptible to infections in the ward and often fail to eat properly while staying in the hospital. Moreover, these stays can encourage a loss of independence, which leads to added problems on discharge. Home healthcare is proven to deliver better outcomes for patients. There is evidence that it can lead to lower costs and reduce admissions to hospital. Home-based models of care have proven to be effective for patients with multiple diagnoses and comorbidities with a high risk of hospitalisation. According to Department of Health statistics, during September and October 2011 some 128,517 hospital bed days were lost as the result of the delayed discharge of people who could have been cared for in the community had the right support had been available.

In order to provide care in the community that is of the same quality as a hospital environment, CCGs must ensure collaboration between acute care, community care and social care. This was clearly called for in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and we expect CCGs and local authorities to be actively pursuing this practice. It is particularly important for elderly patients as long-term conditions associated with old age are particularly complex to treat and often involve several different types of health and social care intervention. These services are provided over months and years by a range of organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors, and it is hard to split them into single episodes. Pathway design is a critical and urgent task for CCGs to engage in.

In order to delay acute care for our elderly citizens, we must also refocus our energy on prevention. Joint strategic needs assessments must emphasise the value of preventive care for the elderly, including simple things: measures to decrease falls, improve nutrition to prevent diabetes and encourage community-based programmes such as Dementia Friends. Here the involvement of the voluntary sector can often be critical.

Part of the prevention agenda is about combating loneliness. Isolation is associated with poor physical and mental health in older people, both conditions that undermine the health we seek to provide our citizens. Local providers work together to address this issue and must not fall short in this critical area of care, because it is care. Social isolation affects about 1 million older people and has a severe impact on people’s quality of life in old age. Mentoring projects, befriending schemes and computer classes form part of a solution built to engage an elderly population in their community.

The patient must be at the centre of every health and care system we create. The location and community in which we choose to spend our later years deeply affects our quality of life. By supporting people to remain in their homes for as long as they wish, we provide an invaluable service to those patients we serve. In light of these remarks, I ask the Minister to confirm the following three expectations that relate to CCGs. CCGs will be expected to work alongside local authorities on integrated care pathways for the older population in the community, which might or might not involve shared budgets. CCGs will be expected to enhance preventive services in the community to reduce unnecessary hospitalisations. They will also be expected to embrace a campaign against isolation in the community, working with local authorities, especially among the elderly who wish to stay in their homes.

17:31

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for raising this debate. I declare an interest as in the register, and add that I live in a retirement village, I am elderly and I live in a rural area where the boundaries have a postcode lottery as far as health and social care are concerned.

The Health and Social Care Act will be enacted in one month. There is a mandate from the Secretary of State to the Commissioning Board and guidance from the Commissioning Board to the CCGs. We have the theory and we must now enter the practice. The demand now and in the future, as has already been mentioned, will increase among the growing number of the elderly in the population, and we need to ensure that their health is maintained, disease prevention addressed and high-quality, safe, acceptable care given when required, with the emphasis on independent living in the community and, where necessary, adequate support given to allow this to happen. For example, prevention of admission to hospital teams can supply the necessary support to the elderly living alone to remain in their home surroundings, where they will benefit more than they would from an admission to hospital that would be more costly and open to possible cross-infection, leading to a longer recovery period. This is a cost-effective and care-effective way forward.

My first question to the Minister regards integration of organisational services and professional boundaries. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the theory of the Act, mandate and guidance is being followed, with required training for all concerned? The reason for this question is that currently in many places there is a chaotic situation where, through the lack of training and understanding, care pathways are disrupted and there is evidence that services are not running smoothly and the safety of the patients is in question.

Currently the ambulance services are on red alert due to winter pressures and there are reports of ambulances that are unable to unload patients causing a backlog, with patients being cared for either in the ambulance or in a cold, draughty corridor for long periods before A&E takes over because of the four-hour wait deadline. Those ambulances therefore are not free to take any calls or discharges home. About 10 days ago at 10 pm, there were eight ambulances stuck for over an hour at our local hospital. Last night at 9.30 pm, I checked the local situation. There were four ambulances outside the hospital. One had been waiting for one hour and 15 minutes, one for 36 minutes, one for 20 minutes and the other for 10 minutes, with the crew looking after the patients. It appears that sometimes, to alleviate the logjam, one crew will care for two patients—two ambulance loads—in order to free up an ambulance. It would seem that there are insufficient staff to relieve the ambulance crews and, if they do, it starts the four-hour waiting time clock. The circumstances that I mention involved a majority of elderly patients. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that the Government will take steps to ensure that every opportunity is taken to improve the integration of services in health and social care?

Innovation and research is my next area of concern. The care of the elderly has lacked funding for research into physical and mental conditions, and this situation needs to be rectified as a priority. However, there have been examples of excellent innovations being developed through specific studies undertaken by healthcare professionals as part of scholarships or fellowships. Two come to mind; one involved a nursing scholar who, on an international study, was able to learn about the early detection and diagnosis of melanomas and, on return to this country, has followed this up with a training programme for GPs. The second example was someone who, on her return from the USA, aimed to reduce the mortality rates by introducing specific care bundles. Medical and nursing staff became engaged on her return, with excellent results and, in many places, there is a marked reduction in mortality rates as a result. Can the Minister assure us that there will be an equitable amount of funding for multiprofessional research and innovation specially allocated to physical and mental health, including social care for the elderly?

No Act, mandate or guidance will be effective unless there is inspirational leadership. In my experience, such leadership is not learnt by attending a course for senior managers; it has to be bespoke and fitted to the person’s potential and ability to set the values necessary for high-quality, safe and cost-effective delivery of care. I am president of the Florence Nightingale Foundation and we are able to fund 19 leadership scholars each year. They go through a bespoke leadership programme, funded mostly by the Burdett Trust for Nursing, as well as by contributions from other smaller charities. This has resulted in scholars being promoted and successfully leading services. I ask the Minister if this matter could be explored further with the NHS Leadership Academy and Health Education England to examine bespoke approaches to specific services, especially, and as a priority, to those concerned with the care of the elderly.

17:37

[Lord Warner]

My Lords we are all grateful to my noble friend for securing this debate and for his usual masterly introduction and analysis. Whatever our views on the right size for the total health and social care budget, it will always have a cash limit and, in the long period of fiscal austerity we face, that limit will be very constrained. That makes it imperative that we get our expenditure priorities right, especially in relation to the NHS. Our failure to do this is damaging care of the elderly at a time when we are all living longer and, on present demographic evidence, will continue to do so. The number of over 85s will double to 3 million by 2030, with increasing numbers suffering from dementia, as my noble friend has mentioned.

I will confine myself to three strategic points. First, we may be living longer but we are not living healthier lives when compared with many other affluent countries. We are 12th out of 19 such countries, according to a recent study by the Institute for Heath Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle. We can expect in this country 68.6 years of healthy life from birth before disease and disability take their toll. This compares with 70.9 years for Spain, which is top of the pops. Better healthcare is unlikely to change our position much, but a higher priority for expenditure on public health and prevention services is more likely to do so.

Secondly, the balance of what we spend on the NHS and social care is fundamentally wrong for our demographic and disease profile. Under successive Governments we have overfavoured the NHS and have neglected adult social care. There is, however, an opportunity to change this with the proposed Care and Support Bill, now undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny. Here I declare my interest as a member of the Joint Select Committee that will report shortly. That Bill has received a wide measure of support, publicly and politically, especially for its provision for an overarching principle of securing well-being for the recipients of care and support services.

We will no doubt debate the committee’s findings another day. All I want to do here is register the widespread concern that exists that the Bill’s reforms, including the Dilnot changes, will not be adequately funded because of the existing shortfall in funding that has developed over the years. I do not blame this Government particularly for that. In my view, that shortfall now stands at about 10% of the adult social care annual budget, or approaching £1.5 billion, and I suggest it is growing despite the Government’s partial efforts to close the gap. We must not pass a reforming Bill without appropriate funding to implement those much needed changes.

Thirdly, and finally, we need to re-engineer and rebalance our healthcare services and associated expenditure away from our preoccupation as a country with 24/7 services delivered through acute hospitals to more community-based services integrated with social care. Here I may diverge a little from the approach of my noble friend. The core business of the NHS is care with an acute treatment adjunct, not the other way round as it has been for 60 years. We cannot carry on with this pretence that it is in the best interests of patients to have so many clinically and financially unstable and unsustainable district general hospitals claiming to provide a wide range of 24/7 acute services. Do not believe me: listen to what specialist clinicians are saying, particularly the current president of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. Sir Terence Stephenson said last July:

“I don’t think it is possible in quite a small country ... to have 200 to 300 24/7 acute centres offering every single discipline … we need to move to a smaller number of bigger centres giving treatment that’s either hi-tech, risky and rare”.

I do not have time to develop this theme today but will return to it in one of our NHS debates next week. Suffice it to say that we need to start educating the public on the need, in their interests, to consolidate these acute services on fewer hospital sites and to create a 10-year development programme and funding for integrated 24/7 community-based services embracing primary community health services—including mental health services—and adult social care. I recognise that none of this will be easy for elected politicians but this direction of travel is inevitable if we are truly interested in preserving our NHS and meeting the needs of our growing elderly population in a sustainable way. I hope the Minister will feel able to reflect seriously on this kind of reorientation as the Department of Health prepares for the next public expenditure review.

17:42

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I also appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. Other noble Lords have much more expertise than I have, but I put my finger very gently into the water because this is something I experience. I am a Methodist minister and all my life I have been involved in the care of older people. I look now in my daily newspaper at the births, marriages and deaths, and whereas some years ago the majority of people died in their 60s and 70s, now we have them at 80, 90 or touching 100. This has changed the whole atmosphere and situation that we need to come to terms with.

In rural areas particularly these needs are very acute. A village community will support a person in that village. That person will feel part of that community. Some have lived there all their lives. They know the village and the people around them. Then suddenly everything has changed. I can think of a mixture of places where there were once shops. One village at the end of the war had 29 shops but has no shops now. If you do not have a car, you cannot get away to get your shopping. You cannot get to the post office now, but in any case the way pensions are paid has changed. The bakery has gone. We used to enjoy the bakery and friends of mine ran it. We had five chapels in the area and now four of them have closed and the village church is struggling. The choirs and bands that we used to have belong to yesterday. I did not think that I would ever support the case for keeping pubs open—Methodist ministers do not do that usually—but every week 16 pubs close. They, like the chapel or the church, were a vital part of the community where people could meet, but that is no longer the case. The doctor’s twice-weekly surgery is no more. Two banks used to come on a Friday morning. The banks do not come any more. In many cases, the small neighbouring hospital is already closed and in other places there is great anxiety because the hospital is under threat of closure. In Wales health is devolved, and I wonder whether we could not somehow relocate some of the specialist services that do not need as big a back-up as others, such as rheumatology or dialysis, so that those services would be the core that would justify the existence of that hospital which could then be involved in wider care in that community. I know the arguments for big hospitals. They are great arguments, but families have to travel.

In rural areas, bus services have been decimated. Your friends are elderly and cannot travel very far. We have these problems. In North Wales, we have problems with hospital closures. I ask that people think about whether we can do something in order to have beds available near the community from which that person comes. My mother-in-law kept the local bus service going. She lived in a village four miles from where I live. I used to offer her a lift home when she was 88. She would say, “I’m not having a lift with you. I’m the only passenger on the bus, so I’ve got to keep going on it”, but when she went, the service went as well.

Every part of the community is weakened by the change in lifestyle and so on, especially for older people. There must be intervention to improve the quality of life, the well-being, of the individual. The person needs to feel safe and comfortable in his or her local village. When you retire—I have experienced this, as have some other noble Lords in the Committee—what information do you get? You get information about pensions, but do you get an information pack about the services available in the local community and about how you will get help if you are in urgent need? Some of our organisations do this, but those who retire should be given not only financial information but community information about bus services and so on, if there are any, and volunteer organisations. I must not overstep the mark here all the time, but the best thing we have in Wales and the rest of the UK is the free bus service for elderly people. It has kept routes going. We have services that we must support, but there are ways, not always financial, in which we can help our older people.

17:54

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for so vividly portraying the crisis that is preventing us celebrating, as we should be able to do, the aging of our population. We can all expect to live to a great age. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has described very movingly that life is not always so good. Certainly it is not so good with the number of people who need appropriate care. We have an opportunity to get things right now, and we must do.

I was the lead commissioner for the EHRC inquiry into the needs for care and support of people living in their own homes. We found that half the people in this country were satisfied, but that means a huge number were not getting an adequate service, most of them elderly women. We are just about to celebrate International Women’s Day. It is appalling that they are not getting the sort of care and support that they need. We should be able to do something about their isolation, loneliness and the bad situation that they face, particularly with the impending—if it is not already with us—crisis of dementia.

As chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia, I am aware of this issue every day as this group has the highest attendance of MPs and Peers of any all-party group. People are recognising that this is a huge issue and we have to get it right. I would like us to look at how we can prevent things going as wrong as they have done up to now and get this right, with the help of the draft Care and Support Bill that will come to us shortly. We need to look more broadly at alternative ways of meeting the needs of a huge number of people in our population. I hope that the Government will do this. One way of meeting these needs is to look at the Scandinavian model of hospital hotels, which brings in another sector to help provide appropriate care. This happens almost automatically in Scandinavia. I hope that the Minister will agree to look further at that model. I have a group studying ways of implementing it.

We must also prevent people going into unsuitable hospital care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, clearly pointed out. We should not do anything to stop people with acute needs going into acute hospitals but it would be far better to transform some of them into local hospitals which deal more effectively with people suffering from one form or another of dementia and other chronic conditions. No MP would ever agree to a hospital closure but they might agree to the transformation of a hospital into one more suited to meet the needs of many patients today. Those patients are badly cared for in hospitals that are unsuited to their needs. It is also very unsuitable for patients with other conditions to be on the same ward as patients suffering from some form of dementia, which is usually the case. The latter ought to be able to stay in the community, but to make this work we need more collaborative working and integration between health and social care. The draft Care and Support Bill will facilitate this to some extent but other measures are also necessary.

We have to hope that local authorities will use the flexibility they have—they do have some—to allocate their money in a different way. However, health, social care and housing need to be integrated under the law, where possible, to enable more co-operation to take place. One way of doing this is to provide more preventive care. Local authorities must realise that they can save the NHS a lot of money if they keep people who have multiple needs, but not acute ones, out of acute hospitals. There has to be co-operation in this regard and local authorities must use any flexibility they have. There is not enough money but there is some money which they could use in this respect. Integration is terribly important.

Another important aspect of the draft Bill is that for the first time self-funders will be included as users of services. A fact that is not publicised is that very often when those self-funders have to go into a care home they pay over the odds. The local authority has negotiated a very low rate per patient but the self-funders are charged more than their care costs. We may approve of that “Peter and Paul” situation but it is not publicised and we should not have that sort of secret “tax” in this country. That has to be looked at by the Government who should make clear what is and is not appropriate as regards cross-subsidies. I hope that the Minister will look at that.

In summary, will the Minister look at the savings that can be made to acute NHS budgets through the provision of adequate care? Will he also look at the Scandinavian model and make sure that staff at all levels are trained in human rights, which the EHRC inquiry insisted on, and will he look at cross-subsidies?

17:55

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Turnberg. When I knew I was going to be able to speak in this debate, I went back to a book I wrote in 1988 and there I found a quotation from Kathleen Jones in 1972. This is what she says about community care:

“To the politician, ‘community care’ is a useful piece of rhetoric; to the sociologist, it is a stick to beat institutional care with; to the civil servant, it is a cheap alternative to institutional care which can be passed to the local authority for action—or inaction; to the visionary, it is a dream of a new society in which people really do care; to social services departments, it is a nightmare of heightened public expectation and inadequate resources to meet them. We are only just beginning to find out what it means to the old”,

and “the chronic sick”. When I read that, I was so depressed that I thought, “Have we moved on at all since 1972?”.

What has changed hugely, as many noble Lords have reminded us, is the numbers. There are many more people now in need of community care, but we can agree that the key thing needed for the care of the so-called rising tide is a sufficient supply of good quality community care focused on the needs of the user and their carers. I hope the Minister will agree that this is the most urgent problem facing our society today. It is bigger than education, defence or, above all, the acute sector of the NHS, although sometimes one feels like a traitor for saying that.

The Francis report on Mid Staffs may be a very worthy document, but I submit that it has done us no favours by focusing our attention on the care of elderly people in hospital. Just sort it out, goes the view: appoint a hospital supremo and all will be well. As we all know, that is nonsense. Hospital care provides a tiny proportion of the need, and the real problem so far as older people are concerned is that far too many of them languish in hugely expensive hospital beds, as we have heard, simply because not enough care in the community is available. As one of the witnesses to the Joint Committee on which several of our colleagues have been serving said, community care is always the poor sister of the NHS. The social care system is in crisis, as we have heard, and we shall never solve it, perhaps, unless we learn to rebalance spending and attention between NHS care and social care.

Social care is very good value if we do it right. Am I hopeful? Do I still feel as depressed as I did when I read that quote from Kathleen Jones? I think some progress has been made. The Government have made a step—perhaps a small one—towards accepting the proposals of the Dilnot commission. The Care and Support Bill will come to us during the course of this year, we hope, which gives not only new rights for users and carers but new responsibilities to local authorities to give information, advice and advocacy when assessments are being done. The committee called more than 60 witnesses, and every one of them raised the issue of resources.

When it comes to community care, we always hear that we cannot afford it, but as Andrew Dilnot has powerfully said, it is not a question of cannot afford it but of will not afford it. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has given us some ideas about how we could find the money, and I remind the Committee, as I have done before, that when we accepted the proposals of the Beveridge committee, we were absolutely skint as a nation. We were in the middle of the Second World War and had no money and no prospect of getting any, but we still accepted that visionary report. I maintain that we can do it again. I also maintain that getting care in the community right could be a vote winner because it is no longer about poor services for poor people. It touches everybody. I am sure that everybody in this Room has experienced trying to find community care for themselves or their relatives—or they will within the course of the next year or so. I believe it is something that affects everyone, and therefore it is a very attractive idea for political parties to embrace as we approach a general election. I am sure many of us will be looking at what is said in manifestos about that.

Finally, care in the community, however we improve it, largely means care by the community, and community largely means your family, so I must point out, as I do at every opportunity, that the contribution of unpaid carers is £119 billion. It makes sound economic as well as moral good sense to support them as the main providers of care in the community.

18:00

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Turnberg for securing this debate, for his expert and thorough introduction, for setting the context, reminding us of the extent and scale of the issues across health and social care and getting the facts and figures over and done with so that the rest of us do not need to repeat them.

Your Lordships’ House spends a lot of time focusing on care and support for older people. We know that the old way of care pathways that address single health conditions does not meet the realities of an ageing population living with multiple conditions, and we know that prevention and the timely escalation of care of people in the community—in their homes, assisted supported housing or residential care—helps to prevent people going into hospital and to centre care on preserving the best quality of life. Our future strategy must view this issue in the wider context of what Age UK recently described as an, “extraordinary revolution in longevity”, which we all of course welcome and celebrate, both personally and for people generally.

Last week’s Guardian and today’s Independent trail the imminent report of the Lords Public Services and Demographic Change Committee, which will help to provide us with the evidence base for the strategic overview that we currently lack, including on pensions, pensioner poverty, health and social care, housing, income and age issues, social isolation and keeping in jobs older people who want to work. This will be an important report, and I hope that once it is published, the Government will schedule it for full debate.

Noble Lords have also referred to the Care and Support Bill and the pre-scrutiny Select Committee report that is due shortly. I have been following closely the evidence sessions and pay tribute to the expert and thorough work of the committee, four of whose members are here today, and to the individuals and organisations giving evidence. The debate on the detail is for another time, but I was particularly struck by the contributions from housing associations and voluntary sector providers stressing the importance of sharpening up the interface in the Bill between primary care, general practice, social care and housing. There are clearly pockets of excellent practice of NHS, local authority and voluntary sector co-operation and integrated working in the provision of specialist housing and housing support, for example, housing associations providing personal support in sheltered housing, thereby avoiding the need for residential care. I hope that the committee’s recommendations will help to take this agenda forward in an urgent and coherent way and that the Bill generally will provide the framework for enabling many issues that noble Lords have highlighted which would genuinely facilitate the delivery of more effective community and primary care.

This is such a frustratingly short debate that it is impossible to cover much at all, but it has provided us with the opportunity to focus on the need for a longer-term strategy on primary and community care. Noble Lords are, as usual, to be congratulated on providing a thorough debate and including the “big picture” issues of Dilnot implementation, future social care funding and the current crisis resulting from huge cuts in local authority budgets that make meeting existing and future demands impossible. We are, of course, also in the midst of the soul-searching and determination to do things better that come in the aftermath of the Francis report on the situation where frail, vulnerable older people received the worse care possible, as was referred to by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. I echo her concern that while the serious issues of failure of hospital care raised by Francis need to be addressed, we do not want the NHS to turn its full focus on to NHS hospital care and turn away from the need for primary care to step up to the plate if there is to be a dramatic shift to care in the community.

However, it is important to acknowledge the emphasis that Francis places on the importance of primary care and GPs. He points to the vital continuing relationship that GPs have with patients and the need for GPs to undertake a monitoring role on behalf of patients who receive acute hospital and other specialist services. As he puts it:

“They have a role as an independent, professionally qualified check on the quality of service, in particular in relation to assessment of outcomes. They need to have internal systems enabling them to be aware of patterns of concern ... They have a responsibility to all their patients to keep themselves informed of the standard of service available at various providers”.

Most importantly, Francis stresses that GPs need,

“to take this continuing partnership with their patients seriously if they are to be successful commissioners of services”,

and,

“exploit … this new role in ensuring their patients get safe and effective care”.

That is one of the key questions for today’s debate. Are the Government confident that CCGs can meet the challenges of providing primary and community care? How is their focus to be shifted from hospitals to supporting community care? I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions asked by noble Lords.

On commissioning, I am getting to be a bit of a broken record on highlighting the need for effective commissioning of the community services that mainly benefit older people, such as chiropody, falls prevention, continence care and audiology. These are vital services that help to maintain well-being and independence, both in the community and in residential care. Yet, as Age UK has repeatedly pointed out, they are currently significantly undercommissioned and there are huge problems and variations in standards and availability of services.

I suspect that my recent experience locally when I took my disabled partner for his chiropody appointment and learned that Virgin Care would be taking over the previously supplied NHS services and would be dealing with problems only, not routine care such as clipping toenails, is rapidly becoming standard practice. The Department of Health’s guidance underlines the importance of foot care and the difference it makes to the lives of older people leading to reduced pain, increased mobility and a reduced risk of falls. Continence care support is also vital. If you talk to carers, it is such a major issue and can often tip them over the edge so that they stop caring. Of course there is also the impact it has on the person who is cared for. What action are the Government taking to ensure effective commissioning of chiropody, continence care and other key services such as audiology? Will GP commissioning seek to increase the number of district nurses who are under enormous pressure at the moment but who are so vital to community care support for people with long-term health conditions? Will it be able to reverse the current alarming decline in the number of specialist nurses, such as diabetic and epilepsy nurses, who play such a vital role in helping patients self-manage their condition in the home?

18:06

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, to do justice to a subject as vast and crucially important as this one is impossible to achieve during the course of an hour’s debate. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for introducing this question so succinctly and capably. I will address as many issues as I can in the time available but I undertake to write to those noble Lords whose questions I do not manage to cover.

We know from listening to care users, their carers and voluntary organisations how care and support needs to change, and how the system has yet to adapt properly to meet the new demands and expectations of modern Britain. I was very struck, as I always am, by the clarion call sounded by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on that theme. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, highlighted, the system will face further demands with an aging population at a time when we face financial constraints.

Last year’s care and support White Paper is an important step in changing that. It will sustain and promote what works and challenge and change what does not. It will promote well-being and independence instead of waiting for people to reach a crisis point. The White Paper, together with the draft Care and Support Bill, will shape the care sector for years to come. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, was right to say that this is an opportunity. This is the most comprehensive reform of social care legislation in over 60 years.

We must all welcome the fact that we are living longer but, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, reminded us, managing the fiscal consequences of this will be a key challenge of the coming years. However, we must recognise that for the foreseeable future government funding will be constrained and we must plan on that basis. We want to get the engine working as efficiently and effectively as possible so that the fuel that we put in gets us to where we need to be.

Effective reform of public services is central to our response if we are to meet the needs of an aging population and ensure long-term sustainability. We have put in place an ambitious programme of reform across a wide range of government policy areas including pensions, health, social care, housing and employment. The Government are providing an extra £7.7 billion over the spending review period to protect access and support vulnerable people.

We know that care and support needs to adapt to respond to changes in demand and expectation. These challenges create an opportunity for local authorities to innovate and explore new ways of working, better meet the needs of their local populations and optimise the use of available resources. Many local authorities are already innovating and we are committed to supporting them to deliver further service improvements and to helping other authorities learn from what works. We want local authorities to maximise the use of reablement services that help older people recover from acute episodes and reinvest money from high-cost residential and nursing home care into other services. We also want local authorities to embrace the potential of new technology because we know that at least 3 million people with long-term conditions and social care needs could benefit from the use of telehealth and telecare services.

One of the biggest changes that the White Paper sets out is moving from the reactive service that we have at the moment to a proactive service that helps people stay healthy and independent in the first place—change that better meets and manages future demand and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and my noble friend Lady Jolly emphasised, prevents people needing to go into acute hospitals and supports them to regain independence after they leave. As people live longer, the advantages of that approach, focused on preventing or postponing care needs, are both immense and glaringly obvious. That approach is part of our mission to improve the health of the nation as a whole. That is why we have built an approach that will enable local authorities and GPs to innovate and devise local solutions to tackle not just the symptoms but the wider determinants of health. On my noble friend Lady Jolly’s three questions, the answer in all cases is yes.

To support this, we will include in the Bill a duty on local authorities to take steps to prevent delay and reduce needs for care and support in their area. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, mentioned the pooling of budgets between the health service and social care. All too often the discussion on integrated care is focused around the integration of structures, funding streams or processes rather than the perspective of patients and service users. This has led to excessive focus on the means to achieve integrated care rather than the end of a better experience for patients and service users. We want to encourage and support local experimentation to allow local areas to provide integrated care at scale and pace. We are working with the sector to support local initiatives and identify what needs to happen to drive this at a national level. We want to learn what works well, how to overcome barriers and promote best practice. For example, Torbay commissioned and provided care for local areas as a single organisation and has shown comparatively lower levels of emergency admissions, shorter hospital stays and minimal delayed transfers of care.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, talked about the role of GPs in caring for elderly people. The quality outcomes framework, which is part of the contract with GPs, provides incentives that reward practices for how well they care for patients, including for long-term conditions that often affect elderly patients. The Government have proposed changes to the GP contract, and a stakeholder consultation has recently finished. Under these proposals, and in addition to the QOF indicators, we would invite GPs to participate in a new directed enhanced service that would further encourage GP practices to co-ordinate and manage the care of frail older people and other high-risk patients predicted to be at risk of unscheduled hospital admission.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, also spoke about out-of-hours care. Earlier this year, the NHS Commissioning Board announced that it is to review the model of urgent and emergency services in England including out-of-hours care.

The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, focused on the social care workforce, its skills and the need to promote leadership. The care and support White Paper recommends increasing capacity, enhancing capability and developing leadership in the social care workforce. The department is working with partners to attract more people to, and increase apprenticeships in, social care, as well as raising standards and improving leadership. Working with the National Skills Academy for Social Care to publish the leadership qualities framework for adult social care is another important aspect of our programme. That framework sets out the attitudes and behaviours needed for high-quality leadership at all levels which, as the noble Baroness rightly said, is rather different from passing an exam. There is no single, definitive model of integrated care and support, as I am sure the noble Baroness will accept. Some localities are further advanced than others. We are developing the concept of pioneers to support rapid dissemination and uptake of lessons learnt, and are keen to maintain momentum and accelerate the adoption of new models of co-ordinated care and support across the country. Our ambition is for person-centred co-ordinated care and support to become the norm over the coming years.

Returning to the draft Care and Support Bill, it will introduce important powers and duties that will further integrated working, including a duty of co-operation, integration and ensuring that people have clearer entitlements. We are also committed to developing a measurement of people’s experience of integrated care to be included in future outcomes frameworks. This has been included as a placeholder in the NHS and Social Care Outcomes Framework 2013-14.

As I have said, we want to encourage local experimentation to allow local areas to provide integrated care tailored to people’s needs and preferences. We are working hard with partner organisations, including the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, to support those local initiatives and to identify what still needs to happen to drive this at a national level. This work will in turn be informed by the outcomes of the four community budget sites.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked me some specific questions about self-funders. I undertake to look into the issues that she has raised. I certainly will study the Scandinavian model and I undertake to write to her about that.

I finish by reaffirming the Government’s aspiration to make this country one of the best places to grow old in, where older people get excellent treatment, care and support when they need it. Our biggest priority must be to transform what we offer to meet the challenge of an ageing population. If we fail to address this, our health and care system will not be sustainable for older people, or indeed for any of us. We must develop and promote a culture of compassion across the health and social care landscape, where quality of care is considered as important as quality of treatment and where every person can be confident that they will be treated with compassion, dignity and respect by skilled staff who are on top of their game and have time to care.

Committee adjourned at 6.17 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 6 March 2013.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Taxation: Income Tax

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked By

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they will take to ensure that wage-earners who are below the income tax threshold will benefit from any future increases in the personal allowance.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, since 2010 the Government have announced successive increases in the personal allowance totalling £2,965. Taken together, these changes will ensure that more than 2.2 million low-income individuals will be removed from income tax altogether. The Government are also taking other measures that will benefit those who are below the income tax threshold, including the introduction of universal credit, support on childcare and the pupil premium.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, some 4,300,000 employees already earn too little to benefit from the increase in the personal allowance this year—which I fully support—and this will rise to nearly 5 million workers in 2013-14, about 17% of the labour force, of which two-thirds will be women. How can it be right or fair that a policy trumpeted as helping low-paid workers does nothing for the lowest-paid 5 million? Will the Government look seriously at new ways to end this unfair situation?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, some of those 5 million were paying income tax until we took them out of income tax, so they have benefited significantly from the changes that we made. The vast bulk of those 5 million are people in work who are not working full time, so one of the key things that we have to try to ensure is that more people are working full time. One of the better statistics on the labour market—which had a good year in many respects last year—is that 32,000 people who were working part time and who wanted to work full time got full-time jobs in the last quarter of last year.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, interesting as it is to be debating the tax and benefits system, is not the real answer here the rapid and vigorous promotion of the living wage? That will do more for the poor than the tax and benefits system as outlined by the Minister.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the living wage is one component in supporting the poor, and the Government have made it clear that they encourage people to use it. However, for many people who are poor the key thing is to get into work and, having got into work, to work the number of hours that are compatible with the family circumstances in which they find themselves. Particularly via the universal credit, we are taking steps to make sure that work always pays and that people are indeed encouraged to take up the maximum number of hours that are appropriate for them.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, while congratulating the Government on raising the threshold at which people pay income tax—an ideal which was first put forward by my noble friend Lord Saatchi—perhaps I may just ask whether they have any plans to raise the threshold at which people pay national insurance. Many of the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred are still paying national insurance at very high rates, and national insurance is a tax. Would we not be wise to merge national insurance and income tax so that people realise just how much is being taken out of their pay packets?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government do not have any plans to raise the threshold for national insurance simply because—as noble Lords will be aware—to do so would be extremely expensive. The Government looked at merging national insurance and income tax but have decided that they will not take that consideration any further forward for the course of this Parliament.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, is it not true that the 5 million people who may have benefited from the changes have in fact had to pay extra VAT since this Government came to power? They are all paying 2.5% extra in VAT. Could we not look for a reduction in the VAT rate, which in turn would then be a great stimulus to the economy?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government do not think that a reduction in the VAT rate makes any sense at this point. A 1% reduction in the VAT rate costs about £12 billion. If we were to reduce the VAT rate, we would have to find that £12 billion from somewhere else—so we do not propose to reduce it.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Is any thought being given to rates of pay for the self-employed? We have heard about the living wage, which is great, and even the basic wage is something, but I meet so many people in caring jobs who are earning less than £2 an hour. How can they live on that? The employer, who is usually employing them directly, has no obligation whatever to pay any more than that. These people are often a bit intimidated but they continue to work for that sort of miserable amount because they really care about the person.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we have minimum wage legislation. That is the route to ensuring that people are paid a decent minimum wage.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, will the Minister admit that some of the people to whom I think the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, was referring are classified as self-employed and therefore are not protected under the national minimum wage legislation? Will he write to me with details of the reductions in benefit that will occur for those who earn too little to benefit from the subject matter in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and who will therefore be losing money twice?

[Lord Newby]

I am always happy to write to the noble Baroness. On the first point she raised, if one is self-employed, the only person you can look to to pay your salary is yourself. If you earn money yourself, you are able to pay yourself well. If you have a contract with somebody as a self-employed person, you should be looking to be paid at least the minimum wage under that contract. However, many self-employed people do consultancy work of various sorts for a fixed price or produce goods and the extent to which they earn an income depends on the extent to which they are able to sell what they produce.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s Answer to his noble friend Lord Greaves was pathetically thin against a background where, as he must surely appreciate, unfairness is perpetrated very heavily against the low-paid and the poor, for whom the Government have scant regard, having of course withdrawn significant numbers of benefits from them. When will the Government address the fact that the economy is so lacking in demand that we are in the worst depression for 80 years? Ministers are not matching up to the challenge presented.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, for most people the most important factor in the economy is whether they have a job. Last year, an additional half a million people got a job and it was a major step forward in their personal circumstances. The labour market has performed well, and it continues to perform well, and all forward indicators in recent surveys suggest that, across all sectors, even more people are likely to be employed in the near future.

Health: Cardiology

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:15

Asked By

[Lord Storey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to detect and prevent sudden cardiac death.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, as the Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes Strategy published yesterday made clear, the national clinical director for heart disease will continue to work with all relevant stakeholders to develop and spread good practice in this area. Alongside this, the UK National Screening Committee is reviewing the case for screening for sudden cardiac death, and will begin a public consultation on this soon.

[Lord Storey]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. He will no doubt be aware that hundreds of young people die as a result of fatal premature cardiac conditions each year. He may also have heard of the Oliver King Foundation, established in memory of a 12 year-old Liverpool boy who sadly died of sudden death syndrome at his school in 2011. Does the Minister not agree that despite many ambulance trusts having some form of community resuscitation department, it should be policy to install automated external defibrillators in all public buildings? Furthermore, will the Minister agree to meet with the foundation and others to discuss the feasibility of a national screening programme to identify those at risk and prevent further loss of life, particularly among young people?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the Oliver King Foundation for its work, as indeed I do to Cardiac Risk in the Young, which for many years has been campaigning very tellingly and successfully in this area. I think that my initial Answer should have satisfied my noble friend on the screening question, because that is now being reviewed by the screening committee. Regarding defibrillators, we have to look at the need to improve survival rates in the most effective way. I understand that the majority of these deaths—possibly as many as 80%—occur in the home. While we agree that the wider availability of defibrillators could save additional lives, CPR skills—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—should save more lives. To that end, the outcomes strategy says that my department will work with the Resuscitation Council, the British Heart Foundation and others to increase the number of people who are trained in CPR.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, will the noble Earl encourage all schools to incorporate training in CPR for all schoolchildren? A skill learnt there will carry on through the rest of a child’s life.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. Again, as the CVD outcomes strategy sets out, basic life-support skills could be more widely taught as part of volunteering programmes; for example, in schools and the workplace. I am aware that bystander CPR doubles survival rates yet is attempted in only 20% to 30% of cases. There is scope for all emergency service personnel to be trained in CPR, and for basic life-support skills to be taught more widely.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

Are departmental advisers working with the new chief coroner, whose appointment has been widely welcomed, to ensure that there are minimum standards at post-mortem, so that when a young person has had a sudden cardiac death the risk to other family members can be appropriately identified? It is important that specimens from the heart of a deceased young person are not lost because the post-mortem has not been done to a high enough standard.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. My department supported the formation of the UK Cardiac Pathology Network in 2006 to provide local coroners with an expert cardiac pathology service and to promote best pathological practice in sudden death cases. A national database on sudden arrhythmic death was launched in November 2008, allowing pathologists to record information on cases referred to them. In the longer term this could be very helpful in building a deeper understanding of the problem.

[Lord Colwyn]

My Lords, during 2011, 56 deaths were caused by fire in London. Legislation requires all public buildings to have fire extinguishers. In that same period in London, there were 9,657 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Why is there no similar legislation for public-access defibrillators?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as a general point, ambulance trusts are by far the best placed to understand the requirements of their local populations in terms of defibrillator distribution. However, I understand that the British Heart Foundation is looking into the need for more defibrillators in the community, so we will await that work with great interest.

[Lord Glentoran]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what effect in percentage terms obesity is having, particularly on the young? I read that a considerable percentage of deaths and heart problems are due to obesity. What programmes do we have running to reduce the level of obesity in the United Kingdom?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, a variety of programmes is running, including Change4Life and the national screening programme. However, as my noble friend will be aware, the kind of sudden cardiac death mentioned in the Question is rather different from cardiovascular disease, which afflicts people in later life. We are talking in the Question about unexplained, very sudden cardiac death in the young, which we believe has little to do with lifestyles and much more to do with genetic susceptibility.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords—

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, will the Minister explain a little bit more about the proposed public consultation on screening? The evidence for the screening of families where a cardiac death has occurred, particularly in a young person—which is linked to a gene—is conclusive, so what is the public consultation about?

[Earl Howe]

The public consultation is reviewing the policy position on screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, but the noble Lord is absolutely right that better identification of families who are at high risk of inherited cardiac conditions is vital. That is stressed in the cardiovascular strategy.

EU: Salaries

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked By

[Lord Flight]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people are employed by the European Union institutions; and what assessment they have made of how many of those individuals pay either no tax or reduced tax rates on their remuneration.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the European Union institutions all together employ approximately 55,000 people. EU staff are exempt from national income tax, a similar situation to that found in other international bodies. As in other international bodies, the EU deducts a proportion of salary as a form of extranational taxation, proceeds from which are returned to the EU budget. This is applied progressively, rising from an initial 8% to a 45% marginal rate for the highest-paid. In addition, there is now a special or solidarity levy, which last month was increased from a top rate of 5.5% to 6%; most officials pay an average of 2%. I should declare an interest. My wife was for five years the director of the Robert Schuman Centre in Florence, whose staff regulations were those of the European institutions. We have examined her payslips and established that an average of 28% of her gross salary was deducted in community tax each month.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, would it not be more sensible for civil servants working for the EU to be taxed on the same basis as civil servants working, for example, for the Foreign Office; namely, for them to pay the rates of income tax applicable to the country where they are otherwise normally resident?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are now into the whole question about residency, non-residency and international organisations. It has been a common rule for international organisations that you do not pay national taxes but are given a degree of exemption. If we were to reclassify the European Union as not an international organisation but as rather like going to work in Manchester or Leeds, different processes would apply. As a former international banker, the noble Lord will be well aware of the many complexities of international taxation, expatriate allowances and the like.

[Lord Tomlinson]

Is the Minister as surprised as I am by the low number of European Union institution employees? How does that figure—I think he said 55,000—compare with a large-scale local authority in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the figures I have are that Paris employs 50,000 people and Birmingham employs 60,000 people, so it is a relatively modest number. I am sure the noble Lord will admit that the inefficiencies of the Commission—in particular, the rather inadequate personnel policies, the relatively generous allowances and an expatriate allowance which, unlike the NATO expatriate allowance, does not phase out after a number of years and is rather more generous—are things that we should be looking at, particularly when all national budgets within the European Union are being squeezed.

[Lord Dobbs]

Will my noble friend help a confused man who has trouble with numbers? We have one European Union which has two parliaments, three presidents and dozens of employees who earn more than our Prime Minister. I understand that the second parliament in Strasbourg, over the course of the parliamentary cycle, costs our taxpayers €1.5 billion. Do any of those statistics make any sense to him?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there are a number of built-in inefficiencies in every international organisation to which we belong. It is not two parliaments, it is two parliament buildings. The British Government and British Members of the European Parliament have campaigned for several years for a single seat for the European Parliament. If I were to go into the enormous costs of the UN having a base in Geneva as well as New York, we would note that the EU is not the only international organisation that suffers from these inefficiencies.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, lest the Question be viewed as in any way anti-European Union, which I am sure is not the noble Lord’s intention, will the Minister confirm that the tax regime he mentioned not only applies to the United Nations but also to a number of other organisations based within the European Union, such as the OSCE and NATO in Brussels? It is general and in no way a feature of the European Union.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I have already said that this applies to a large range of other European and global organisations, of which there are a great number. That does not mean, however, that Her Majesty’s Government and their allies in like-minded Governments in the EU are not entirely correct to say that we should be squeezing more efficiency out of the EU institutions and that the Commission has grown rather complacent over the years.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, what is the average annual cost to the taxpayer of Members of your Lordships’ House and what is the average annual cost to the taxpayer of Members of the European Parliament, including all the latter’s special perks and allowances?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, it may surprise the noble Lord, but I do not have the exact figures to hand. Of course, any international parliament costs a great deal more because of the travel, dual residence and so on that are involved. Members of this House who also attend the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe or the NATO Assembly also cost rather more than the rest of us.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Does my noble friend have any figures on the European External Action Service? Has he noticed recent criticism that it is not performing very effectively? Does he have any measure of cost versus performance for that body?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I do not have that. The European External Action Service is still very much in its early stages. It is now performing rather better than when it was originally established. Multinational operations take longer to get going than others—I am looking at various people here who have served in the European Commission—and have a level of built-in efficiency.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Is the Minister aware that the European Union Committee on which I have the honour to serve is about to produce a report on the European External Action Service? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will read it with the greatest of interest?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

And so shall I.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I wish to place on record, and ask the noble Lord to accept, that although we on this side of the House are very pro-European, we, like the Government, seek reform of the institutions, including all the salary levels, and so on.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Baroness for that expression of consensus. She will know from her time working for EU institutions that the staff regulations and staff unions in Brussels have a certain element of the 1960s about them which requires a little modernisation.

Syria

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked by

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent Friends of Syria conference in Rome, what assessment they have made of the political situation in Syria.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Foreign Secretary has stated that there must be a political solution to the conflict, which has already claimed more than 70,000 lives. The longer the conflict continues, the more radicalised and sectarian it will become, with an increasing risk of regional overspill. There is no sign that the Assad regime intends to enter into a genuine political process. We must, therefore, increase pressure on Assad and his regime to push them to the negotiating table.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the increase in pressure proposed today in the Foreign Secretary’s Statement may be too little, too late? Does he further agree that the West’s interests are now profoundly engaged, as a failed state in Syria will result in an expansion of international terrorism, increase the dangers from WMD, endanger the supply of energy and destabilise Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and even Turkey? Therefore, will Her Majesty’s Government now work with the United States and France to arm the non-jihadi opposition forces, recognising that the use of force will be the only way to bring the Assad Government to the negotiating table or to bring about an eventual forced peace, should Assad not be available to bring about peace?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are balancing a number of extremely difficult choices all the way through. We are attempting to force the regime to negotiate. We do not have all the permanent members of the UN on our side. The Russians continue to support and, reportedly, to supply the Assad regime. The Iranians are of course supplying the Assad regime. We have taken what we regard as a carefully calibrated decision to upgrade the amount of support, including non-lethal armour, to the Opposition, but we are all conscious that once you start supplying high-end weapons to a civil war, you never quite know where they will end up, as the French discovered in Mali.

[Lord Wright of Richmond]

My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted to ask a few of the many questions which I would have tried to ask if the Foreign Secretary’s Statement had been repeated in this House today. First, does the Minister accept that even the supply of non-lethal assistance to the so-called Opposition represents a dangerous escalation of our involvement in what is now, and has been for a long time, effectively a Sunni-Shia war? What reason do the Government have for thinking that the Opposition, which HMG have now recognised as the legitimate Government of Syria, would be any more accountable or democratic than the present regime in Damascus?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that we still support Ambassador Brahimi’s mission? Does he agree that, instead of rubbishing President Assad’s recent interview in the Sunday Times, we should encourage Ambassador Brahimi to follow up President Assad’s offer of unconditional negotiations with such parts of the Opposition as have also expressed their readiness to negotiate?

Finally, I welcome the decision of the United States Government and HMG to withhold lethal military assistance from the Opposition. Are we similarly encouraging our friends in the Gulf to do likewise?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there were a large number of questions there. I say simply that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is meeting Lakhdar Brahimi this afternoon. He is also meeting the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister. The Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Office Ministers are extremely actively engaged. It is not yet a Sunni-Shia conflict. We are all conscious of the danger that it will deteriorate into a Sunni-Shia conflict. Working with the Opposition, we are doing our best to encourage them to represent all the different communities within Syria. Our aim is to bring a negotiated end to the conflict and to prevent it from deteriorating further.

[Baroness Uddin]

My Lords, what assessment have the Minister and his department made of the impact of the Saudi Government’s leadership in regional discussions with regard to the ongoing disaster and destruction in Syria, where 1 million people are fleeing persecution and violence according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are working with the Saudis, the Qataris and a number of other states in the Middle East. We are very conscious that Lebanon and Jordan are particularly affected by the Syrian conflict. In Lebanon, the number of refugees is equivalent to 10% of its population. If we imagine the impact on British society of the arrival of 6 million refugees, that is what Lebanon is currently going through. We are very conscious of the potential for this conflict to spill over Syria’s borders.

[Lord Eden of Winton]

My Lords, will my noble friend return to one part of the question asked of him by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond? Can he give any assurance at all that if President Assad is removed, his replacement will not be more repressive?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, by its nature when a very localised civil war is under way, it is very difficult for any of us to control what the outcome will be. The only assurance that I, or any other international actor, can give is that Her Majesty’s Government are working with our allies and partners in the Middle East and attempting to persuade the Russian and Chinese Governments to work towards the achievement of a negotiated solution that would see a more inclusive Government replace the Assad regime.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, have the Government studied the recent proposal for transitional justice in Syria, put forward by the Syrian Support Group? If implemented, would it not have the effect of separating ordinary, innocent Alawis from the regime?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there are a great many efforts under way to protect the Alawi minority, the Christian minority and the smaller number of Druze within Syria from what could easily deteriorate into a sectional jihad. We are all very worried about that possibility. A great deal of work is under way, quite a lot of it funded by DfID, to advise the Opposition about negotiated transition, rebuilding local communities and providing the basic services that people need to start the process of reconciliation.

Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:37

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft order laid before the House on 22 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 26 February.

Motion agreed.

Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2013

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:38

Moved By

[Earl Howe]

That the draft order laid before the House on 14 January be approved.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 27 February.

Motion agreed.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:38

Moved By

[Earl Attlee]

That the draft order laid before the House on 19 December 2012 be approved.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 27 February.

Motion agreed.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2013

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2013

National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2013

Motions to Approve

15:38

Moved By

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the draft order laid before the House on 28 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 15th and 18th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 28 February.

Motion agreed.

Antarctic Bill

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:39

Bill passed.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day)

15:40

Relevant documents: 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 14th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

Amendment 80A

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

80A: Clause 62, page 60, line 38, leave out subsection (3)

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Anelay of St Johns)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is very courteously taking a very short respite to give colleagues the opportunity to leave the Chamber, which I know they are trying to do quietly. Perhaps quickly might also be a watchword.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, Amendment 80A stands also in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I shall speak to Amendment 80B, which also stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I should also make it clear that we strongly support Amendment 81 and look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Turner and the other distinguished noble and noble and learned Lords who have put their names to that amendment.

Amendment 80A is an attempt to defeat the fundamental purpose of Clause 62; effectively, it is an alternative to removing that clause. Clause 62 seeks to remove civil liability from breaches of duty imposed by health and safety regulations, and our amendment would reinstate that right of action. I acknowledge here that it would require same consequential tidying at Third Reading.

We should be under no illusions about the serious consequences which will flow from Clause 62, should it be allowed to remain unamended. It will remove the existing right of an employee to rely on a breach of health and safety legislation in any claims for personal injury, so unless any exceptions are to be applied it will be possible to claim compensation for breaches of health and safety regulations only if it can be proved that the duty holder has been negligent. We are aware of just one exception. As the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state:

“This means that in future, for all relevant claims, duty-holders will only have to defend themselves against negligence”.

The Government have sought cover for their clause by citing the report of Professor Löfstedt, Reclaiming Health and Safety for All. A small section of that report focused on strict liability, where the professor recommended that there should be a review of such provisions and that they be either qualified with “reasonably practicable” or amended to prevent civil liability attaching to such provisions. In the event, of course, the Government have not undertaken a review and are going much further than the professor in seeking to remove civil liability from all breaches of health and safety regulations. The Government have focused on strict liability as being unfair because an employer could be found liable to pay damages to an employee, despite having taken all reasonable steps to protect them.

However, that does not give fair recognition to the fact that strict liability applies in very limited circumstances and where injured employees would otherwise face a near impossible evidential burden. Overwhelmingly, the duties are qualified by the phrase, “so far as is reasonably practicable”. Examples of strict liability would include injury caused by defective equipment where the employer controls the selection, purchase, installation and maintenance of equipment, where investigation can be very difficult and with the employer holding all the cards.

The commentary in the Government’s own impact assessment is that the number of compensation cases which rely on a breach of strict liability statutory duties will be small and despite their position, the Government have declined to undertake the review that Professor Löfstedt recommended to potentially restrict the number of situations in which strict liability is relevant. They now argue that it would be too complex a task and would anyway have largely been done when consideration of the transposition of EU directives was considered. Rather than doing the work, they use the issue as an excuse to change the liability regime across the board, potentially to the disadvantage of tens of thousands of employees each year, who will find access to justice more difficult and expensive. For some, it will be denied altogether.

15:45

Amendment 80B requires the appointment of an independent panel to carry out a review of health and safety duties to determine whether they should be actionable—a review requested by Professor Löfstedt. It requires this review to be completed within one year with a report to Parliament and with Clause 62 not brought into effect until this has been completed with the conclusions of the review reported to Parliament. It is the very least we should contemplate if the fundamental damage of the clause cannot be eliminated.

These issues are not just about legal nuances. Removing civil liability and leaving just one route via negligence represents a fundamental change in the position of duty holders and employees. It turns on its head a position which has pertained since 1898 and is a matter on which there has been broad political consensus during that time.

Other noble Lords more versed in the practicalities of the law will perhaps speak about why having to prove negligence will provide a more difficult route to getting redress. The issues are around the burden of proof shifting to employees, or indeed the family in the case of a fatality at work; requirements for more evidence gathering and investigation; and the incurring of greater costs. For employers this will not be a removal of regulatory burdens.

What is the justification for making it harder—in some cases impossible—for employees injured at work to claim compensation? Where is the evidence that unreasonable claims are being made and settled? Noble Lords will be aware that claims for compensation relating to employer liability have to be registered with the Compensation Recovery Unit. This shows that the number of successful claims has declined year on year over the past three years. The Government seek to pray in aid the perception of a compensation culture and anecdotal evidence that the threat of being sued is putting employers off recruiting. Surely the task is to focus on the reality and not to pander to myths and perceptions. In any event, anecdotal perceptions are no basis on which to change fundamental rights that have been settled for more than a century.

The Government are proposing to do all of this without consultation and, by their own admission, without consultation or reference to the EU. The Minister is aware from legal opinion that has been copied to him that the Government’s approach is potentially subject to challenge on a number of grounds—in particular, it fails to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protections in the fields covered by EU health and safety law.

We should be proud of the health and safety system that we have in the UK but, however good it is, we know that there are still deaths and accidents at work and that many still die each year by diseases caused by prior working conditions. Compensation for them, or for their families, is not some bonus or reward.

On the basis of the flimsiest of evidence, the opportunities for those injured at work to obtain redress are being substantially impaired. We should be very clear about that. This is not “business as usual”. The beneficiaries, of course, will be the providers of employer’s liability insurance. The losers will include taxpayers because reduced compensation will mean reduced benefit recovery. Indeed, all of those many good employers who take their health and safety responsibility seriously could see their position undercut by those who will take advantage of what they see as an erosion of our health and safety culture. Tens of thousands of individuals who have worked to support themselves and their families will have their quality of life made worse.

This clause cannot be allowed to stand as it is. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley]

I support Amendments 80A and 80B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to which I have added my name, as I have to Amendment 81 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Each of these amendments seeks to overhaul the provisions contained in Clause 62, as we have heard, which threatens to turn the clock back to Victorian times for injured workers’ rights to compensation.

The clause has rightly been criticised in earlier stages of the Bill, and was only introduced on Report in another place. By amending the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the clause will place the burden of proof on to the injured employee who in future will have to provide evidence that his or her injury has resulted from their employer’s negligence.

As the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has made clear in its appeals to the Government, the clause, if passed, would be highly advantageous to negligent employers, who of course control the workplace and equipment, and are more familiar with the workings of the business. Moreover, it is completely unfair to put this extra burden on an employee who is injured, particularly in cases where the employee would have been rendered unconscious and hence possibly unable to remember details of the incident.

As I understand it, the clause would also impact on families of employees who have been killed in an accident, who would obviously be at a disadvantage in gathering evidence against the employer. If I have wrongly interpreted that, perhaps the Minister could correct me but, if I am right, how on earth can the Government justify that position?

Amendment 81 would delete the clause in its entirety, which would obviously be the most favoured option for those of us opposed to these provisions. Amendment 80A would negate the clause to all extents and purposes and so, if Amendment 81 is not passed, I urge noble Lords to support Amendment 80A. Finally, Amendment 80B would require the Government to conduct a review, before the provisions of the clause can come into effect, of all duties imposed by a statutory instrument containing health and safety regulations and to determine whether they should be actionable.

Clause 62 brings in sweeping and unnecessary changes to health and safety duties at work. The Government must surely pause before introducing such provisions, to ensure that any employer who breaks the law pays the correct penalty.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, Amendment 81 stands in my name. At Second Reading and in Committee, I opposed this clause. The Government have introduced some amendments to the original, but they do not alter the Bill substantially. It would still alter the Heath and Safety at Work Act in a way that is not to the advantage of an injured worker. Section 47(2) of the Act says:

“Breach of a duty imposed by health and safety regulations shall, so far as it causes damage, be actionable except in so far as the regulations provide otherwise”.

In practice, I am advised by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, to which reference has already been made, that this means that if a worker is injured and can prove than an employer has breached a statutory duty, he is entitled to claim compensation. This is the basis upon which many workplace injury cases are usually brought.

The law is clear and well understood. It is the basis on which health and safety legislation has been drafted and passed by Parliament. This is the provision which the Government seek to alter. Without this provision, the injured person would be obliged to rely on the law of negligence, which would be much more difficult. Take the case where a worker has been fatally injured after working with faulty equipment. At present, the family need only prove that there had been breaches of statutory regulation in order to claim compensation. Under the provisions of the Bill, the family would have to go much further and prove that the employer knew that the equipment was faulty and did nothing about it. That would be much more difficult than proving that regulations in place to protect the worker had been breached.

According to the Government’s own figures, the provisions in this clause will affect 70,000 cases in England, Wales and Scotland. That is quite a number of injured workers. There are many industries—construction is one—which are inherently dangerous. I urge noble Lords to look at London: it has masses of construction sites, full of scaffolding and workers working on them. The workers who regularly endanger their safety on these sites deserve proper protection. If the Government are really concerned about safety, they should strengthen the HSE instead of cutting resources and thus cutting HSE inspections, which are so necessary to maintain health and safety at work.

This clause, if enacted, will encourage employers to abnegate their responsibilities and rogue employers will get away with it. What about insurance? Employers are expected to have employers’ liability cover. It is fairly clear that insurance premiums will increase as a result of this legislation. Do the Government really believe some of the assertions in the trade press that we are becoming a compensation culture with many unjustified claims? I do not think so.

I once worked in the claims department of a large insurance company. Injured workers then had quite a tough time sometimes getting adequate compensation for their injuries. I thought at the time that they needed representation in order to get justice. Unions, of course, provide a skilled service for their members in such situations; my own union has a good and important legal department. However, not everyone is in a union. Even now, workers individually sometimes have difficulty in securing compensation. With this clause enacted in legislation, it will be much worse: the burden of health and safety will be transferred from the shoulders of well resourced employers to vulnerable workers, which is unjust and unfair. It takes the law on workplace safety back to Victorian times, beyond the landmark 1898 law, under which it became possible to claim compensation where employers had breached their statutory duty.

I oppose this clause; it is unfair and unjust and in the end will cost the taxpayer much more in support for injured workers unable to achieve compensation. I am opposing it because I want to send a message to the Government that they should not attempt to interfere with established procedures which have served people well and are respected. They should not attempt to do this, and therefore I oppose the clause completely.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that there is a lifeline to the Government in this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 80B in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Wigley. It requires the Secretary of State to set up an independent panel to carry out a review of what will become Section 62. I agree with all that has been said so far in this debate; in particular, I think the Government would be very wise to accede to the proposal for the independent panel because there can be few provisions in our whole legislation that are more complex than Clause 62 and the multitudinous amendments that it makes to Section 57 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

I also draw to the Minister’s attention—if it needs drawing, and I am pretty sure it does not—that the litigation that could flow from Clause 62 as it stands could be formidable, not least in terms of European law. The impact of the law of the European Union in this area of life is very considerable indeed. Professor Löfstedt, in his 2011 review, reported that there were more than 200 health and safety regulations in this country that were affected by EU law. As we all know, where there is a clash, EU law will prevail over domestic law.

The impact on employees of this change in the law could be different from the one that the Government are currently arguing on. It is perfectly certain that if you take away absolute liability for breach of statutory duties and leave it with the common law of negligence, you are, as night follows day, encouraging irresponsible employers—and there are a few, I am afraid—to take risks that will redound to the disadvantage of their employees.

As has already been said this afternoon, suing in this area of law can be extraordinarily difficult. I should have first declared my interest as a solicitor. My firm, Bates Wells and Braithwaite, does a considerable amount of this type of work, as I also have in my professional life. It can be formidably difficult for an injured employee to secure redress from an obdurate employer who is willing to string out the whole business, force the employee into court, and also force him or her into the hands of the no-win no-fee system, which itself has many drawbacks.

I sincerely hope, therefore that the Government will listen to what is being said this afternoon and will take a prudent and practical course that will not hold back this legislation for long, because Amendment 80B sets a time limit for the report of the panel. I hope they will also address to some extent the failing of the Professor Löfstedt review to engage in the sort of consultation that I believe in the view of any Member of this House should have been undertaken prior to the publication of the outcome of that review. I hope, for all those reasons and many others which I hope we will hear, the Government will take the proper course.

16:00

[Lord Hardie]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 80A and 81. I was unable to speak at the proceedings in Grand Committee because I had not by then resumed my place in this House following my retirement from the Bench.

If this clause remains part of the Bill, there is a serious risk of injustice for some people who will be deprived a remedy: the right of damages arising from a breach of their employer’s obligations towards them. The Minister himself recognised that in Grand Committee on 14 January, col. GC 176. However, the Minister suggested that there would only be a small number of cases. First, therefore, can the Minister tell the House what was meant by a small number of cases? Was the estimate of numbers based upon an analysis of cases which proceeded to proof, or did it include cases that were settled without litigation altogether? Whatever the number, it is impossible to understate the serious consequences for individuals and their families already alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton.

If this clause remains part of the Bill, those who have suffered catastrophic injury, or the widows and families of employees who have been killed, will now have to depend upon state benefits for their maintenance. That was what the Minister said in the passage to which I referred. The financial burden will be transferred to widows, children, disabled people, and to the state, and it will be transferred to all of these people from insurance companies which will be the principal beneficiaries of this clause. Does the Minister consider that this is fair, or is it even compatible with Government policy to reduce the number of people who are dependent on state benefits?

Other noble Lords have referred to this right of action, which has existed since the 19th century. I do not wish to point out the error of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, by saying that it dates back to the case of Groves v Lord Wimborne in 1898. That case in the Court of Appeal certainly did decide that there was such a right. However, the law goes much further back. In Scotland and England there were cases before that dealing not with factories, which Groves v Lord Wimborne did, but with coal mines. There was a case in Scotland in 1871 of Edgar v Law and Brand at the Inner House of the Court of Session—which is the equivalent of the Court of Appeal—which decided that the widow of a collier who had been killed because the mine owner breached the regulations had a right of action, just as the court in England decided 20 or so years later. In 1912, the Judicial Committee of this House ratified these decisions—in terms to Groves v Lord Wimborne—but emphasised that they were correctly decided. In doing so, Lord Kinnear observed that when a duty of protection is imposed on employers for the benefit of particular persons, there arises, at common law, a correlative right of action in those persons who may be injured by the contravention.

Clause 62 removes that common law right. We should not sanction such a radical change in our law unless there has been detailed consultation about the consequences of the change and there are overwhelming reasons justifying it. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, there was no consultation about this change and I will return to the reasons in a few minutes.

In the context of claims for damages arising from breach of statutory provisions, some people refer to strict liability and there is a risk of misunderstanding the scope of civil liability. Where regulations impose an unqualified obligation on employers, there is clearly an automatic criminal liability, so there could be a prosecution. However, that is not the case in civil actions. Mere breach of the regulation does not give rise to a right of action: one has to establish that the breach caused the damage. There is, therefore, a double issue: the question of the breach and also the fundamental question of causation. Unless one can bring home liability based on causation there is no right of action.

I will illustrate that point by reference to the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999. Regulation 8 contains special provisions for pregnant women who have notified their employer of their pregnancy. In such cases, the employer must ensure that the equivalent dose of radiation to the foetus is unlikely to exceed one milliSievert for the remainder of the pregnancy. If a foetus were exposed to more than one milliSievert after the date of notification, the employer could certainly be prosecuted but there would be no civil liability unless the employee established a number of facts. First, she would have to prove that she is part of the class that is protected and that she notified the employer. Secondly, she would have to prove that after the notification she was exposed to more than one milliSievert. Thirdly, she would have to prove that the baby was injured. Fourthly, she would need to prove that the injury was caused by the overexposure. The question of causation is likely to be the most difficult challenge, as it is in most cases. The injury to the child might not manifest itself for some considerable time.

Having regard to the significant margin of safety which undoubtedly will exist in the regulations, there would be possible other causes for the child having the condition that it has. However, if the evidence is such that the court is convinced that it was overexposure as opposed to anything else which caused the damage to the child, the mother would be able to recover damages for the child. If this clause is enacted, that right of action by the mother will be removed.

It seems to me that the correct balance has been struck where there are certain standards that the employee has to achieve before he or she can have a right of action. The right balance has been struck and has been reflected in about 150 years of our common law. In considering the question of balancing the rights, passing reference has been made to a further issue: namely, the additional factor that many if not most of these regulations are not absolute but qualified by the phrase,

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

Those regulations give the employer an additional defence that he can come in and show that what happened occurred in circumstances in which he had done everything that was reasonably practicable and that, therefore, he is not liable under the regulations.

The current system of civil liability balances the interests of the employer and the employee, and the correct balance has been struck. Clause 62 disturbs that balance. It deprives people of existing rights under current regulations. It is not possible to comprehend the nature and extent to which the current regulations protect the employee. The employee will no longer be entitled to a right of action. That could be identified only if the current regulations were examined and if the Government decided to exclude rights of action, which they can under Section 47(2) in certain cases. Of course, if the present clause remains, the Government would have to look at the regulations, if they are going to be fair and just about this, and decide which of them should include a right of action. As I understand it, that is not to be done.

I do not intend to repeat the overwhelming reasons that have been mentioned by noble Lords. However, in the context of justification, I will mention the briefing by the British Chambers of Commerce that the right of action deters entrepreneurialism and growth. That explanation or reason does not bear scrutiny. If that were truly the case, how can we explain the involvement of entrepreneurs over the past 150 years who have made a significant contribution to economic growth?

Another matter that has not been mentioned hitherto is a comment made by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, in Committee. He said:

“This measure is not about reducing the number of claims. It is about establishing the principle that an employer who has done nothing wrong should have the opportunity to defend themselves on the basis of having taken all reasonable precautions”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. GC 176.]

That can relate only to regulations where there is an unqualified duty. As I said earlier, most of the regulations contain such a qualification and afford the employer the opportunity to defend himself on the basis that he took all reasonable precautions. So this reason can be no justification for excluding a right of action in all those regulations where there is such a qualification. If this clause remains in the Bill, will the Minister give an undertaking to introduce at Third Reading an amendment to include a right of action in respect of all regulations where employers are given the opportunity to defend themselves, as desired by him? There is no sound basis for removing from citizens rights that they currently enjoy or for altering the proper balance to which I have referred.

16:15

Before sitting down, I wish to pay tribute to the Minister. Last week I explained my concerns in detail to the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland because I was anxious that the Minister should have the opportunity in advance of this debate to contemplate what I have been saying. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland for the time and consideration that he gave me. He undertook to convey my concerns to the noble Viscount and has confirmed today that he did so. I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister, and I urge him to withdraw this clause or withdraw subsection (3).

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, to your Lordships’ debate on these provisions this afternoon. He has done a great service to your Lordships’ House by his considered and detailed contribution. Watching the body language of Members of your Lordships’ House, I have the impression that he has alerted many noble Lords to consequences of this provision of which they were unaware, and that he has, perhaps, concentrated minds in a way that may be helpful both to noble Lords in their consideration and to the Government in determining the correct course of action.

I agree with all the arguments in favour of this group of amendments, and I wish to be associated with them all, but I will make a few additional points to reinforce some points that have already been made. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton said, the justification for Clause 62 is that there is a perception among some employers that a compensation culture exposes them to a risk of unjustified damages claims by employees, and—this is where the briefing that the noble and learned Lord referred to comes in—that this perception prevents employers from taking on new workers and is a barrier to growth. However, no such compensation culture exists. The Government’s own statistical evidence shows that claims arising from workplace accidents are going down. The Health and Safety Executive’s impact assessment of these provisions suggests that this is the case, too, as do the figures published by the Government’s Compensation Recovery Unit.

In Grand Committee, I asked the Minister to point me to the evidence that existed—even the evidence of a perception—and argued at the same time that legislating in response to a perception, which was in fact a misperception, was a poor basis for making law. The Minister was gracious enough at our meeting to confess that, try as they might, neither he nor his officials could find evidence even of the perception—although, to be fair to the Minister, he said in effect, “We know it is there but we cannot find it”.

This is supposed to be a deregulatory measure. Therefore, the test of whether it is a proper policy is whether it will result in any deregulation. Frankly, the evidence in relation to that suggests otherwise, too. It will not remove the complexity of the challenges faced by employers, particularly if they are concerned about possible civil claims by employees. Indeed, it will add to that uncertainty by making the law less clear than it is presently. In particular, the issue of whether these reforms will leave the law incompatible with the European body of law that it has to be compatible with, will inevitably lead to complicated legal argument. I can hear the smacking of lawyers’ lips in anticipation of the cases that will come from this provision if it is enacted in its present form.

We on these Benches provided the Government with a detailed senior counsel’s opinion which set out just how complex the arguments will be. With respect to the noble Viscount, his reply to our correspondence, which was a short paragraph, suggested that his officials had not thought about the consequences that the senior counsel argued were inevitable. Perhaps they have now had the opportunity to do so and, in summing up this short debate, the noble Viscount will be able to give us a better and more considered answer than the one with which his officials provided him in response to the detailed arguments set out in the senior counsel’s opinion.

The Government’s plan is to require all those who wish to claim in the civil courts for compensation arising from workplace accidents to claim by way of a common-law negligence case. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for setting out at least some of the potential complexity of such a claim. The component elements of a common-law negligence case will inevitably mean that cases will be prolonged. The health and safety regulations that the Government seek to skirt around will not become irrelevant to such claims, as the Government intend. They will add to their complexity because persons claiming will rely on them to show what a careful employer would have done—what was reasonable and feasible. So we have added an unnecessary layer of complexity to a set of claims that now proceed by way of reference only to the statutory regulations.

Neither will this reduce insurance premiums for employers. It will shift burdens but it will not reduce insurance premiums. Presently, the employers’ liability compulsory insurance regime is well settled and it works. It was in spasm in about 2004, but it has settled down again and it works. The law compels all employers to have insurance. Employers pool the risk of being employers through the employers’ liability compulsory insurance process. Everyone has to have insurance by law and the premiums are shared fairly and in a proportionate fashion across all employers.

Employers’ liability compulsory insurance represents a small percentage of the overall general insurance market and traditionally it is a loss leader for the industry, which does not make any money out of it. In fact, there is a suggestion that claims outstrip premiums. But that has been the case for a long time, and it has been absorbed into the general insurance market. If anyone believes that the consequence of a change in the law—even if it does shift the burden from the insurance market to the public sector—will result in reduced premiums, frankly, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The premiums do not cover the payments.

Finally, the justification has been put forward that it will reduce necessary record keeping and paperwork. The noble Viscount defeated that argument himself in Grand Committee. In summing up the debate on this issue he reassured my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton that employers would still have to keep the same records because the requirement of record keeping was related to obligations that are enforced by criminal law and nothing at all to do with civil liability. So record keeping will not go down.

The Government's measures go beyond what Professor Löfstedt recommended, and he has said so. They set the clock back 150 years in terms of health and safety, which is an area of public policy of which we in the United Kingdom are rightly proud. They have the flimsiest of justifications and even then the Government themselves cannot find any evidence even of the perception —perhaps because the perceived facts do not exist. Apart from all that, they do not even meet the Government’s own limited objective of being deregulatory. The Government should take them away and think again.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I rise to put the opposite opinion. I live in the world of small and medium-sized businesses. The SMEs and the micros employ half the workforce out there. As one of them, I feel it is totally unfair that, even if you took all the precautions you could, if something happened that you could not foresee and could not know about, you are held to be guilty. This is wrong in natural justice. The fact is that you can then be put out of business. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, but they are not all well funded.

We talk about big businesses, big organisations and corporations, government, and things like that. They may be well funded, but a lot of small businesses out there are struggling and on a knife-edge. It only takes one of those things with the Health and Safety Executive cracking down and you have had it. I invite noble Lords to look at some of the cases—I will send you pointers to the websites that will detail them—where the Health and Safety Executive, for instance, gloats over how much it has managed to get out of someone at a tribunal. I know that is not the exact case here, but the perception is out there, I am afraid, and it does restrict people. My wife, who is a small employer, is very careful about taking on extra people because of these sorts of regulations.

Regulations also start to conflict because of their complexity. You may well find that you cannot comply with them all. If you are then held to be in breach of one of them, which you did not and could not know about because you could not know that the employer was breaching it without your knowledge and against your instructions, you are still going to be held liable, because it is an absolute offence. I think that is wrong. We should remember that it is not just big businesses out there. We will be bankrupting some small businesses and putting other people out of work—and when we put them out of work, there will be other unintended consequences and damage to other families.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, which would leave out Clause 62. I did so because liability under Section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work Act operates fairly, effectively and efficiently and its amendment will cause substantial practical problems.

Your Lordships have heard comprehensive arguments on these subjects, so I will be brief. Section 47 works well because the claimant needs to prove a breach of health and safety legislation. The claimant needs to prove causation—that there has been a breach which has caused serious injury or death. In those circumstances, the law has long recognised, without controversy, that the victim should be compensated without also needing to prove facts and matters relevant to negligence, which are the responsibility of the employer. That is the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll; the matters are within the knowledge of the employer. They are rarely matters within the knowledge of the employee.

To require employees to prove negligence—that is, a failure by the employer to take reasonable care—will inevitably result in very substantial delay in obtaining compensation for those who have been injured or killed by reason of the employer’s failure to comply with health and safety regulations. It will require the considerable expense and uncertainty of litigation for both employer and employee—these are expensive matters for both of them—at a time when legal aid is being reduced.

Clause 62 is unnecessary, unfair and—judging by the deafening silence from the Government Benches this afternoon—unsupported by any marked enthusiasm whatever. I hope your Lordships will support its removal.

16:30

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. For a number of years before the passing of the 1974 Act, I enjoyed a reasonably successful practice at the Bar, often instructed on behalf of employers’ insurers defending negligence claims by injured workmen. Mostly these claims were settled, quite often for substantially less than their true value, because of course the insurers, for whom I acted, were altogether better able than the claimants were to risk losing them. A number of these claims were lost —I defeated them—because the claimants were not quite able to assemble all the evidence necessary to prove actual negligence.

The 1974 legislation, which Clause 62 is designed to overturn, introduced a sea change in the approach to damages claims for workplace injuries. No longer was it necessary to prove that the employers knew, or should reasonably have recognised, that their machinery, equipment, systems of work or workplaces were actually dangerous, it was sufficient to show that regulations designed to secure the workforce’s safety had been breached and that, in consequence, the employee had suffered often appalling injury. Thereafter most claims were settled early, at their true value and with very little in the way of litigation costs. Of course, we at the Bar suffered for this change, because our personal injury practices were greatly damaged, but almost everybody else benefited. Injured workmen obviously did but so too did the Exchequer, because benefits for their injuries thereafter were paid by the insurers out of the premium moneys they had received instead of the cost being put on the state. Safety conditions in the workplace were hugely improved. There is nothing like strict liability, or its civil equivalent, to induce employers to take proactive steps to ensure that the risks and dangers are reduced to a minimum. Employers’ insurers therefore, since 1974, have had altogether fewer claims to meet and have certainly incurred far fewer legal costs in meeting them.

Nothing I have yet read from earlier debates, or heard, has suggested to me that any clear advantage is to be gained by this proposed change in the law. Which precisely, one asks, are the supposed undeserving claims that in future it is intended shall fail when presently they succeed? I confess I did not find the answer to that in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the substance of which seemed to be directed rather to unfair dismissal claims than to claims for injured workmen, essentially against insurers, in respect of whom employers are bound to take action.

[The Earl of Erroll]

As a quick correction, it was nothing to do with unfair dismissal, it was about the health and safety issues which come up the whole time in certain industries, particularly agriculture and things like that. That is what I was thinking about mostly.

[Lord Razzall]

My Lords, if there is one lesson that your Lordships and the Government might draw from this debate, it is that it is a mistake to introduce a major change in the law so late in the process of a Bill going through the House of Commons. The noble Viscount’s department had a very good record of not changing the law without extensive consultation. It is quite clear from the debate today that even one or two noble and learned Lords did not quite understand what it is being proposed in the way that I understand it. That all would come out if there was appropriate consultation on the clause.

The Government’s intention is to try to find a balance between what the noble Earl said about protecting employers from unfair strict liability claims and protecting the rights of the sort of claimants that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is referring to. The Löfstedt report made various recommendations and, had we had proper consultation, that would have come out. The Government say that they are implementing what Löfstedt recommended but some would say “Up to a point, Lord Copper”. He did of course say that the strict liability issue needed to be looked at, but with a lot of reservations as well as to how strict liability could be amended. That would have come out in proper consultation. However, we are where we are. As I understand it, the Government wish to remove strict liability to protect the sort of company referred to by the noble Earl. They say that the complainant or the injured workman can rely on the law of negligence to protect them. There is of course criminal liability, and in extreme cases somebody’s offending will be prosecuted, but they are relying on the law of negligence.

I ask noble Lords to imagine the sort of scenario where these two principles would come up each against other. There could be a contractor who has employed a subcontractor to put up scaffolding and the subcontractor does so in a rather dodgy way. Somebody falls off the scaffolding and is seriously injured. Under the current law, the contractor will probably be strictly liable for that accident. The subcontractor, who is a man of straw, has disappeared, and therefore if the contractor is not liable then who is liable, and what compensation is there for the individual? That seems to me in essence to sum up the dilemma produced by this clause.

I do not think that our job here on these Benches—certainly not when we are in coalition—is to defeat the Government; it is to win the argument. I hope that when the noble Viscount sums up he will try to find a way to meet what I think are genuine concerns from all sides of the House about whether this provision can be modified to deal with the problem I have referred to.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this has been an extensive and interesting debate. I think it would be helpful to set out the reasons the Government seek to make this change. The recent report by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, Common Sense, Common Safety, and Professor Löfstedt’s independent review, Reclaiming Health and Safety for All, confirm that the perception of a compensation culture generates a fear of being sued. This, together with the confusion created by myths about health and safety, drives businesses to overimplement the law in an effort to protect themselves.

My noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, asked about consultation—or rather the lack of consultation. In preparing his report, my noble friend Lord Young consulted 132 wide-ranging organisations representing relevant professionals, including personal injury lawyers, businesses and associated organisations. He also spoke to more than 100 individuals, including health and safety professionals, Members of Parliament, councillors and leading academics in the field of law.

The problem lies not with the legislation but with the way it is interpreted and applied. Illustrating this, in response to Professor Löfstedt’s review, the Engineering Employers’ Federation said:

“The current compensation system is serving the needs of neither employees nor employers and is the source of many of the media stories and public concern about excessive health and safety. It is slow, expensive and places far too much emphasis on record keeping rather than practical action to control risk.”

I am very grateful for the anecdotal evidence raised today by the noble Earl, Lord Errol, in this respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised the issue of record-keeping. I believe he stated that record-keeping will not change, and still does what the law requires, so I think that he was asking what the problem is. I reiterate that there is clear evidence that business overimplements, going well beyond what the law actually requires.

Overimplementation does not lead, therefore, to better protection of employees. It means that employers are spending significant time and effort on activities which are not necessary or far in excess of legal requirements, resulting in significant additional unnecessary costs. Concern about the consequences of “getting it wrong” and confusion about what the law actually requires discourage businesses from exploring new opportunities to expand and diversify and consequently from taking on new employees, a point that I made in Grand Committee.

The Federation of Small Businesses stated in its response to Professor Löfstedt:

“A wider problem for small businesses is that many do not feel confident that they are compliant owing to confusion about what is absolutely necessary, and so feel the need to gold-plate the law to protect them”.

Examples of such gold-plating, according to a recent Better Regulation Executive survey, include a hairdresser unnecessarily paying £1,000 a year for portable electrical appliance testing, a micro-business paying £3,800 for a specialist health and safety consultant to do its basic risk assessment, and an electrical contractor paying £1,000 a month to a health and safety adviser. The impact therefore falls disproportionately on smaller businesses, often run by owner-managers who have less time and resources. This impact is significant for growth because such micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees account for 96% of UK businesses and around 7 million jobs.

Some noble Lords have suggested that we should not introduce legislation merely to tackle a perception—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne—but, as I have explained, the perception causes real problems which we believe require positive action. Clause 62 is one of a range of government reforms to tackle this perception of a compensation culture and to restore a common-sense approach to health and safety.

Amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act so that it will be possible to bring claims only for negligence is designed to ensure that responsible employers who have taken all reasonable steps to protect their employees will not be held liable to pay compensation for an accident that they could not reasonably have done anything about. Claims are a burden on employers not just because of the financial costs but due to the time and resources required to deal with them and, importantly, their negative impact on the wider reputation of a business.

This measure will not lower standards. Let me be clear: every death and serious injury at work is a tragedy for the individual, their family and friends. Happily, our record in the UK is a good one. In the 10 years from 2000 to 2010, the rate of fatal injuries fell by 38% and major injuries by an estimated 22%, and our overall performance is better than that of many other European countries. However, there is no room for complacency and we are committed to continuing to improve health and safety standards.

The Government do not accept the argument that this measure sends the wrong signal about the importance of complying with health and safety legislation; in fact, quite the opposite. This is about giving employers the reassurance to focus their attention on the things that have a real practical effect on controlling risks. In Grand Committee and again today, concerns have been expressed that this change represents a backward step by placing the burden of proof on employees and will make cases more difficult and costly to prove—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, emphasised her views on this.

To be clear, the fact that someone has been injured at work does not and should not mean they are automatically entitled to compensation. Many health and safety duties require the injured employee to show fault on the part of their employer. Currently, claimants do not recover compensation in about 30% of claims. The cases that will be most significantly affected by this change are those which would have previously relied on an absolute or strict statutory duty, a point raised by some noble Lords today. In claims for negligence, the claimant will have to show that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable risks to their health and safety, which led to the injury.

However, unlike in the days before the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, there is now a codified framework for health and safety at work and a great deal of evidence and guidance in the public domain about hazards in the workplace. Employers are expected to take account of this in carrying out their risk assessments, and this body of information will form an important part of the evidence in this aspect of a claim. This means that injured employees are in a very different and much better position to obtain information about their employer’s actions than they were when the right to sue for breach of statutory duty was first established in the 19th century. I hope that this answers the question raised by my noble friend Lord Phillips in this respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, both raised the important point of whether the provision covers fatal and serious injury. The Health and Safety Executive will continue to investigate fatal and serious injuries. The existing statutory requirements will still be relevant as evidence in claims for negligence to help determine whether the employer’s approach was reasonable. The Health and Safety Executive will also continue to take a range of enforcement action in accordance with its enforcement policy statement, including serving notices of contravention and prosecution against employers who seriously breach the requirements of the criminal law.

16:45

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, stated that we have not conducted a proper review, as did my noble friend Lord Phillips. The review proposed in Amendment 80B is similar to that suggested by Professor Löfstedt. This review would require detailed analysis across more than 200 health and safety regulations and would be complex to achieve as health and safety duties are variously expressed in the extent to which they are qualified. The likely result would be different approaches to civil liability being applied across the regulatory framework. This would add a layer of complexity to the existing system, leading to greater uncertainty for not only employers but employees about the duties that apply in respect of compensation claims.

The approach adopted to make a single change to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act avoids these difficulties and provides a consistent approach to civil litigation across all health and safety legislation. This will be simpler for all to understand and is therefore likely to have more impact in tackling the perception of a compensation culture. On that note, extensive work has been done to update and simplify health and safety guidance to help employers, particularly in small firms, to better understand what the law requires and the practical steps they need to take to comply. For the reasons I have set out, the Government do not accept that the conduct of such a review would be beneficial and it would simply delay an important part of the Government’s wider package of reforms to the civil litigation system.

However, I should also remind the House that the clause contains the power to make exceptions. It is already planned to use this power to make an exception for pregnant workers. In the light of comments made today, I can confirm that we would be prepared to look at the possibility of other exceptions to deal with cases that noble Lords consider may present particular difficulties. This may give some comfort to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, who raised a question in this respect.

This measure is not about reducing the number of claims or reducing standards of protection. It is about establishing the principle that employers who have done nothing wrong should have the opportunity to defend themselves on the basis of having taken all reasonable precautions. We believe this is an important and necessary reassurance for employers that will help them manage health and safety risks in a sensible and proportionate way, while giving them confidence to develop their businesses into new areas and take on new employees.

The Engineering Employers’ Federation last week supported the reform as,

“a step in the right direction to help reverse the current civil litigation compensation culture”,

and helping to,

“reduce the perceived health and safety regulatory burden on business”.

In these challenging times it is important that we restore a common-sense approach to health and safety to support business growth without compromising the necessary protections for employees.

A number of other questions were raised by noble Lords. The noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Browne, raised the issue of potential challenges concerning European Union law. A number of legal points have been raised about this in debate, both in Grand Committee and today. I can reassure the House that the Government take these issues very seriously and that the legal position has been carefully considered. The Government’s view is that this amendment is consistent with our obligations under EU law. I reiterate that I wrote an extensive letter to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on this matter. A copy of the letter is in the Library.

Under European law specifically, member states can generally decide what sanctions and remedies to put in place to enforce EU obligations, subject to certain rules. In Great Britain, health and safety obligations are backed by various enforcement powers and criminal sanctions, as well as the opportunity to claim for compensation in the civil courts, which will remain through the right to sue for negligence.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised the issue of negligent companies that may try to avoid their responsibilities. He may have some anecdotal evidence of companies that he would judge to be negligent. It is true that we do not have information about how many cases arise where employers have attempted to avoid their responsibilities when an accident occurs, but, depending on the circumstances, employees would be able to seek assistance from their trade union or make a complaint to the relevant enforcing authority. Allegations relating to breaches of health and safety legislation made to the Health and Safety Executive are investigated in accordance with the HSE’s published complaints handling procedure. In some cases, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—ACAS—may also have a role.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, tackled me on the numbers involved and the impact. I reiterate, as I did in Grand Committee, that there is indeed considerable uncertainty about the financial impact of this change and it has not been possible to quantify it. That directly addresses the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. This is due to the unavailability of relevant data, for example on the number of claims made that rely on strict duties and the level of damages awarded. In addition, a wide range of factors influence whether a claim is pursued, whether it is settled at an early stage—or, indeed, out of court—or defended, and the actions employers take to comply with the law. However, a small reduction in the number of claims made is anticipated.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, raised an important question about the impact that that might have on the value of benefits that could be recovered with a view to those people who fall between two stools, if I may put it that way. It is true that I have said that those numbers would be very small, but we cannot precisely quantify that. Because the number of cases anticipated is small and many claims are low in value, the impact on the amount of benefits that can be recovered is also expected to be limited. It is not possible to disaggregate the amount because the benefits paid that would be subject to recovery on a compensation payment being made will depend upon the individual circumstances of the injured person.

Benefits paid as a result of an injury or disease for which compensation was paid are recovered for a period of five years or until a final settlement of the claim, whichever is sooner. NHS care costs can also be recovered and are subject to a tariff according to the amount of treatment. The amount that can be recovered is subject to a cap, currently £45,153. NHS charges are not recoverable in disease claims.

I thought it was important to address those important and direct questions directly. Having covered all the points, it is for those reasons that I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, the Minister twice said that where companies had done nothing wrong, they could still be caught and made liable under the absolute liabilities of health and safety legislation. Surely, if it is indeed the case that the legislation is so drafted that a company that had done nothing wrong is liable, the answer is to introduce a qualification to that legislation, along the lines mentioned by, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, so that the situation does not recur. Would that not be a better way of proceeding, as Professor Löfstedt suggests and as the panel would enable, than to take a step into the deep unknown, with consequences that many of us fear?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank my noble friend for that point, which is simply noted. It does not change the views that I have expressed about where we are with the clause, but it was valuable to hear what he had to say.

[Lord Hardie]

Before the noble Viscount sits down, may I clarify what is being offered? I hope that I have not misunderstood him, but he seemed to suggest that noble Lords would go through all the regulations and identify which ones should include a right of action, then come to the Government and persuade them? Is that what is envisaged, or will the Government undertake the review of existing regulations to decide which should include the right of action?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

All I am saying at this stage is that we are open to ideas so we can hear where further exclusions, above and beyond pregnant workers, might appear.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am bound to say that I found the Minister’s response profoundly disappointing. It was his noble friend Lord Razzall who said that it was a mistake to introduce laws without extensive consultation and who urged the Minister to find a balance. Indeed, the same point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Yet I do not see any balance in the Minister’s response.

With this power to make exceptions, the Minister is asking us to do the job of the Government. Frankly, that is not the way round that it should be. The Minister always goes back to focusing on strict liability and extrapolates what is perceived to be the issue around that to all other circumstances where people might be injured at work, then causes there to be a restriction on their ability to get justice.

There seems to be an incredible disconnect between an analysis of the health and safety system and the extent to which there is overcompliance with it, with the solution being to restrict the right of people to claim justice when they are injured at work. For a long time there has been a problem of overcompliance, and now there is undercompliance with the health and safety system as well. That is why, as I know, the HSE is engaged in improving guidance, not helped by the Government having restricted proactive inspections so that inspectors can no longer go out and visit as many premises as they did in the past. There is a huge disconnect there, which does not seem to have any justification.

We have had a very impressive array of contributions to this debate today, from very experienced legal minds, all of whom, with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, argued in one direction. I would say to the noble Earl, who mentioned agriculture, that this industry is proportionately the most dangerous in the country. There are more fatalities in agriculture than in any other industry. It is absolutely right that there should be a concentration of health and safety regulations in those circumstances.

[The Earl of Erroll]

I am not arguing that one should not have health and safety regulations and that one should not do one’s best. However, it is just wrong when someone has done everything they can but something is done behind their back that they have no knowledge of or power over and they are made liable and possibly locked up. I object to the strict liability part.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Earl, like the Minister, has effectively conflated issues around strict liability with the overwhelming number of regulations where it is “so far as reasonably practical” that applies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, went through this in some detail. My noble friend Lady Turner was very clear that this clause had to go in its entirety, and on the basis of what we have heard today that is absolutely the right way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that this clause was turning back the clock to Victorian times, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, corrected me to say that it is not just a century that it goes back, but further than that. It has been a settled position and the Government seek to unsettle it, all because of perceptions.

We know that the data show that there is not a compensation culture. There has not been an increase in the number of claims for compensation. The Government’s own statistics show that, and their own impact assessment shows that there are a small number of cases that proceed via the strict liability route, as opposed to the generality that go down an alternative route. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, asked, “Which are the undeserving claims at the moment? Which sort of claims proceed at present that will be restricted by the Government’s change, and why is that?” We heard no answer from the Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that the change in the process to prove negligence would be expensive and bring uncertainty and delays to the process—a point reiterated by my noble friend Lord Browne. We heard a very powerful treatise from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, about why it would be wrong to disturb the current positions, and I entirely agree with that.

Basing these things on perception seems a very flimsy structure on which to make such a fundamental change to the law. We have a number of propositions before us. I believe that the first and the third amendments in the group have the same effect, which is to delete the clause, and I certainly wish to test the opinion of the House on that proposition.

17:00

Division 1

Ayes: 225

---

Labour: 166
Crossbench: 43
Independent: 5
Bishops: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 223

---

Conservative: 140
Liberal Democrat: 64
Crossbench: 11
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1
UK Independence Party: 1

17:12

Amendments 80B and 81 not moved.

Amendment 81A

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

81A: Before Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Letting agents etc.
(1) Section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (estate agency work) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for the words “to which this Act applies” substitute “and in subsection (1A) below to which this Act applies.
(1A) This Act also applies, subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, to—
(a) things done by any person in the course of a business (including a business in which he is employed) pursuant to instructions received from another person (in this section referred to as “the client”) who wishes to let or have the letting of an interest in land managed (for example, the collection of rents on his behalf)—(i) for the purpose of, or with a view to, effecting the introduction to the client of a third person who wishes to let an interest in land; or(ii) after such introduction has been effected in the course of that business, for the purpose of securing the letting of the interest in land; or(iii) for the purpose of, or with a view to, managing the letting of the interest in land on behalf of the client; or(iv) for the purpose of, or with a view to, block management of interests in land; and(b) management activities undertaken by any person in the course of a business (including a business in which he is employed) in connection with land or interests in land.””

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this simple amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, would make letting and block managing agents have to belong to a redress scheme. Estate agents must belong to a redress—that is, an ombudsman—scheme. That is good for users, having an independent arbitrator to sort out disputes. Also, if an estate agent repeatedly cheats consumers, or does so particularly badly, it can then be banned by the OFT. However, letting agents, which handle client money and have slightly younger, poorer and less confident users, are completely unregulated. This means that an estate agent banned by the OFT can reopen the next day as a letting agent. Neither the landlord nor a tenant can take a complaint about a letting agent to an ombudsman, unless that particular agent chooses to join.

There are 4.5 million people who rent privately, two-thirds through letting agents. Given that tenants move quite often, they resort to letting agents with some frequency. Half of them stay in their property for less than two years, as opposed to 6% of owner-occupiers. There are, I fear, a lot of bad—indeed, some very dubious —letting agents. Just today, we have had a major ASA ruling against a letting agent who was breaking the ASA code by not disclosing compulsory charges.

17:18

Why is there no ombudsman to deal with such things and award compensation? Just yesterday, the mystery shopping undertaken by Which? showed that only one tenant was given information about fees when they went to a letting agent to arrange a viewing. No prospective tenant was given a list of charges. This failure to disclose fees up front probably breaches the unfair trading regulations, but tenants have no one to complain to. I hope that the Government will not expect them to take action themselves or through trading standards, which cannot award redress. Is it any wonder that one in five tenants and almost the same proportion of landlords are dissatisfied with their letting agent? Indeed, landlords rate letting agents sixth from the bottom for customer satisfaction across 50 markets. Sadly, only a third of landlords check whether their agent is even a member of a professional body, despite over a million of them also using letting agents to manage their property.

It is no surprise, therefore, that landlords are completely behind this amendment. It is not simply that tenants and landlords have nowhere to go with a complaint: it is also that letting and management agents cannot be banned for bad practice; they do not need to provide indemnity insurance; they do not need to have a complaints procedure and there are no client money protection rules. This is a big business for such a lack of standards. It takes some £175 million a year just from tenants, so it is no wonder that everyone wants letting and block managing agents to be subject to the same requirements as estate agents.

The two residential ombudsmen, who have to refuse a quarter of the complaints they receive because the letting agents had refused to join the scheme, described the problems with unregulated firms. They included: no protection of client money if the firm fails or if funds are misappropriated; no code of conduct and no minimum standards. These ombudsman, Shelter, Crisis, Which?, the mayors of Newham and of London and the Chartered Institute of Housing all support this amendment. It is perhaps as interesting that the industry itself is absolutely behind it. Lucy Morton, described by the Telegraph as the “Queen of London’s rental market for 30 years” said:

“It is shocking that so many letting agents remain unregulated.”

There are many other groups that support this amendment: the British Property Federation, RICS, the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, the National Association of Estate Agents, Knight Frank, the Southern Landlords Association, the Institute of Residential Property Management, the Electricity Safety Council and the Association of Residential Managing Agents. All of those groups support this amendment because, at present, there is only limited protection for the consumer, with about 40% of letting agents unregulated by any professional body. As these groups say, this costs businesses money, hitting micro-businesses and sole practitioners particularly hard.

This amendment will provide consumers with clarity and protection,

“raising standards across the rental sector, without adding unnecessarily to business costs”.

Those were the industry’s words, not mine. Furthermore, on 14 February, the OFT itself called for a general redress mechanism, together with an enforcement strategy.

What about the governing parties? The Liberal Democrats, in Decent Homes for All, describe how bad letting agents bring the private rented sector into disrepute. They therefore support regulation to ensure that people are protected from unscrupulous or incompetent agents. They promise to set up a mechanism whereby bad agents may be removed and prevented from practising. Amendment 81A is that mechanism.

As for the Conservatives, in 2007 the then Opposition MP Mark Prisk tabled virtually the same amendment as my Amendment 81A. As he said, it would have amended,

“the Estate Agents Act 1979 to extend the definition of estate agency work to include residential lettings and management. Some of the scams … in this market include … charging both landlords and tenants for the same service; charging for simple procedures that are already covered by a landlord’s management fee, and charging exorbitant fees for basic functions”.

He went on, quite rightly, to say:

“As a Conservative, I am instinctively cautious about arguing for more regulation. However, as a chartered surveyor and a constituency Member of Parliament, I know that we need to put lettings on the same regulatory footing as sales”.

The fact that the industry agrees,

“shows that the measure is long overdue”.—[Official Report, Commons, Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill Committee, 24/4/07; cols. 191-192.]

This year, now as Minister, Mark Prisk has acknowledged that some letting agents let down tenants and landlords, and he claimed that the Government are determined to raise standards. However, he seems to be afraid of the costs to landlords and/or the tenant, despite the willingness of the industry to fund these.

The cost of meeting this amendment is estimated at £770 for an agent, including insurance. Given that letting agents often charge a single tenant up to £600 in fees, this is hardly substantial. Furthermore, the 60% of letting agents who voluntarily sign up seem to manage that cost, and according to the impact assessment undertaken by RICS, almost half the agents surveyed said that they could absorb the costs. Sixteen per cent said that they would find efficiencies, and only 23% said that they would pass the cost on to landlords. However, the landlords would, of course, receive a better service, and probably lower overall costs.

Industry, the consumer groups, the OFT and three political parties want this. The amendment simply requires membership of a redress scheme, and empowering the OFT to remove letting agents in the same way as they can remove estate agents. In a recent meeting I heard Mark Prisk say that he was open to reason. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to indicate that he has listened to reason, and that the Government are willing to require such a system of mandatory redress and help us rid ourselves of unscrupulous letting agents. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, when we discussed this issue in Committee the Government gave four reasons for rejecting the proposal made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. These reasons were as follows. First, bringing letting agents under regulation would increase costs for consumers and reduce the choice and availability of accommodation on offer to tenants. Secondly, letting agents are already subject to consumer protection legislation. Thirdly, consumers who are charged unreasonable fees can seek help from trading standards officers. Fourthly, around half of all agents belong to a voluntary scheme that sets standards and offers redress. None of these reasons stands up well to any kind of examination. The fact that half of all agents belong to a voluntary scheme is not a reason for failing to address the fact that half do not.

The fact that consumers who are charged unreasonable fees can seek help from trading standards officers is one of those facts that are true in theory but of no help in practice. Even if consumers knew about this recourse—and I am sure that they do not—it is well known that trading standards officers are overstretched and underresourced. This is an illusory comfort to ripped-off or abused consumers. That letting agents are already subject to consumer protection is another true, but comfortless, fact that relies, again, on action by trading standards officers—action that is unlikely to bring significant relief, if any at all.

However, the first reason the Minister gave in Committee for rejecting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is the one on which the Government seemed then to rely most, and which at first glance appeared to have some merit—that is, that the amendment before us again would increase costs to consumers and reduce the choice and availability of accommodation on offer to tenants. This argument was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the Minister subsequently wrote to the noble Lord to set out the evidence—or, rather, grounds—for this argument.

These grounds amounted to an estimate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has already mentioned, of an additional annual cost to a letting agent of around £800. It is very hard to see that an additional cost of £800 would drive any letting agent out of business. The Government have produced no evidence of their assertion that it might do so. Even if it did—which is not only unproven but unlikely to be provable—it does not follow that rental properties would be taken off the market or that costs would be passed directly on to the tenant. The Government have produced no evidence to show that letting agents who are members of the voluntary scheme charge more than those who are not. In many cases, the reverse is likely to be the case.

Even if all the Government’s assertions in this area were true and evidenced, their position would amount to saying that they were content to have serious abuses in the marketplace because the abusers could not afford to pay to become non-abusers. This is not an attractive or coherent proposition and it is especially unattractive when one considers the analysis of cost benefit produced by RICS, among others, which gave evidence of a beneficial financial outcome for implementing the proposals. All in all, and exactly as in Committee, it is hard to understand why on earth the Government have opposed this measure. It stops significant abuse, it is easy to do, it has almost universal industry support and it has long-term financial benefits.

I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and very much hope that the Government will be able to give it the sympathetic consideration it deserves.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on her determination to pursue these important changes and am delighted to have added my name to the amendment.

The proposals provide for basic consumer protection measures for the lettings market, already governing estate agents. These days, many property businesses operate both as estate agents and letting agents. The divide between the two is, in many ways, artificial. We have, at present, the ludicrous situation whereby a member of the public who walks through the door of such a business wishing to buy a house will have access to accountability if they suffer poor practice. However, if they rent a house from the same business they will not. There is access to independent redress and client money protection for those buying a house but not for those renting one. This is quite illogical and is untenable at a time when more and more young families with children are renting privately, most of them through a letting agent. We cannot have letting agents leaving boilers unfixed, properties in a state of disrepair or running off with people’s money and facing no repercussions. When people do not get the service they pay for there should be consequences for the businesses involved. That is a simple consumer right. This is not an issue of party politics but of basic common sense, which is why this amendment enjoys cross-party support, as was clear in Grand Committee.

Letting agents themselves are asking Government for the measures that this amendment provides for. They know that much of the estimated 40% of the market that operates outside existing voluntary registration schemes is damaging the reputation of the entire profession. A survey by Shelter showed that only 20% of renters trust their letting agent, with 84% disagreeing that letting agents work in the interests of their tenants. It is vital for everybody—tenants, letting agents and landlords alike—that standards are raised. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against these proposals. The Government have claimed that requiring letting agents to meet certain professional standards will push up costs. However, research by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors shows that this is not true. While there is a one-off cost, that figure is quickly recouped and there is a net benefit to the economy from these changes of £21 million over 10 years.

17:30

It is also argued that existing regulations provide for redress in the event of poor practice. As far as I can see, that is also not the case. Existing regulations can stop only malpractice. CPRs do not empower consumers or provide them with a route to redress. In addition, a lack of trading standards resources means that these regulations are inconsistently applied, if they are at all. Only a tiny number of prosecutions have been taken against letting agents using existing CPRs. This is despite a significant upsurge of dissatisfaction with poor practice in the lettings industry. Complaints to the Property Ombudsman have increased by 123% over the past five years. Therefore, existing legislation is simply not fit for purpose.

As to the argument that these proposals amount to extra red tape, this is not red tape. Businesses do not like red tape and businesses are asking for these changes. This is simpler regulation; it is not more regulation. It has not strangled estate agents and it will not strangle letting agents. It is worth noting that landlords complain as much as tenants when the agent belongs to the ombudsman scheme. Landlords would be greatly helped by this measure.

In the mean time, consumers want change. As polling for RICS and Shelter show, the vast majority of those renting want basic standards to which letting agents should adhere and the right to appeal to an independent complaints scheme in the event of poor practice. Who can blame them? There is simply no good reason to deny them that. These changes are not a panacea for all the problems in the letting agents’ profession but they are a vital first step towards a market which works fairly. This amendment closes a loophole that should, in truth, have been closed quite some time ago. Doing so has long enjoyed wide support, including at one time from the current Housing Minister when he was in opposition. Back then, Labour Ministers opposed it and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, eloquently expressed her frustration with that in Grand Committee.

We now have Conservative Ministers, but the continued growth of the private rented sector means that this issue will not go away. It will only increase in importance and urgency. Almost everyone knows that this is the right thing to do but no Government have got around to implementing it. It is high time for this Government to break that cycle, prove that they are not bound to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors and give those who rent their homes the basic consumer protection that they deserve.

[Lord Borrie]

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, has indicated that at the present time there is an increasing desire, among young people particularly, to rent rather than buy. When I say “desire”, it is of course a desire that is impelled upon them because of the difficulty of getting mortgages and actually purchasing a house. Whatever the reason, they are having to rent rather than buy.

As so many noble Lords said in Grand Committee, which, unfortunately, I was unable to attend, there is a very strong argument that letting agents and management agents employed by landlords to look after their property should be covered by the Estate Agents Act 1979 and by an ombudsman scheme, as estate agents have been for some time. In Grand Committee, my Front Bench spokesman, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made a powerful speech, as she has today, in favour of extending the power of the Office of Fair Trading to ban estate agents for misconduct to those who engage in the letting and the management of property and to make available an ombudsman scheme for complaints. In Grand Committee she put forward a number of very strong arguments—for example, the size of the market, running to a couple of million letting and management agents. On the number of complaints, she quoted from the Property Ombudsman, for whose council I had the honour to serve as chairman a few years ago. It has shown how the number of complaints has increased. All of the speakers so far in this debate today have mentioned that almost all British Property Federation bodies connected with this field are in favour of the scheme being proposed in this amendment.

The ombudsman scheme is very familiar to us now in all sorts of private industries, as it was already in public concerns—for example, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, which in 1967 started the ball rolling in this country, and the Local Government Ombudsman. I found very puzzling the response of the noble Viscount the Minister in Grand Committee when he said that there would be a reduction in choice if the amendment were carried. When government departments were made subject to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, individual departments were not given the choice as to whether they should be subject to the Parliamentary Ombudsman; they are all subject to it. As new departments and, indeed, quasi-departments, if I may put it that way, have come into being, they, too, have been particularly mentioned as being subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner or Parliamentary Ombudsman.

I thought that the Minister’s answers, as I understood them, were quite inadequate. They seemed to bring in the subject of competition. I am all in favour of competition, and part of this Bill is concerned with improving competition. Competition and choice are very important. Nevertheless, where does the benefit to the consumer come to choose between estate agents, estate management or letting agents, or whatever, which belong to an ombudsman scheme and those which do not? If there is a choice, surely no sensible consumer would wish to go to somebody who does not belong. It seems to me that a mandatory scheme is most desirable in this field.

Finally, I mention in passing the banning of estate agents when they engage in misconduct. This dates, as we all know, from the Estate Agents Act 1979. The Office of Fair Trading has probably not used it as much as it might to deal with bad estate agents. In my day at the Office of Fair Trading we tended to ban only estate agents who were in prison. In other words, they were imprisoned for fraudulent activities and we received evidence that they were coming out of prison shortly. We decided that they must not come out and engage in estate agency so we would ban them. There are not that many estate agents who have been banned who were not at the time in jail.

It is a pity if the Office of Fair Trading has, whether under my guidance or later, not been a little bolder, but it needs adequate evidence of course. Whatever it is, surely letting and management agents should be subject to the same rules.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Amendment 82 is in this group. I apologise to the House for not being able to raise these matters in Committee due to my engagements in other proceedings.

I want to make it clear that I am not criticising in any way the actions of any particular property auction company in the United Kingdom. I also want to make it clear that my amendment is not lobby-driven: it is based on my own experience at property auctions.

Whereas most people’s measure of confidence in the national economy is based on news reports, share prices, unemployment and growth statistics, surveys of business confidence and a number of general indicators, my personal approach has been to measure confidence in what happens in the property market and, in particular, in property auctions. For almost every year over the past 20 years, I have watched the movement in regional property prices in London auction rooms, which I have attended—never as a vendor, never as a purchaser, but only as an observer. In my view, regional price movements excluding London are a real-world barometer of confidence in the economy.

However, there is one particular practice in the management of bidding processes that concerns me. I know that it causes a lot of upset among inexperienced bidders and particularly for young people buying their first home. Catalogues invariably show a guide price against the property description and lot number. I have a catalogue in my hand that shows the lot number of a property in Birmingham and the guide price.

As Barnard Marcus, a reputable company, says in its catalogue:

“The Guide Prices listed must not be relied upon by prospective purchasers as a valuation or assessment of value of the properties. They are intended to provide purchasers with an indication of the region at which the reserve may be set at the time of going to press”—

with the catalogue.

“Guide prices may be subject to variation … Prospective purchasers should be aware that eventual sale prices may be above or below guide levels dependent on the competition”.

That is the background against which people often judge whether they intend to attend an public auction.

Noble Lords should remember that I said,

“the eventual sale price may be above or below guide levels dependent on the competition”.

With that in mind, bidders often take time off work and travel great distances to attend property auctions. But what happens when they arrive and bid often comes as a shock. They presume, as per the quote that I read out from the Barnard Marcus catalogue, that the guide is an indication of the reserve. That is often not the case. The reserve is often substantially higher. The bidders are unaware that the guide is no guide at all as the reserve is not known to the bidder. As Countrywide Property Auctions states in its catalogue under the heading “Reserve Price”:

“Each property will be sold subject to a reserve price. This is a confidential figure agreed between the Auctioneer and the seller prior to auction and is a figure below which the Auctioneer cannot sell the property”.

In other words, the reserve price is unknown to the bidder.

What the bidder is witnessing is effectively a trade misdescription. The guide is no guide at all. Bidders are being attracted to property auctions on the basis of a guide that may or may not be exceeded dependent on bids received—the competition referred to in the Barnard Marcus quote. But the property is being sold on the basis of a reserve price known only to the auctioneer and unknown to the bidder.

Let us take an example. Property A has a guide price of £100,000. Bids received are £95,000, £100,000, £105,000, £110,000 and £115,000. The bidding stops at £115,000, £15,000 above the guide, at which point the auctioneer abruptly intervenes with the statement: “I am sorry but the property is withdrawn under instructions from the vendor because the reserve has not been met”. That reserve is £15,000 above the guide price.

17:45

I have witnessed some pretty ugly and angry scenes on the floor of public auctions. What sometimes happens is that a bidder is drawn into a telephone discussion after the bidding is over, via the auctioneer, with the vendor on a price near the reserve.

On other occasions, bidders leave the auction room in disgust at the waste of time involved. What is really worrying is that it is possible for a vendor to welcome a low guide in the catalogue, in the knowledge that it will attract prospective bidders, and then spring a high reserve on the property on the day of the auction.

In one particular catalogue you will find the following reference: “The sale is subject to a reserve price for each of the properties and the vendor reserves the right to bid both up to the reserve price through the auctioneer at auction”. In other words, set a low guide and then bid your own property up to the reserve price at the auction. In those circumstances, if the guide is set lower than the reserve, we are experiencing nothing less than a deliberate deception of prospective purchasers.

That is the background to my amendment. I believe that reform is needed in this area. I am not expecting the Minister to give way at the Dispatch Box today, but I hope, following my conversation with civil servants last week on these matters, that we can have some legislative change in this area at Third Reading. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I spoke on this in Grand Committee and I do not want to repeat either the points I made then or the many comments that have been made by noble Lords this afternoon. I want to make two or three additional points.

I have noticed in my home town of Watford a proliferation of letting agents, a constant change in their brand and marketing or moving address. Certainly, for the tenant, there is no clarity in the difference between an estate agent and a letting agent. The Government have argued that accepting this amendment complicates the landscape in this area. I think the exact opposite is true. I have two examples of tenants suffering problems with letting agents and one of landlords.

A typical prospective tenant might be a single mum who has found her way back into work. I happen to have a friend who was in this situation last year. The letting agency decided that it was going to demand of all single mothers with children, regardless of whether they had work and were able to show they had continuous employment, four months’ rent and, in addition, a guarantee from a male whose work they also wanted guaranteed. These are most extraordinary conditions.

One of the major problems is that many people who are desperately seeking rented accommodation would not know where to go. If you are struggling to find accommodation in your home town, to be able to go to Citizens Advice means that in reality you will lose the property. Certainly, in the south-east, lower cost rented property is at an absolute premium. This sort of behaviour, when there is no ombudsman and no code of conduct, is very difficult to police. I only know about this because of a personal contact.

More familiar to your Lordships’ House will be the example of students in a university town trying to find accommodation. If they have been lucky enough to have a year in halls, they often end up trying to find accommodation elsewhere. One of my children’s universities used to say: “Please find your accommodation through the university accommodation syndicate. If you go outside, we cannot guarantee that you will not be ripped off by letting agents. In particular, many letting agents have a reputation for finding every reason under the sun not to return your deposit”. The fact that you have to warn students of this before they have even entered into a contract tells me that there is something wrong with the letting agency business.

Many landlords pay extra money for their agent to manage the day-to-day business, perhaps if they are away. I have had, again, anecdotal evidence from two landlords who have been away from their town—which is why they pay the extra percentage charge—and discovered the letting agent ringing them to ask them to clean the house between lets and to arrange for the plumber to call and all the other things that they had thought were included in the extra percentage charge that they were paying. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the Liberal Democrat paper that was passed by conference, Decent Homes for All, and my honourable friend Annette Brooke MP has also been fighting with EDMs and other comments in another place on this important issue. My party certainly believes that we need to regulate the letting area.

I will add one final point. The coalition agreement, rightly, seeks to reduce red tape. Not accepting this amendment allows the continuation of a red tape for a consumer and a tenant, simply because, at the moment, a tenant has to understand the difference between being with an estate agent and a letting agent and to understand that if they are with an unlicensed letting agent, instead of going to the ombudsman and taking redress through the code of practice, they may have to go Citizens Advice, a small claims court or trading standards. My 19 year-old son in his first foray at university would not have known where to start with that. If we can do what his university rightly tries to do in guiding the students and say, “You need to be assured that the people you are dealing with actually follow a code of conduct and there is an ombudsman to whom you can turn”, then we would have a much simpler system, which is free of red tape.

I am very grateful to the Minister for the meetings that have been held over the past few days and hope that we will be able to hear some progress when he informs the House of any further consideration.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very interesting description of what may happen in auctions, but I look forward to hearing the reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench.

Coming back to the amendment that was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, I will just raise one or two points. Members of my family have been both lessors and tenants in the present market and, apart from one case, have on the whole had good experiences. I was approached by the Association of Residential Letting Agents, ARLA, and have been quite impressed by what it has told me. Its primary function, as it puts it, is to professionalise the profession and to make sure that it has high standards and that those who enter the profession understand what the standards should be. It operates a voluntary scheme of registration and its anxiety is that a number of letting agents do not register for whatever reason, one of which may be that they do not want to comply with the standards.

Can my noble friend refer to one particular point when he replies? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reminded us that, in opposition, my honourable friend Mark Prisk moved very similar amendments to legislation before the House produced by the then Government. In the debate in Grand Committee on 16 January—I apologise, again, that I was not able to be there—after referring to the speech that I have read from my noble friend Lord Deben, who gave the clear impression that he supported the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, my noble friend Lord Younger said:

“I note and respect the intervention of my noble friend Lord Deben in this respect as well. I know that the Housing Minister is aware of these concerns but I will raise them with him for further consideration. It is clear from the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that he—Mark Prisk, my honourable friend in another place—is aware of the issues that she has mentioned”.—[Official Report, 16/1/13; col. GC 250]

At this stage, all I need to ask is whether my noble friend Lord Younger approached Mark Prisk and what his response was. What was his reaction when reminded that he had in fact moved a very similar amendment himself when in opposition?

One is tempted to say, “Let us return this clause, with this amendment, to another place so that my honourable friend Mark Prisk may have an opportunity to say why he has changed his mind”. I am not sure that that would necessarily be the right thing to do but I will be impressed and influenced by the answer that my noble friend on the Front Bench gives me to this point. I find it difficult to accept that you can hold one very clear opinion in opposition and then find yourself responsible in the same field and hold a completely different one. It is often, as my noble friend Lord Deben said quite firmly in Committee, because it is a departmental attitude, which in this case may stem from the Treasury. As a former Treasury Minister, all I can say is that I understand that does in fact happen from time to time. However, whatever the reason, it does not seem to be a very satisfactory position and I look forward to hearing my noble friend on the Front Bench explain it.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I will start at the back and deal first with Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. You might think that auctions are bad here but you should see them in Australia. I bought my flat at auction out there and what they do is start the auction and when they reach a certain point they stop and say, “We’ll have a break”. In the break, they get hold of the vendor and say, “Why don’t you come down on your reserve?”, and get hold of the purchaser and say, “Why don’t you go up on what you are going to buy?”. They might do that two or three times within the auction. Fortunately I had someone helping me, who made clear to the auctioneer that if they went on and broke more than once, we were out. We got the property and I have had it a very long time.

There are good and bad things about auction. I accept the point the noble Lord made about deceiving people about how cheaply they are going to get something, but of course it is unpredictable and properties sometimes really do not sell, while in other cases they do. At least with an auction all the documentation about the property is provided in advance of the auction so people are not kept in the dark the way they are with lettings and by managers. People launch into a property they are going to rent, or buy leasehold, and they find that there are all sorts of hidden clauses that no one ever drew their attention to and that no real documentation is available. It is quite different; each system might have its faults but they are different faults and it is hard to know whether you will ever get them right.

However, I have a certain sympathy with the point the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made. If you have gone a long way it is very difficult—you have gone to the trouble, you think the place is going to be within your range but it is not. It is really very hard to resolve that one. Do people wake up to the fact that it is just a selling technique, which happens all the time, or are people genuinely taken in by these deliberate ploys? It is complicated but he has got a very interesting point that requires further investigation.

I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Talking about letting agents, I was quite stunned to see on television people letting these sheds in some parts of London. They had no windows or anything in them; a family of 10 living there and sometimes no running water or electric light. It was just unbelievable. The people who were renting them produced leaflets from the agent who was offering them to let. When the BBC—I think it was the BBC although it could have been another broadcaster—went to say to these people, “How could you be letting this when it has no planning permission and does not conform with any health standards of any sort?”, the answer was, “Oh, no, we were never letting it”. Yet they had proof in front of them of the printed leaflet about it being available to let from that particular agent. That is the absolute bottom of the scale but between that and the really desirable letting agent, there are all sorts of gradients.

18:00

All the conflicting interests in property, or most of them, seemed to be present at the round-table meeting at the department. Every one of them—including ARMA and ARLA, which represent managing and letting agents—wanted to see regulation of these businesses. They were not just pushing for a redress scheme; the redress scheme was the one common denominator that came out. Those represented included LEASE and Peverel. Everyone was present and every one of them favoured a redress scheme. Every one of them thought that the group you had to worry about—say, with ARMA or ARLA—was not the 50% who voluntarily paid their £150 membership but the others who did not join. The ones who did not join did so because they did not want to conform to certain standards, so it is very important to have that scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was a very distinguished president of the Trading Standards Institute. Fair trading is good, but people do not tend to associate it mentally with property. Everybody knows what a property ombudsman is. If we had—at the very least and only as a first step—a redress scheme that was not voluntary but obligatory, we would have made huge progress, even though it might only be a first step. There is a need for legislation, and that legislation really needs to bring in regulation of both letting and managing. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, will correct me if I am wrong, but I think her amendment covers managing agents as well as letting agents. That is a very important point. As has already been said tonight, at the round-table meeting the British Property Federation wanted to make it perfectly clear—because it was misquoted so often—that it supports a regulatory system. This must be repeated again and again; we have heard so often that it opposes it, but that is not true at all.

People say we should not have any more regulations. We are all for less regulation, but not where it is necessary. Regulations should be brought in where they are required. This complete lack of transparency, this failure to disclose things, takes place all the time; for example, in the management of blocks people have no idea what they have to pay for and what they do not have to pay for, and no idea what the money is spent on. There have been cases in the past where it was found that someone who claimed insurance money was getting a 50% kickback from it, all due to a lack of transparency. Until we get some regulatory standards we are not really going to get that.

Going back to the original point, a redress scheme is the very minimum we could expect from the Government, and I hope they will be forthcoming in this. We must have a redress scheme. We have heard that the awards made are small. Every case that was dealt with at the redress point—the early point—would have saved huge amounts of money and huge amounts of work. People are even threatened with the loss of their own homes. That would all be avoided if these things were resolved early and simply. I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I hope the Government will look on it favourably.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendment 82, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, concerns sales of property through auctions. I shall turn to that shortly. Amendment 81A and the next group of amendments are aimed at two different types of activity. One is the letting and management of privately rented homes. The other is the management of residential leasehold properties. It is important to make that distinction because, while some agents engage in both these activities, they are different activities, with different clients, contractual relationships and issues. However, a number of the amendments we are debating cover both sectors, so I shall make some remarks about each sector in turn before turning to the amendments.

The Government are aware of the important and growing role played by private renting and residential leasehold. This is true particularly in London and the south-east, where the pressures of growth in housing demand and the challenges of increasing supply are intense. There are now around 3.8 million privately rented and 3 million leasehold properties across England, with the majority of the latter being flats. Obviously, not everyone living in those millions of properties is happy with their property in every respect, whether because of the costs they face in buying or renting it and then living in it, its condition or the quality of its management. Many of them are content, of course, and find that on balance private renting or leasehold meets their needs.

We have heard a number of contributions today, and previously in Grand Committee, describing unsatisfactory practices by letting agents in the private rented sector. This was highlighted today, notably by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Hayter, among others. Indeed, this sector has had a substantial amount of attention recently in the other place, in the media and in recent reports from Which? magazine, the Office of Fair Trading, the Property Ombudsman and others. The Government have been listening carefully to the views expressed on this subject, and recognise that there are issues. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, acknowledged this and highlighted it today.

While there are many agents who perform a good and honest service for their clients and serve an important role in the private rental market, there are too many agents who are not acting responsibly. My honourable friend in the other place, Mark Prisk, said in a debate in Westminster Hall last week that the Government consider many of the problems to be a consequence of years of undersupply in the housing market. The imbalance between supply and demand has put rents, the quality of accommodation and standards of service under pressure in some areas of the country. That has had consequences for the way lettings agents, as well as landlords, operate.

Expanding the supply of rented homes is therefore at the heart of the Government’s strategy. We want a bigger and better private rented sector. That is why we established a debt guarantee scheme of up to £10 billion to encourage institutional investment and, alongside that, a £200 million Build to Rent fund. Boosting supply is not just about financial support, however. It also means avoiding excessive regulation that can deter investment and stifle supply. Excessive regulation, however well intentioned, can result in precisely the outcomes we want to avoid. That is why we did not proceed with the proposals of the previous Government, such as a national register of landlords and the full statutory regulation of letting agents.

Nonetheless, there is a role for regulation in preserving standards. We have heard a number of people express the view that the lettings market is totally unregulated. That is not in fact the case. There is a substantial body of consumer protection legislation that covers letting agents. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 protect tenants from letting agents who mislead or engage in aggressive business practices. Similarly, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 protect tenants from unfair conditions, such as unfair restrictions on the ways in which they can use a property. We know that trading standards bodies use these powers to prosecute lettings agents. Some very substantial fines, and indeed prison sentences, have been handed down to agents who engage in serious misdemeanours, such as misrepresenting their membership of professional bodies, or indeed misappropriating clients’ money.

However, my honourable friend in the other place, Mark Prisk, acknowledged that there is a problem with enforcement, and that action is needed on the less serious cases as well as the most serious ones. He stated his determination in Westminster Hall only last week to encourage national trading standards bodies to ensure that they tackle these issues across the marketplace. I am pleased to reassure my noble friend Lord Jenkin that recently my honourable friend indeed stated his case very clearly. I strongly support making better use of existing regulations before we create new ones.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised the question of bad letting agents harming the reputation of good ones, which is an extremely fair point. That is why we are clear in government guidance to landlords and tenants that they should ask which bodies letting agents belong to. The more that landlords and tenants ask these questions, the more pressure there will be on all letting agents to join such schemes.

The Office of Fair Trading has just produced its report on the lettings sector. It makes some suggestions for regulatory changes, but it makes other, non-regulatory proposals, too. The Government will study the report carefully, alongside the evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s inquiry on the private rented sector. Evidence and recommendations are being presented by bodies with extensive expertise. We owe it to them to study the committee’s recommendations carefully.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the fact that the OFT called for redress and enforcement. The OFT report on lettings agents recommends that the Government should consider whether it would be beneficial to require agents to sign up to a code of practice or to join a redress scheme. The Government will consider the OFT’s recommendations carefully, but we need to see the recommendation to consider mandatory redress alongside other elements of the OFT’s recommendations, some of which relate to making better use of existing laws and non-regulatory mechanisms.

Turning to residential leasehold, I believe that we have to be realistic and to recognise that living in a property where more than one party has significant financial and other interests, and where common parts of a property need to be maintained, is bound on occasion to lead to concerns and disputes. Although complaints procedures and a range of mediation and ombudsman services are already available—and, where those options fail, a number of legal options that can be pursued—we recognise that not all leaseholders are happy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked why there is no client money protection in residential leasehold, but I reassure her—as she may know—that statutory protection already exists for leasehold service charges, which the law deems to be held in trust.

Our postbags, and those of Members of the other place, sometimes contain letters from leaseholders whose freeholder—or, more often, whose freeholder’s managing agent—is not providing the service they deserve or expect, or is sending increasingly unaffordable bills. We also hear from elderly and sometimes vulnerable people whose freeholder, or their agent, is failing to follow good practice and, in some cases, may even be breaking the law. Where relationships over the management of people’s homes break down and become adversarial, it can lead to real worry and distress and can in some cases, as we know, culminate in cases before tribunals and the courts.

The Government are aware of concerns among some leaseholders about a range of issues such as management standards and consultation, but remain unconvinced of the case for increasing government regulation at this time. Rather than create new leasehold regulation, the Government want, in the main, to see existing rights and protections on the statute book used to best effect. We therefore welcome current moves towards greater self-regulation by professionals in the sector and are interested in ideas for giving these more support and encouragement. The Government are aware that there are failings and even abuses in some parts of both sectors and will continue to address them. We have carefully considered the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her arguments for regulating letting and management in the private rented and leasehold sectors, and I can assure her that the Government take her concerns very seriously.

The amendment would amend the Estate Agents Act 1979, extending the definition of “estate agency work” to include those involved in letting and managing agency work. This is intended, as we understand it, to give the Office of Fair Trading powers to prevent letting and management agents conducting business and to require agents to have in place redress schemes, client money protection and to meet the other requirements of the Act. While we acknowledge that there are issues that need addressing, we do not believe that the answer is to regulate letting and managing agents in the way that the noble Baroness proposes. The regulatory burden could be substantial, adding to costs borne by landlords and, in turn, tenants.

In his report for the Property Ombudsman, Professor Michael Ball set out a range of costs that this would entail. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Sharkey both brought up the issue of the cost of compliance with a mandatory scheme, and both stated that there would a debit of only some £800. Indeed, there are costs to bear in mind, including of extra staffing and other administrative work, to ensure that the business is run according to the relevant codes of practice. Our own figures suggest that these are on top of costs of perhaps £170 per office per year for redress, £300 for client money protection and £300 or more for professional indemnity insurance.

18:15

Of course, many letting and managing agents already sign up to similar schemes, and government guidance encourages landlords and tenants to ask which bodies an agent belongs to. However, the approaches that are right for many agents are not necessarily appropriate for all. That is why the Government are in favour of nimbler and more tailored self-regulatory approaches wherever possible. For example, while client money protection is not mandatory for letting agents who are not members of professional bodies, the Government have endorsed the SAFE— safe agent fully endorsed—scheme, whose easy-to-recognise logo makes it easier for consumers to understand whether the agent offers client money protection. Legislation already sets down requirements on how service charge money in leasehold must be held.

Furthermore, it is not clear what the effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment would be. In particular, it is not clear that it would succeed in bringing letting and managing agents into the scope of redress mechanisms within the Act. This is because the definition of a complaint within the Act relates to selling and buying “an interest in land”, not letting and renting. On the other hand, because the amendment covers management activities in connection with land, it could, possibly unintentionally, bring some other activities such as property development and perhaps even agricultural land management into the scope of the Act, resulting in a far broader range of industries having to comply with the terms of the Act. That would not be right. Therefore, while I understand why the noble Baroness might like to see letting agents in the private rented sector, and managing agents in the leasehold sector, brought into the scope of the Estate Agents Act, in particular in terms of access to redress, I do not believe that this amendment is the best way to achieve that goal.

I very much appreciate the input and acknowledge the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in raising these important issues, and I was pleased to be able to consult her on these matters after our debate in Grand Committee.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Before my noble friend goes on to discuss auctions, will he give some indication of how long it will take for the Government to study the substantial report to which he referred, and how long he thinks it will take for the DCLG Select Committee at the other end to produce its report? I understand both his arguments—there is a substantial report from the OFT and there is also that Select Committee report—but we really do not want to have to wait for ever.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My noble friend makes a very good point. I can reassure him that the Select Committee report is due out very soon. It is likely to be in May; it may even be as early as April. That is not a guarantee, but I hope that it gives a helpful indication as to what the timing might be.

None the less, I recognise that the issue of a lack of redress is a serious one, and I know that my honourable friend in the other place, the Housing Minister Mark Prisk, considers this a serious issue, too, and is giving it the most serious consideration. We will reflect very carefully on this and other recent debates, and I am sure that the Housing Minister will keep in touch with Peers who have spoken today.

I shall turn as fast as I can to Amendment 82. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for having brought this issue to my attention and to that of the House. I have considered carefully the amendment and the arguments for introducing it. The Government are of course concerned to hear that buyers may be experiencing difficulties when trying to purchase a property at auction, especially if it involves first-time buyers. I am pleased to say that there is already legislation in place designed to address just this sort of unfair practice. Therefore, new legislation will not change the position regarding consumer protection in such matters. I will explain why.

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, auctioneers, like traders in all sectors of the economy, are required in their dealings with consumers to treat them fairly and not mislead them. Under the CPRs, there are also a number of business practices that are considered unfair in all circumstances and are prohibited. When marketing a property, it is prohibited to use bait tactics such as luring bidders to auctions using pricing techniques, which the noble Lord raised as an example. OFT guidance on the CPRs published last September, of which the industry should be fully aware, gives the specific example of guide prices not being distorted to attract potential buyers.

Where traders treat consumers unfairly, they may face criminal or civil enforcement action. Enforcement of the CPRs is by the OFT and local authority trading standards services. We are, of course, in the process of better equipping trading standards to take greater responsibility for consumer law enforcement, and will be transferring central government funding for national leadership and co-ordination of enforcement activity from the OFT to the National Trading Standards Board. In addition, the new Competition and Markets Authority will have consumer enforcement powers to address business practices that distort competition or impact on consumer choice in otherwise competitive markets.

Furthermore, I understand that the industry encourages fair practice in this area and offers guidance and training. For example, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors provides best practice guidance for auctioneers selling real estate. Such guidance addresses price guides and states that these guides must not be misleading, advising that a price guide that is clearly below the figure that the seller will accept is misleading. As best practice it also says that auctioneers should clearly indicate in the catalogue that price guides may be subject to amendment during the period leading up to the day and time of the auction sale.

In the light of the consumer protection legislation already in place, and as we have not seen any evidence on which a change of legislation could be justified, we do not feel the necessity to change legislation in this area. The noble Lord may wish to write to the OFT, providing evidence of the experiences and findings in this matter that are causing him concern. I hope that he is reassured by my answer and that he will therefore not press his amendment. I note that this is a new issue that was not raised in Committee and I acknowledge his apology. However, I believe that he raised some interesting points that we will keep in our sights. I also ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this amendment simply asks that letting agents should have to sign up to a redress scheme. We have checked it with the lawyers, and it does not apply to development land or anything else. If that was the case, and if the noble Lord had said he that accepted the need for redress, that it was just the wording that needed changing and that it was coming back at Third Reading, I would be happy to withdraw. Sadly, that is not what the Government have said.

The unfair trading regulations do not work. You cannot go to trading standards; it does not give redress. The Government have given no answers other than self-regulation or, “Wait for another committee”. Consumers want this; Mark Prisk wanted this in 2007; Lib Dem policy is in favour; landlords and tenants want it; the OFT wants it; and so does the industry, despite the costs. I thank noble Lords who have all spoken in support—there has been nothing but support from all around this House. I believe that, in addition to that list, the House will support the amendment. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

18:23

Division 2

Ayes: 211

---

Labour: 159
Crossbench: 30
Independent: 6
Liberal Democrat: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Conservative: 1
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 206

---

Conservative: 136
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 11
Ulster Unionist Party: 3
Independent: 1

18:39

Amendment 81B

Moved by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

81B: Before Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: costs
At the end of paragraph 10 (costs) of Schedule 12 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (leasehold valuation tribunals: procedure) insert—“(5) A tenant of residential property shall not be required to pay costs incurred by a landlord or any other party with an interest in that property in connection with proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal except when their lease specifically permits such costs to be included as a legitimate management charge.””

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I shall speak to the group of amendments in my name, so that we do not have to keep coming back on different items. I have been asked to put them all together. I will start with Amendment 81F because that is the most important of them all. That has come about because of the court decision recently in the Phillips and Goddard v Francis case that any amount of work to be done per flat worth more than £250 in a year would require consultation. If, for example, it was a block of 10 flats and you had spent £2,500, after that, for everything, even if it was for £1, £10, or whatever, you would have to implement a consultation process.

In their answers tonight, the Government have told us that the one thing that they want to avoid is lots more paper, cost, expense and consultation. That is exactly what the amendment is designed to achieve. The Public Bill Office has now gone online and worked out that the sum of £250 should in today’s prices be £330, so that is why there is a difference in the figures. We have gone through it carefully, and we think that certain things are particularly important or desperate, such as fire provisions, safety provisions and—one of which I have had personal experience—when the front door of a block of flats is damaged. What would happen if you had to wait for about two months to get consent for you to put on a new front door lock, although it was so urgent?

We do not wish to change the law at all. We wish to clarify the law as it is to make clear that the £250 is not an annual figure but a per item or per effective work figure. That amendment is straightforward and the Government should certainly consider it. I have heard them tonight and 50 million other times say that they want to reduce costs, difficulties and expenses. This is the opportunity to do it. Otherwise, every tenant will be burdened with so many consultation documents that they will get to a point where they barely look at the really important, serious one because they say, “Oh, that’s another one from the agent and it is all out of my pocket”. Amendment 81F is really simple.

Amendment 81B concerns leasehold valuation tribunal costs. I tabled the amendment because when I asked about the cost of leasehold valuation tribunals, which, at the moment, are limited to £500 for any applicant, I found that the practice, which is quite wrong, has arisen where the landlord, head lessee, or whoever is at the next stage above the leaseholder, is bringing in more and more expensive legal brains against the ordinary applicant. The worst thing about that is that, win or lose, the amount paid for that extremely major legal defence is charged back to the residents in the leasehold flats as a management expense. That was never the way that leasehold valuation was envisaged. In 1996, I was very involved when we passed the legislation. Those things were specifically against what we wanted. We wanted it to be approachable for anyone at £500. I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, from which I understand that later in the year it will be swallowed up into a major tribunals review and the figure of £500 will probably rise. However, that is different from where the unlimited cost is being charged back to the leaseholders. That is the reason for that amendment.

Amendment 81C concerns a redress scheme. As we pretty well won the redress scheme with the previous amendment, which has just been passed, I do not think it is so important any more. However, when we had a round-table meeting at the department of all the interested people, they all said, from the most extravagant people down to the most careful, that the one thing that could save time, trouble, expense and simplify life for everyone would be a redress scheme. Therefore, no matter what happens with the previous amendment, I am hoping that at Third Reading the Government might bring forward some wording on a simple redress scheme.

That takes me on to Amendment 81D and protection schemes for service charge money. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned that university students had a problem regarding their deposits and so on for the premises they were letting. I pay full tribute to the Labour Government who as a response to that introduced protection for tenancy deposits. Tenancy deposits are well-protected now. No longer can an avaricious landlord grab every penny of your deposit money. Even if you are just an ordinary individual, letting property without an agent or anything like that, you have to place the deposit in a secure government scheme, which is very good and desirable. However, why is the same amount of protection not given to people who pay service charges, which are probably very much larger amounts?

Amendment 81E concerns the redress scheme. If I am satisfied with how the previous amendment, which has just been passed, is interpreted, I will not bring it back at Third Reading. However, if I find there is something that really could be clearer or better, I might bring it back. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, not surprisingly we support these amendments. I have been working with ARMA on trying to get some of this done. There will be a voluntary scheme, but only the good ones will join. The advantage of these amendments is that they will make sure that everyone, not only the good, will have to meet those standards.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for the thought and effort that she has put into the preparation of the five amendments we are now considering. Her ideas and broad experience of the housing sector are an invaluable resource to this House. Her amendments, like those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, address the private rented and residential leasehold sectors. I will not repeat what I have already said about those areas.

I have carefully considered my noble friend’s Amendment 81B on the ability of freeholders to recover their legal costs from leaseholders and I take her concerns very seriously. This amendment aims to limit the circumstances in which costs of proceedings incurred by a landlord or other party with an interest in the property at a leasehold valuation tribunal could be charged back to leaseholders. I should point out that where a freeholder is able to recover costs in connection with proceedings from the leaseholders, this is contractual matter between them and will be set out in the lease. I am aware that leaseholders are increasingly concerned about the recovery of such costs as administration charges where the lease permits this and I understand that my honourable friend Mark Prisk is thinking about this issue. I am concerned that my noble friend’s amendment would not achieve her goals and would not in fact provide any greater protection for leaseholders than already exists.

I know that my noble friend, as she said, recently took part in a high-level round-table discussion on residential leasehold issues. I understand that a number of practical ideas for improving awareness of leaseholders’ rights emerged from that event and that the Department for Communities and Local Government is committed to working with the Ministry of Justice and others to take those ideas forward. The issue of recovery of legal costs as an administration charge, rather than a service charge, requires detailed consideration. For this reason, I believe that the current Bill is not the best place to consider this complex issue.

18:45

My noble friend’s Amendment 81C concerns an alternative form of dispute resolution for landlords and tenants in the private rented sector. The amendment would require the current deposit protection schemes to provide a dispute resolution service for all disputes between landlords and tenants whose deposits are protected under the scheme—for example, disputes about repairs or rent arrears. The tenancy deposit protection schemes are authorised by the Department for Communities and Local Government under concession agreements that require them to offer a free service to resolve disputes over tenants’ deposits. The latest round of agreements has just been awarded and it would not be reasonable or appropriate to change them now.

To change these schemes would expose tenancy deposit schemes to a much broader range of activities than they have signed up for, or for which they are perhaps qualified. To expect those services to be free, as they are for resolving disputes on deposits, would also be unreasonable. This is not the best vehicle for introducing further dispute resolution mechanisms between landlords and tenants.

We should also remember that mechanisms besides resorting to the courts already exist for tenants who are dissatisfied with their landlords. They can complain to their local authority about hazardous conditions, for example, or may apply to the rent assessment committee about unfair rent increases.

I have looked carefully at my noble friend’s Amendment 81D on the protection of service charge money in residential leasehold and I take her concerns on this matter very seriously. The Government are aware that the service charges paid by leaseholders are a key issue, particularly where these are high and increasing, and where they are regarded as unreasonable by those paying them. My noble friend’s amendment attempts to provide similar protection for service charges in leasehold as that which has for some years applied to tenancy deposits in the private rented sector. I understand, however, that statutory protection already exists for leasehold service charges, which the law deems to be held in trust. To apply the deposit protection scheme, which has produced good results in private letting, to residential leasehold is unnecessary and may in practice be unworkable as deposits and service charges are for different purposes. Given that for many leaseholders what matters most is the level of their service charges, we also need to be very careful not to create additional burdens and compliance costs on freeholders and their managing agents, which would over time be passed on to the leaseholders.

My noble friend’s Amendment 81E concerns arbitration and mediation services. In the private rented sector there is a range of consumer protection legislation that protects tenants and many landlords from poor practices by agents. Our goal should be to work with trading standards bodies to ensure more effective enforcement, and I note the intention of my honourable friend Mark Prisk to do just that.

In the residential leasehold sector I understand that a significant number of managing agents are already members of an ombudsman’s scheme, often via their membership of a trade body. These bodies also have their own internal complaints systems. There are other routes through which the resolution of an issue in dispute can be sought, such as the leasehold valuation tribunal. An ombudsman does not, as I understand it, consider complaints that are within the jurisdiction of the leasehold valuation tribunal.

As I said in relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I recognise that the issue of a lack of redress is a serious one. I, therefore, repeat that the Department for Communities and Local Government will be reflecting very carefully on this and other recent debates.

My noble friend’s final amendment, Amendment 81F, concerns consultation about service charges. The Government take the issue of transparency and consultation on service charges in residential leasehold very seriously. I understand that this amendment has been tabled following a recent High Court judgment. It is not for me to comment on the decision of the court, but the Government are aware of the concerns that have been raised by those working in the sector. Very careful consideration of the new position is, however, needed. Introducing amendments to the current Bill before the sector has had time to reflect may not result in the outcome sought by my noble friend.

This amendment would increase the threshold above which landlords should consult with their service charge payers and it attempts to link future increases to the consumer prices index. Any such changes would, however, need to be properly scoped and consulted on in order to ensure that any increase and link to inflation was appropriate. It is not clear whether the amendment, as drafted, would fully achieve the noble Baroness’s intention. Also, the proposed new exemptions from the need to consult might be welcome to the sector but could, without very thorough consideration, prove unworkable. I would expect the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for this area of law, to be open to considering with interested parties over the coming months how best to address concerns on this issue.

I am grateful to my noble friend for the thought and effort which she has put into the preparation of these five amendments. I hope I have been able to explain to the House why the Government are not convinced that her amendments will achieve her goals, or that this Bill is the best vehicle for addressing these issues. I know that my noble friend Lady Hanham and the Department for Communities and Local Government are thinking seriously about all these concerns. For all these reasons, I ask my noble friend Lady Gardner to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I listened to the explanations from the Minister, some of which are quite unsatisfactory. For example, he says that what people are really concerned about is the level of service charges and that we want to keep those down, and so on. We all understand that. But he then rejects Amendment 81F, which is so important and would clarify exactly what you can and cannot do in a block with or without permission and would tremendously reduce the paperwork and red tape, with its terrible waste of time and money, on the ground that it is perhaps too cheap and saves too much. I do not know on what ground he is rejecting it but I do not accept that it is fair to reject it.

The Minister says that they will look into it over the coming months, but the coming months are too long. Even this Bill is going to take quite some time before it goes through. The thought of having extra “coming months” on top of that is just too much, so I do not really accept his arguments. As I said, if the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, covers a redress scheme that is mandatory for everyone, and if they would have to belong whether they are managing agents or whoever, then I am satisfied with that. I would not then want to pursue it further myself because if we have put a good scheme through, that might be the thing to run with and it would not need amplification.

If, on the other hand, after studying the noble Baroness’s amendment, to see what it means and whether there are any loopholes in it, I think there is still a need for clarification on redress I would want to come back on that. In no way could I say that I have forgotten this matter. I warn the Minister to expect me to return at Third Reading, by which time I hope we will be a bit clearer on exactly what is good and bad in what we have decided tonight. Fortunately, there is the opportunity to return at Third Reading. I reserve my right to do that because nothing has been said today that really satisfies me completely on those amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 81B withdrawn.

Amendments 81C to 82 not moved.

Amendment 83

Moved by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

83: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies
(1) The Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales is abolished.
(2) Every agricultural wages committee for an area in England is abolished.
(3) Every agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee for an area in England is abolished.
(4) Schedule (Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies: consequential provision) (abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies: consequential provision) has effect.”

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, these amendments will simplify employment legislation for around 40,000 farm businesses in England and Wales. They will ensure the same levels of employment protection for agricultural workers as for workers in all other sectors of the economy. They will also abolish 31 public bodies whose functions are now used infrequently or have simply fallen into disuse. This is an important reform, which will contribute to the Government’s key objective of encouraging economic growth as well as the programme of reducing the number of public bodies. We brought these provisions forward in Grand Committee but they were not accepted. We believe that the case for them is very strong and therefore we have reintroduced them.

The agricultural wages committees were set up in their current form nearly 65 years ago, just after the Second World War, although their origins go back even further. The Agricultural Wages Board is now the only remaining sector wage council; the 26 others were abolished 20 years ago, in 1993. Agricultural workers represent 0.5% of the total workforce. There is no reason why they should be treated differently from the other 99.5% of workers, who are all protected by the national minimum wage and other statutory employment provisions.

Agriculture today is very different from 65 years ago. It is a now a global, international business. Farmers compete against not just each other but farmers overseas to sell both here and in international markets. Technological developments and increased mechanisation mean that workers need to be highly skilled and qualified to operate complex machinery, and to be able to keep up to date with modern animal husbandry methods. The industry is also becoming increasingly diverse, particularly as businesses move away from mixed farming to specialise in specific sectors. Around a quarter of farms now also operate non-agricultural businesses; for example, a farm shop or bed and breakfast. This means that many farm businesses have to employ workers under both the agricultural minimum wage and the national minimum wage regimes. They therefore have to comply with two sets of employment legislation, which is an unnecessary cost to farm businesses in both time and resources.

Even within what are traditionally regarded as agricultural activities, there are grey areas where a farm business has to determine whether employees are employed in agriculture and entitled to the agricultural wages order terms and conditions as opposed to general employment terms. For example, livestock and poultry rearing would normally be considered agricultural activities and covered by the agricultural wages order, but this is not necessarily the case for on-farm slaughtering operations. Similarly, where there is a farm packing business, packing of produce grown on the farm would normally be covered by the agricultural wages order, whereas packing of bought-in produce is not.

The abolition of the agricultural minimum wage will remove the need for farm businesses to operate two employment regimes and end the confusion of whether activities fall within the national minimum wage regime or the agricultural minimum wage regime. It is widely accepted that the legislation which underpins the Agricultural Wages Board is outdated and hampers the ability of the industry to offer more modern, flexible employment packages. For example, it effectively dissuades employers from offering the payment of annual salaries, which is disadvantageous for workers as it hinders long-term financial planning—and thereby better security for farm workers and their families.

The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the agricultural minimum wage regime will allow farmers to agree terms and conditions that take account of the requirements of the farming sector and suit the particular circumstances of both employers and workers. It will make it easier for employers to offer opportunities for workers to work the same number of weekly hours, but over a compressed period. This could be beneficial for businesses, who may want to provide for longer shifts, and for workers with family and domestic responsibilities.

Abolition will enable farm businesses to compete for workers on a level playing field with other local employers. It should encourage longer-term and more permanent employment of farm workers, which will boost growth and have wider benefits. For the avoidance of doubt, research suggests that there will continue to be considerable demand for farm workers in the years ahead, which will mean that employers will need to offer competitive pay rates to attract new workers. A majority of workers already receive terms and conditions above the agricultural minimum wage rates, and as contracts are already in place their wages should not be affected if the board were abolished.

The underlying market conditions suggest that there will be a sustained demand for agricultural workers. The 2011 survey from the UK Commission for Employment and Skills indicates a shortage of workers with relevant skills within the agricultural sector, and that this shortage is higher than comparable shortages in other areas of the economy. The agricultural workforce is also ageing: 55% of the sector’s workforce is aged over 45, which again is higher than in other sectors of the economy. These factors mean that we can expect demand for both workers and skills in the sector to increase over the next 10 years and beyond, which means that market drivers will ensure that wages remain competitive. Farm businesses will be wise and prudent to provide career and development opportunities to encourage workers into agriculture and offer attractive terms and conditions to retain them.

It is also important to remember that agricultural workers who have contractual rights reflecting the terms of the agricultural wages order at the time of the board’s abolition will retain those rights until either their employment contract is varied by agreement or their employment comes to an end. New workers coming into the industry or workers who negotiate a new contract will have the same level of employment protection as workers in all other sectors of the economy. Furthermore, agricultural workers who are supplied by a labour provider and who may be at the lower end of the wage scale will continue to have the added protection of the gangmaster licensing legislation.

Turning to the 15 agricultural wages committees in England, most of their functions have now lapsed in practice or have been replaced by wider legislation. Their only remaining active function is to appoint members of the 16 agricultural dwelling house advisory committees in England—or, as they are more generally called, ADHACs.

19:00

ADHACs were established under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 and their function is to give advice to local authorities on rehousing agricultural workers. As a result of changes in housing legislation during the 1980s, the number of requests for advice from ADHACs has declined significantly from 500 then to around 10 requests per year now. It is not a statutory requirement to consult an ADHAC, and while a local authority is required to take account of the advice of an ADHAC in making its assessment of an applicant’s case, it is not obliged to follow that advice. We understand that many local authorities are very comfortable taking decisions on rehousing without the advice of an ADHAC.

Therefore, the 15 agricultural wages committees and 16 ADHACs in England are now effectively defunct bodies. It is difficult to justify their continued existence at public expense so the Government’s view is that they should be abolished. With regard to abolition of the ADHACs in England, I want to assure noble Lords that there are no plans to change the provisions in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 which give security of tenure to protected tenants. Therefore, the amendment will not in any way jeopardise the position of tenants with protected tenancies.

In summary, the Government firmly believe that these amendments will benefit the agricultural industry by removing regulatory burdens from farm businesses, allowing the industry to modernise and compete for labour on an equal basis with all other employers, while ensuring that agricultural workers have the same levels of protection as other workers. All this will encourage the development of a sustainable and prosperous industry for the future, which is good for businesses and workers, as well as consumers and the country as a whole. These amendments will also remove 31 obsolete public bodies, contributing to the Government’s wider programme of public body reform.

I hope that, in the light of my remarks, noble Lords will accept these amendments. I will address the opposition amendments when we have heard from noble Lords. In the mean time, I beg to move Amendment 83.

Amendment 83A (to Amendment 83)

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

83A: After Clause 64, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert—
“(1) Every agricultural wages committee for an area in England is abolished.
(2) Every agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee for an area in England is abolished and the services formerly provided by such a committee shall instead be provided by the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.
(3) Without prejudice to section 3 of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, any minimum rate of pay contained, or to be contained, in an Order of the Agricultural Wages Board may, where the Agricultural Wages Board considers it convenient to do so, be fixed by reference to any periods during the currency of employment.”

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, my name is on this, as are the names of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I regret to inform the House that the noble Baroness has suffered a fall and will not be with us tonight. I understand that there was no government Whip close to the incident so I am sure that we can pass unanimously our best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and wish her a speedy return.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, what the Minister failed to mention is that the Government’s own best estimate, in the only document that they have produced on the effect of abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, will be a direct cut of £240 million from the income of rural workers.

Our amendments would do some of the things that the Government are after: they would abolish the 31 bodies; they would allow for simplification and modernisation to the wages order; but, crucially, Amendment 83A keeps the legal underpinning of the terms and conditions of those who work in our agricultural sectors.

That figure of £240 million comes directly from Defra’s impact assessment, and it is its best estimate—there is a range, but that is its best estimate. The House is in some difficulty here because it should have more information. We are in a slightly bizarre procedural position because on the face of it the Government had the right to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board under the Public Bodies Bill. But, of course, under that Bill, after long and rather testy debate in this House, there are some very detailed procedures for implementing that abolition. They require much greater information, much clearer arguments, much better figures and much more effective consultation than the Government have coming forward. The Government are trying to cut corners by inserting their amendment into a piece of legislation that had already passed all stages in the House of Commons and which was not accepted in Committee in this House.

There may be good reasons why the Government are trying to change tack. One is that they have problems with the Welsh Government—this is England and Wales legislation. The Welsh Government, like their counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, want to maintain statutory minimum standards in the agriculture sector. Of course, it is also convenient for the Government that they have not been required to come forward with that kind of information. They have not presented us with any alternatives; they have simply come forward with a proposition for abolition. The House would be entitled to say to the Government that we are not prepared to consider this government amendment until the equivalent of Section 11 of the Public Bodies Act is before the House. Clearly, the Government are not prepared to go down that road.

I will say a few words about the nature of the agricultural workforce. Of course, the Minister is right that it has changed since 1917 and 1948, but we are left with an agricultural work structure of a lot of relatively small businesses that employ one, two, three, perhaps six, permanent staff and parts of a sector that employ large numbers of casual workers on a seasonal basis. There is no other sector in the whole of the economy that is like that. There is no other sector, therefore, that requires the kind of legal protection that until very recently all parties in the industry and all parties in the House recognised was important.

Moreover, the Government’s analogy is quite wrong. The Agricultural Wages Board specifies a whole wages structure and a whole career structure for workers in the agricultural sector. It does not simply specify a minimum wage, like the national minimum wage; nor is it the same as most of the old wages councils, which simply specified a basic rate rather than the whole range of conditions required within the agricultural sector, which will be difficult to achieve without some legal underpinning by normal methods of collective bargaining either nationally or by agreements between individual farmers and their own workforce—something that would often be very difficult for both sides to accomplish.

The Minister claims that this is a great removal of burdens on small farm businesses, but the operation of the board has in many cases been of great benefit to small farmers. In the consultation—such as it was; it was only four weeks’ consultation, whereas most people are required to go through three months, and it was only one week in Wales—a significant number of small famers said they wished to retain the Agricultural Wages Board because that meant that once a year they knew what they were going to pay their staff and they did not have to go into embarrassing and lengthy detailed negotiations with their own two or three employees. Therefore, the burden of administration on the farmers is actually less under the Agricultural Wages Board than it will be if the Minister gets his way and it is abolished. In the evidence, there are a large number of small famers saying precisely that, ranging from the West Country to Yorkshire to Norfolk.

The impact assessment also says that the effect on farmers’ incomes will be a significant improvement. In fact, it has that down as the reciprocal of the cut in the agricultural workers’ wages. But the reality is that a lot of those famers will never see that money, or will only see it temporarily. The wage cut for workers will almost certainly end up being of benefit to the supermarkets. It is very interesting that in the consultation nearly 40% of the replies are from the horticultural sector, which employs the mass amount of casual, unskilled labour and which deals directly with the supermarkets. Even more tellingly, the strongest supporters in the rest of the food chain are the Fresh Produce Consortium, whose dominant members happen to be Tesco, Morrisons, Asda and Marks & Spencer.

The reality is that once the supermarket buyers hear that the Agricultural Wages Board and the minimum rates have been abolished, they will go back to their farmers and suppliers and say, “We want a cut in the prices that we are giving you”. The reality is that whatever burdens the Minister claims will be removed from small employers, many of whom do not accept that, the money will not come out of the pockets of farm workers and into the pockets of the farmers, it will go out of the rural community entirely and into the pockets of the supermarkets.

This is a very dangerous move and one that we certainly could not support. There is little in what the Minister said tonight with which I can agree. There is little in what his supporters in Committee, who were in the minority, brought to bear. They said, “In my area, on my own estate, on my own farm, people I know pay a lot more than the minimum wage”. Of course they do. It is a wages structure. A lot of employers pay more than the minimum. But once you abolish the floor, the whole wages structure starts coming down. The impact assessment which the advisers of the department of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, Defra, and BIS had before them makes it quite clear that the best estimate is that this will be nearly £250 million out of the pockets of relatively low-paid agricultural workers. It is a disgrace, frankly, that the Government are proposing this. It is a disgrace, in some ways, that the NFU has changed what has historically been its position in support of the board to pressing for its abolition and, in so doing, does not represent the views of many small farmers.

Our amendment would allow simplification and modernisation. It would allow the abolition of the 31 quangos to which the Minister has referred, which would give Defra a few brownie points on the Cabinet Office’s scorecard of the quango cull. The abolition of the wages board, however, is a different matter. It will bring distress to rural communities, a cut in income to rural workers and will do nothing for the farmers and the agricultural sector of this country. I beg to move our amendment to the Government’s amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his clear and eloquent statement on why it is essential not to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, and why it is therefore vital that as a House we support this amendment of the Government’s amendment.

It is noteworthy that the wages councils were established by Winston Churchill in 1909, and he spoke of the need for them in these words:

“It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions … where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst; the worker, whose whole livelihood depends upon the industry, is undersold by the worker who only takes the trade up as a second string … where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/1909; col. 388.]

That may not be quite the language that we would use today. It is language from 100 years ago, but they are still salient points. Indeed, these underlying principles and thinking have led to a minimum wage and then a living wage.

When other wages councils were abolished in the 1980s, the Government chose to keep the Agricultural Wages Board on the grounds that the industry required some central oversight to prevent wages being driven down unacceptably. In order to consolidate and build upon the progress achieved in terms and conditions during the past 30 years, we need to retain and further develop, and update, the Agricultural Wages Board, not abolish it.

The NFU has criticised the cost and provision of the AWB claiming that it is a,

“bureaucratic irrelevance since the advent of the Minimum Wage”,

and pointing out that the gap between the national minimum wage and the basic agricultural wages order minimum is only tuppence. However, the AWO also, of course, lists six different grades, to which we have heard reference made, with levels to be paid according to responsibilities, qualifications and the nature of the work in question: a salary structure.

19:15

The Low Pay Commission, in its review of the Agricultural Wages Board, highlights the impact on young people especially and says:

“Abolition of the Board enables potential exploitation of young workers aged under 16”.

It also recognises the provision for guaranteed wage levels for those between the ages of 16 and 21, which are of course not covered by the national minimum wage. This relates to another vital area, namely that of attracting new entrants into the work of the agricultural sector; the Minister has referred to the average age of agricultural workers being high. It is crucial not only for the health of the industry but the health of the nation. Food security is, thankfully, slightly higher up the national agenda than it was, with our still only producing about 70% of the food we consume. Further, the “horseburger” scares are prompting retailers to examine their own supply chains and are further encouraging “Buy British” among consumers. The Low Pay Commission wrote:

“Should employers choose to move away from the minimum standards and grading and career path, outlined by the AWB, it could prove difficult to attract new workers to the sector in sufficient numbers”.

We surely need to be joined up in this as in other areas. We need greater food security. We need to encourage “Buy British”. We need more workers in the industry. This is not a time to make a decision such as abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, which would make that more difficult to achieve.

The NFU draws attention to the fact that, in 2010, the average earnings of 58% of full-time farm workers were above the industry minimum. But that of course means that for 42% it was at the minimum or below. Furthermore, the minimum itself is well below, more than £1 below, the living wage. To make matters worse, the cost of living in the countryside is higher for a whole host of reasons, as we are aware, including fuel, transport and other services.

Defra’s own equality impact assessment also identifies the detrimental effect that abolishing the AWB would have on women, as well as on workers under the age of 21. It is also worth pointing out that the agricultural wages order is a used as a benchmark for other rural workers and occupations, so that abolishing it would have a deleterious effect on them as well.

While there is, as the Minister said, clearly competition in the workplace for the workforce in agriculture in some parts of the country, it is not quite the same everywhere. Rather, agriculture is in many ways a highly fragmented industry, with a lack of real competition for labour in some large areas of the United Kingdom. This point is brought out very clearly in the Government’s wretchedly short four-week consultation, to which reference has already been made. Let me quote from a farmer in Shropshire; our diocese in Hereford includes half of Shropshire. He wrote:

“Having an AWB helps the industry to minimise the wage disputes. Many rural workers on their own are not good negotiators and many will have more compassion for the animals they tend than for themselves!"

The citizens advice bureau in Crediton wrote:

“We have evidence of exploitation of agricultural workers, which, due to their isolation, lack of contact with other agricultural workers, they were not aware of the approximate £30,000 underpayment due to them over the last four years”.

I quote these to stress the particular difficulties resulting from isolation. In the more sparsely populated parts of our nation, there is not the same labour mobility, and without the Agricultural Wages Board and enforced parity of pay, there would not be the knowledge of what rates are being paid on a neighbouring farm or one 10 miles away, nor the knowledge about overtime rates, pay for younger workers, accommodation allowances and the other things covered by the AWO.

The Farmers’ Union of Wales favours retention of the board, stating that the majority of its members,

“still consider the Agricultural Wages Board to be the most effective body to determine the pay and conditions of service, which reflect the unique requirements of the agricultural industry in Wales. As many farms in Wales are run with relatively few staff, the AWB is considered an important means of avoiding potential conflict and lengthy negotiations with individual staff”.

This comes close to the heart of the issue, namely that larger employers see the AWB arrangements as “cumbersome”, to use the NFU’s own word, while many smaller employers—such as those in much of Wales, the border areas of England and other more sparsely populated counties—value the Agricultural Wages Board because it protects them and their workforce from having to spend hours and hours of time learning to be human resources specialists and negotiating terms and conditions for just a few people.

The pressure to abolish the AWB is coming principally from, as we have been hearing, horticulturalists, large farm businesses and large estates—with the supermarkets behind them—seeking all the time to push down prices at the expense of wages and despite the realistic costs. I fully accept that there are some difficulties with the present agricultural wages order; I do not think anybody is likely to suggest that it is perfect. I also accept that there are difficulties with the definition of what is and what is not “agricultural work”, giving rise to problems for employers whose employees, for example, work both on farms and in packing facilities. The answer to this, however, is not to scrap the whole system but rather to make it more fit for purpose.

If the complaint is that the AWB has not been properly modernised, then it should be modernised. You do not scrap a car or a tractor because a part of it is damaged: you mend it. The AWB was needed when Winston Churchill first set up the wages councils; it was needed in the 1980s when other wages councils were abolished and it is still needed now. Let the AWB be improved and updated, but not abolished.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment. I congratulate the two previous speakers who said quite a lot of what I might have said, and I will try not to repeat what they said. I agree with practically every word that both speakers said and I think we should be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is probably the greatest expert on these matters in your Lordships’ House. There are obviously others on different sides who have similar expertise.

This takes me back to the debates on the Public Bodies Bill some two years ago when I moved an amendment in Committee to remove the Agricultural Wages Board from the purview of that Bill. Noble Lords will be surprised to learn that I made a long speech on 1 December 2010, which is reported in Hansard, beginning in column 1513. I read it again just now and nothing seems to have changed, so I thought I would read it all out again. Then I looked around the House and saw at least half a dozen people whom I remember being present in that debate; it would be unfair to them to subject them to it again, although it might have done everybody else some good.

At the time, efforts were being made within what I might call coalition circles, led by my honourable friend Andrew George, who was co-chair, along with me, of the Liberal Democrat Defra committee at the time. We were trying to save the AWB, or at least find an alternative system which would preserve some of its best features. We thought we were going to achieve some success, but we failed; I very much regret that. One reason may have been that the Defra Ministers at that time did not include any Liberal Democrats, but I do not know.

When the then Secretary of State Caroline Spelman announced that she wanted to abolish the Agricultural Workers Board, there had been no consultation whatever. There has now been a consultation, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty said, it was for a mere four weeks. That breached the standard of 12 weeks which is supposed to prevail for such consultations. It was obviously part and parcel of the effort to shunt this clause into the end of this Bill, pretty well at the end of the parliamentary process. It has resulted in my appearance for the first time in this Bill at the end of the process.

Why are the Government doing this? The Government’s consultation and their report on it are thorough and very interesting. It is absolutely clear, as the right reverend Prelate said, that the people and organisations in favour of it include, in particular, the horticultural sector, with its very large number of seasonal workers. There are some very good horticultural firms, but there are also some where the conditions for the workers leave a lot to be desired. They are different from most other farms in this country. Those in favour of abolition also include the big farms, which are often prosperous, the supermarkets and the food processors. They are the people who want this and we have to ask ourselves why.

Then there are the people who do not support it, which is clear from the consultation. There are some quite harrowing comments from small and medium-sized farmers who believe that, far from it removing the regulatory burdens from farm business, as the Minister argued when he opened this debate, it will increase their administrative burdens. These are small businesses that rely very much on the help and support they get by having a firm structure and framework for employing their staff. If they have to do it all themselves, it is going to be much more difficult for them.

Two years ago, my honourable friend Mark Williams spoke in the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons and quoted what I had said here; it is all a bit circular, but there is a good reason for this. He said:

“As we have heard, it is not totally acceptable to rest behind the national minimum wage legislation, because other concerns about terms and conditions need to be addressed. Lord Greaves said in that debate:

‘Will there be a new national system set up? Will there be a bargaining system set up within the industry—an unofficial system…outside the purview of statutes and government, in which employers and representatives of agricultural workers negotiate? Or to what extent will it be left to individual farmers to negotiate with their own workers or just impose’—

the word “impose” is critical—

‘terms and conditions and wages…above the national minimum wage?’—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 December 2010; Vol. 722, c. 1515.]

I am still looking for the elusive clarity on that matter, particularly about the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned on terms and conditions, people under 16 and so on”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bodies Bill Committee, 8/9/2011; col. 54.]

As far as I can see, that remains the position. The NFU has answered this to a degree by saying that it would provide support, assistance, advice and help to its members, but first, not all small and medium farmers are members of the NFU by any means. That is a problem.

Secondly, the NFU, which sounds like a trade union, is in fact the employers’ organisation in this context. It simply cannot give the sort of balanced and unbiased regulation that the AWB now provides. The AWB has an equal number of representatives from the NFU and from Unite, as well as five independent members on top. It provides a place in which negotiation can take place, but it also has to take an overall balanced view, which we would lose. The questions that Mark Williams put have not been answered; it will be interesting to hear how the Government think it will work.

19:30

The Government are saying, “Well, it’s okay because this was in the Conservative manifesto”. It was not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto or in the coalition agreement, and on that basis, those of us who sit here as Liberal Democrats ought to be able to have the freedom to look at this issue and make up our own minds up. I will certainly vote for the amendment to the government amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, if it is put to the vote, as no doubt it will be.

I will add one further thing. I received a message from somebody local, adding to the list of objections to the abolition that came from so many farmers in the consultation. This is an issue where the NFU does not by any means speak for the whole of the farming industry. The letter was sent to me by an acquaintance of mine in Pendle, Charlie Clutterbuck. He sums up many of the problems when he states:

“On this occasion I wanted to raise the issue of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. And the general disappointment that the Lib Dems are going along with it. It surprises some of us and it seems a most surprising turn around”.

This is the point at which, like all my colleagues, I give people a lesson in coalition government—in trade-offs, compromises and all the rest, which I perfectly accept. There are times when an issue is not fundamental, and when we, as a party, should turn round and say no. Mr Clutterbuck continues:

“It is also odd that there are few farmers round here”—

this is upland Pennine Lancashire—

“who really want this abolition. It won’t help them with their many other problems, by adding the difficulties of employment complexities. I was Chair of the Governors at Myerscough Agricultural College, and know of nobody who thinks this move is going to bring rural prosperity to areas like ours”.

He goes on to say, in his words, not mine:

“It is clearly motivated and being pushed by the ‘Plantation owners’ in the East who hire hundreds of migrant workers and want to pay them a penny or two less an hour. ‘Rural’ won’t benefit, but ‘retailers’ will. And in smashing up the AWB, they smash up the whole skills structure, on which most permanent farm workers depend for their career. I am on the LANTRA England Council and know that ‘growing’ skills are going to be crucial in the future. Doing away with the AWB Skills scheme sends the wrong message to anybody wanting a career in farming and who doesn’t own a few hundred acres of their own land”.

I do not in any way condemn people who own land and farm it, whether they are small or big farmers. However, this particular proposal is misguided and unnecessary. It will save a minimal amount of money in the short term, and the only explanation we get is, “Well, in the long term wages will be driven up because of market conditions”. In the long term that may or may not be true, but, as John Maynard Keynes famously said, in the long run we are all dead. I am concerned about the welfare of farm workers in the short and medium term. I support this amendment.

[Lord Cavendish of Furness]

My Lords, I read carefully the recent debate on this subject in Grand Committee, and I am sorry that I was not there. I declare an interest in that I have beneficial interests in a landed estate based mainly in south Cumbria. The estate’s activities include farming, forestry, leisure, minerals and housebuilding. As a family business we farm modestly on our own account, but the majority of the land is tenanted.

It is not my intention to pretend that the Agricultural Wages Board and its satellite committees represent one of the great evils of our time, but the Government deserve support on this issue, and I am happy to give them mine. I will resist repeating the arguments that the Minister made beyond saying that all of them carry weight. I am not sure that there is much disagreement; some want abolition while others want reform, but all seem to be fairly clear that we need to change.

Stirred by the apparent passions that came through in the Official Report on Grand Committee, I have been to some lengths to canvass opinion in my native Cumbria and a little bit in Lancashire, and have also sought to inform myself better of the facts. On the basis of my findings it is very hard to find any justification whatever for the continued existence of this body. The AWB may not be a great evil but the very best that can be said of it is that it is an obsolete irrelevance and symbolic of the way small businesses continue to be fettered in a way that disadvantages business and inhibits growth.

My canvass extended to farmers on small, medium and large farms, to those who had diversified and those who had not, to tenants and to owner occupiers. Much to my surprise, unlike my noble friend Lord Greaves, I had to go quite far down my list before I found anyone who had even heard of the AWB. It simply did not appear on their radar. One of the local NFU representatives said that he had never had any call to understand the workings of the board, adding wryly that he expected that the sort of committee I was talking about would indeed be a very nice thing to belong to.

I drew a complete blank when it came to finding any evidence to support the claim that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, appeared to make in Grand Committee, that the handful of workers on smaller farms would be exposed to exploitation in the event of abolition. Not one person I spoke to could bring themselves to say that the board was a force for good. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, went on to say:

“The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is a direct attack on the living standards of 150,000 rural workers”.—[Official Report, 16/1/13; col. GC 258.]

Let us have a look at that claim. In the decade to 2011 the consumer prices index rose by 28% and the retail prices index by 38%. Over the same period, the national minimum wage—almost identically mirrored by the lowest grade of AWB—rose by 64%.

Alternatively, we could approach this from a different angle. The Institute for Public Policy Research confirmed that just 12.3% of agricultural workers earn below two-thirds of median hourly pay. By comparison, hotels and restaurants are nearly 70% below; the wholesale and retail sectors are over 40% below; the situation is much the same in administration; and the arts are about 37% below. The figures for education and health, where the state is predominantly the paymaster, are 18.3% and 14.6% respectively below two-thirds of median hourly pay. Even those workers are paid less than workers in the agricultural sector. I understand that 90% of farm workers are paid at or above grade 2 on the board scale.

Surely the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others, understand that all but a tiny minority of employers these days have long since grasped the fact that bad pay always produces bad results. Can he not see that this is especially true in this sector, which has become so much more specialist in recent years? Will he accept that there is now far more legal protection for those who are vulnerable to exploitation?

Low pay among agricultural workers is manifestly a myth, but more important for today’s debate is the demonstrable absurdity of the notion that the AWB is the appropriate vehicle to address rural poverty. I should perhaps stress that I mind very much about rural poverty—it exists and is worthy of debate. However, it is simply not related to the issue under discussion. If, as I have heard suggested, the objection to abolition is to do with terms and conditions of work, I can only say that I found a dearth of convincing arguments that this sector alone should be picked out for special treatment.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that administration costs would be lower. I do not agree. In this House there is no dearth of people prepared to talk about wages but rather fewer pay them. I speak from experience in this matter. When the Labour Government was introducing the national minimum wage in June 1998, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said:

“As I have indicated, the Government do not believe that a multitude of regional, sectoral or other minimum wages is the right approach. It is neither sensible nor justifiable intellectually”.—[Official Report, 11/6/98; col. 1240.]

I do not understand what has changed to invalidate that sensible opinion then held by the party opposite. There is something unattractively patronising about these discriminatory attitudes. They come close to suggesting that people involved with the farmyard must be so primitive as to need their hand held by agencies of the state.

In his opening remarks, the Minister most pertinently pointed out that farmers compete globally these days, not just one with another. It is possible to imagine a future world without the common agricultural policy. It is possible to envisage a future where farmers are vastly more exposed to the marketplace and with many fewer subsidies. Subsidies, after all, are not just handouts by the taxpayer; they disguise all kinds of market distortions on the one hand and, on the other, fund environmental initiatives prescribed by Parliament or the European Union. Nor is it entirely fanciful that, as the right reverend Prelate said, the day might come when we have to take the question of fuel security seriously. These considerations are not necessarily matters to be dreaded; rather they are challenges to be faced. Whatever the future, we must be prepared for change.

As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, SMEs stand ready to lead growth in our economy if only they are allowed to. It is time agriculture was unshackled and allowed to prosper as it is capable of doing. It is time we were treated as a well established, modern industry. Above all, it is time we were treated like everybody else. Our farmers have a huge amount to offer. The abolition of the AWB is a welcome and long overdue measure and the Government must be congratulated on introducing it. It deserves support in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, I fully support the Government’s desire to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. I declare an interest as a tenant farmer in Northumberland. I started my business in 1971, employed two young people who had left school, and built up the business until I employed six. Though I no longer employ staff, I have done so for most of my professional life. As a contrast, I also chair the Leckford estate for Waitrose, where we employ 170 staff. My key interest in this debate, however, is as chair of the Better Regulation Executive—and this is an important deregulation measure. I consider myself to be firmly embedded in the agricultural community. I know lots of farmers and I know no farmer who rewards their staff at Agricultural Wages Board rates. The NFU has 70% farmer membership and most of those who are not members do not employ staff.

The Agricultural Wages Board is a relic of the past. In 2002, in a report for which I was responsible, commissioned by the previous Administration, I recommended that its future be reconsidered. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I had interesting conversations about the wages board at the time. No other industrial sector has a wages board. We do not have one in construction or in transport: why in agriculture? The perception seems to be of a sector stuck in a Lark Rise to Candleford era where employees are exploited by unscrupulous employers who resemble the mill owners of the 19th century. Nothing could be further from the truth. The agricultural sector is now a highly professional industry. Today’s employees have to be skilled to cope with the technological changes that are taking place at an unparalleled rate. The cab of a modern tractor is now like the cockpit of an aircraft.

19:45

Like other Peers, I have been lobbied strongly to retain the board because of the fear that wages will plummet if the board is abolished and “families will face destitution”. This is complete nonsense and scare tactics. The impact assessment had to consider the possibility, in the extreme, that wages would decline over time to national minimum wage levels, but that is such a remote possibility that it should be disregarded. A debate on what the level of a living wage in the countryside should be would be extremely helpful.

The board has been in existence for 65 years. Has the world not changed a lot in that time? The parties concerned meet for their annual sport and confront each other. Eventually the smoke comes out of the chimney and the world continues as before. In the past, most employees were stuck in tied cottages. Now, however, they are far more mobile than they have ever been. If they wish to move, they can. Recruiting and retaining good people is a real challenge. If attractive reward packages are not offered it is impossible to recruit workers. The agricultural industry is mature and professional.

The market has moved on and the wages board is stuck in a time warp. It is reflected in some of the responses to the consultation that, as long as the wages board exists, many farmers will continue to abdicate their responsibilities for negotiating terms with their employees and simply adjust their salary levels annually when the wages board pronounces its decision. It is time for that to stop and for employers to properly take on the responsibility—as I am convinced they will—to reward their employees for the skilled and responsible work they do in a world where their role is becoming ever more important with climate change, environmental management and food security so high on the global agenda. The wages board could be a drag on progress, and reward packages will improve without it.

With others, I am spending a considerable amount of time promoting agriculture as a career. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am a patron of Lantra, the association of colleges, and I must inform the House that, in promoting agriculture to students, the wages board does not feature at all. It is obsolete, irrelevant and should be abolished.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I was most grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has been telling us. A particular difficulty for the House has been the shortened consultation period, which left a number of questions not fully answered in our minds.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and agricultural workers who came to brief us this morning are obviously very worried at the Government’s assessment of a loss of £259 million. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, has given us some indication as to how that was achieved. Can the Minister tell us whether that figure includes savings or reductions in monies other than purely wages, where the figure was derived from and on whom is it likely to impact? The agricultural representatives took it that overtime rates will be totally abolished. The question of working hours is well defined, for all workers, by the EU working time directive, so everyone knows how many hours are required in any employment in excess of this figure. Under what guidance or legislation will the rates of payment for these hours be determined?

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the floor was being removed. As the right reverend Prelate said, that is not quite the picture. The floor is not being removed. At the present rate, it is very slightly diminished by 2p. One of the other factors that the representatives are keen to emphasise is that currently there is a graded system in the rates of remuneration. However, the grades currently in place are built on a system of certified qualifications and experience. Is it not possible for the agricultural workers’ union to produce its own guide to a graded wage structure, which would give its members an indication of what the level should be when they are entering into a new contract? These things could be done by responsible people in their own way and would not necessarily require the retention of the wages board.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a farmer. We have all received much evidence, both for and against, on this amendment. It seemed right to consider all the evidence and facts afresh, including my own knowledge of the industry, and to re-examine the case for and against abolition.

I think everyone acknowledges that agriculture is very different from 60 to 65 years ago when the current Agricultural Wages Board was introduced. I know that some of the work can still be very tedious and repetitive, such as riddling potatoes for hour after hour or even driving up and down a field all day, albeit in an air-conditioned or heated cab, either with or without sat-nav assisted steering. Of course, now no weights are lifted because instead of bags coming in at 1 hundredweight or even 2 hundredweight as they used to, they come in weights of 1 tonne. So you automatically jump into the forklift truck, do things much quicker and save yourself from exposure to the weather.

I admit that some of the work with livestock can be pretty full-time. You are always on call, particularly at certain times of the year, such as during lambing or calving and, even more importantly, when quietly walking up and down your dairy buildings at night to check which cows might be on heat in order to maintain or to avoid your calving index slipping. I also know that work with livestock can sometimes take place in fairly fresh and rugged conditions, both wet and cold. It has always seemed to me that shepherds and dairymen really should be flock or herd managers and paid an annual salary with bonuses paid on targets achieved. As I understand it, that is not specifically allowed under the current rules of the AWB—or at least it does not count.

On our farm, including in our dairy, we do not pay much attention to that or to any Agricultural Wages Board rates. We pay much more than the AWB rate. We would not keep staff very long if we did not. As I have said before, why would one pay a minimum wage to people responsible for operating machinery costing up to £500,000 or more, and whose skill at operating it can sometimes be the difference between profit and loss on the farm?

However, the Agricultural Wages Board is—everyone has mentioned this and I have admitted it before—a very convenient benchmark to use in the annual wage adjustments. On our farm, all wages across the farm go up by the 2%, 3% or whatever the AWB rate is. In addition, we usually round it up. Incidentally, in the consultation evidence I received from Unite, I noted that by far the most common reason—again, it has been repeated in the debate today—from farmers for opposing the abolition was the helpful benchmarking service that the AWB provides. However, as I have also said previously, this is a service quite easily replaced, and indeed promised, by the NFU and others on a non-statutory basis. Therefore, I am afraid that I have to discount all that evidence. I do not think that it is relevant to the debate.

The question really is: why should we get rid of the safety net? If most farmers pay no attention to it, does it really matter whether we have it or not? After all, it is only a small cost to the taxpayer in the general scheme of things. It is the last of many wages boards and councils, and therefore has a historic role, if nothing else—the last vestige of post-war socialism. I admit that I have only limited knowledge of the horticultural industry, where it is claimed that the national minimum wage—a full 2p per hour less—would apply if the AWB was not there. Furthermore, the rightly generous overtime rates of the AWB would no longer apply in that industry, which I believe is a valid point. But perhaps that is a fault of the national minimum wage rules rather than a plus point for the AWB.

I paused in my thought processes here. What harm is the AWB doing? After all, agriculture is no longer a poorly paid industry, so it must be being successful. The hourly average pay in agriculture is higher than in hotels, restaurants, shops and even local authority administration. Why dispense with all that gain? I like to think that I care about farming families, both employers and employees. I have spent most of my life trying to promote wider businesses and jobs in the countryside outside farming, because agriculture represents less than 4% of rural employment. Therefore, one of the reasons for my passionate promotion of the wider economy is that many farming families, both employers and employees, depend on having a non-agricultural wage earner in their family to maintain their lifestyle or, if they are the employers, their presence on the land.

I asked myself whether it is helpful to overall employment in agriculture that there should be a state-controlled wage structure over and above the minimum wage which the other 96% of the rural workforce does not enjoy. I asked myself whether the rest of the rural economy was ruined by the abolition of the other 100 or so wage councils. Or is it spoilt now by having a free market in wages, subject of course to the national minimum wage?

Are lorry drivers disadvantaged by not having a lorry drivers’ wages board? I take that as a good equivalent because they, too, spend long hours in cabs, driving up and down—not fields but roads. I thought that they were not disadvantaged. The rural economy is flourishing better than ever before, including lorry drivers. As an aside, obviously any reform of the CAP should put more money into Pillar 2 and less into Pillar 1 but that is not the subject we are debating today.

My next question to myself was whether UK agriculture can adapt and grow better, including providing more overall employment up and down the whole food chain, with or without its own centrally controlled, state-run wage order. All my experience over the past 50 years suggests that state interference in an industry is not very helpful to any of the participants in that industry, apart from the need for a national minimum wage structure and having a strong Health and Safety Executive, in which agriculture is not its finest field.

While I understand the safety net argument, I fear that the AWB is at best somewhat of an irrelevance in this day and age, and at worst is preventing new practices of salaries and well targeted bonuses that could reignite our farming industry as a career path for those who love the countryside and the healthy working life associated with it. I do not always support the Government but on this issue I fear that I must.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, in Committee we had a long discussion about whether the Agricultural Wages Board should be continued. Although the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, implied that a majority was in favour of retaining it, that is not quite a true reflection of those of us who took part.

Tonight, we have had the extra bonus of looking at Amendment 83A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It is within that context that I want to pose one or two questions. Amendment 83A proposes that,

“every agricultural wages committee … in England is abolished”.

However, it adds the requirement that “the services formerly provided” should be transferred to,

“the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales”.

I hope that the noble Lord will explain to the House what is involved and what he expects the board to do. Perhaps he might also tell us what caused so many of those committees to cease to function. Were they no longer needed or were they being dealt with in a different way? His amendment requires detailed examination.

Subsection (3) of Amendment 83A proposes that,

“any minimum rate of pay contained, or to be contained, in an Order of the Agricultural Wages Board may”—

I repeat, “may”—

“where the Agricultural Wages Board considers it convenient to do so, be fixed by reference to any periods during the currency of employment”.

Therefore my question to the noble Lord is: will he please tell us what “convenient” means, or how it is defined, or how it would work? It seems a very unusual way for an amendment to be expressed.

20:00

In Committee, the Minister clearly stated that agricultural workers who are in contractual rights at the time of the abolition board will retain those rights, and I am pleased to repeat it tonight. Also, the agricultural workers would be protected by the national minimum wage and wider employment legislation, and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority will continue to provide protection for workers, particularly those at the lower end of the scale, many of whom would be in that pay scale range.

It was suggested to me that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority arrangements do not protect workers in the way that they should. I found that very worrying because it is a newly formed authority. If it is not doing the job that it should be doing, the question has to be: why? What is it within that authority that is not doing the work that it should? If that legislation is not working properly, I suggest that it needs to be reviewed and strengthened.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said that he would like the board to be looked at to be repaired rather than repealed. There seems to be a lot of confusion around what is and is not working within the Agricultural Wages Board. I think that other noble Lords have received the briefing from Steve Leniec, the union representative, and will find the 10-page submission, headed “Subsidies for wealthy landowners but pay cuts for land workers”, unhelpful and not strictly true, since the majority of farm workers are paid considerably more than the lowest level set. The union also claims that there is no such thing as a free market within agriculture. I think those of us who work within it will find that very surprising. Clearly, it is a free market in which we work; we compete against other farmers and within a global market.

I also received a briefing from the NFU. I remind the House that we have a family farm, although we are now contracted out and therefore do not pay anybody a wage directly. The NFU recognises that the Agricultural Wages Act was old-fashioned. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, things have moved on tremendously. It was needed then; it is not needed now. Times have moved on. Indeed, average earnings for 2010 for full-time workers were 31% above the industry minimum set by the board. I also understand that 45% of farm workers are already paid by salary rather than by the hour. Additionally, some 90% of workers already receive pay rates above the minimum rate. The question is: why keep the board? What does it do that the other two bits of legislation that have been brought in do not do in a much better way?

As other noble Lords have said, this is the last remaining wages council. I do not think that it is necessary in this day and age. Farming businesses have moved on. It is an extra expense and responsibility that those who employ people have to juggle. Those who have people working on a farm but working in the farm packing business have two different views to take on those whom they employ.

Agriculture has seen tremendous changes since 1948. From innovation in plant and animal breeding through the incredible advance of scientific knowledge, it has developed into a modern, high-tech industry. Work on farms has changed dramatically. Today’s workers need to be highly skilled and properly paid. I believe that Amendment 83A does nothing further in this development, and I beg and urge other noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and lively debate. I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions.

I turn to some of the points raised by noble Lords during this debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the issue of the impact assessment, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, referred to this as well. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out that the Government’s best estimate is a cost to the rural workers of £236 million over the next decade. Abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board would bring agriculture into line with all other sectors in the economy. Allowing farmers to compete fairly in the labour market and allowing agricultural wages to follow market levels will enhance the competitiveness of the sector and may increase employment. This would in turn encourage long-term prosperity in rural areas.

The impact assessment itself gives a range of impacts and makes it clear that there is considerable uncertainty, with a potential £238 million impact for workers being at the upper end of the range. The impact assessment also makes clear that there may be, in fact, no reduction in wages or worker benefits. I would like to give a little more information than was asked for in terms of how we arrived at these figures. I stress that the figures are the upper estimate, based on empirical research comparing wages in fisheries and the agricultural sector over an 11-year period up to 2010. The figures are based on two particular issues. First they are based on existing workers. With the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, one assumes that existing workers on contracts would not receive a pay rise over 10 years. Therefore there would be a definition of wage slippage, allowing for inflation. Secondly, it allows for new workers who may be taken on at the national minimum wage rate, not the old agricultural wages rate, if the Agricultural Wages Board was abolished. So it assumes the very worst scenario, with no increase at all on what there was before, and it assumes, in effect, that farmers would be sitting on their hands. I would argue that this would be highly unrealistic.

As I mentioned earlier, the reality on wages will depend on demand, and evidence shows that demand is increasing. Farmers will want to be more flexible and will be able to be more flexible with the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

What impact has the Minister’s department assessed there will be as a result of supermarkets forcing down costs on farmers, and what will be the impact of that on wages?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I am glad that the noble Lord has brought up this point because I was about to move on to the issue of supermarkets which was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. From our perspective, we do not have any evidence at all that supermarkets—some names were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—would put pressure on farm workers’ wages.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

If I may be allowed to finish, prices paid to producers are determined by international markets, not just supermarkets. Supermarkets now recognise that they have their reputations to protect. Since February 2010, all contracts between major food retailers and their direct grocery suppliers must comply with the groceries supply code of practice, the aim of which is to ensure that those who directly supply the large grocery retailers do not have unexpected costs or risks transferred on to them. I finish by saying that the horticultural sector similarly operates in international markets, with imports representing nearly 40% of fresh vegetables and over 90% of fresh fruit sold in the UK.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford also raised the issue of workers who worked in the farming sector who were below the school leaving age, if I understood him correctly. He argued that they would be disadvantaged by the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. I would like to reassure him that the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 does not apply to children below compulsory school leaving age. Therefore, following the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, no minimum rate would be set for young workers in agriculture in this age group. However, this would leave them in a similar position to children who work in other sectors such as shops, hotels and hairdressing salons. They will continue to be protected by general employment law and by health and safety legislation. Children of school age should be in full-time education and it is not the Government’s policy to encourage them to seek work.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, in quoting Winston Churchill's words “sweated workers”, raised the question of protection. There is now a raft of protections for all workers under general employment legislation including the national minimum wage, working time regulations, the Employment Rights Act, equal pay and equality legislation and legislation for fixed-term employees, part-time employees and agency workers. If the Agricultural Wages Board were abolished, agricultural workers would enjoy the same protection as workers in all other sectors of the economy. That emphasises how far we have come since 65 years ago. It is interesting that there is quite a long list there.

To conclude on the issues that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford raised, he made the point that there should be a defined living wage. I support that and in fact the Government support the concept of a living wage and encourage employers to take it up where possible. But the decision on what wages to set is one for employers and workers.

My noble friend Lord Greaves raised the issue of the consultation and much discussion was had in Grand Committee on that. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also raised this matter concerning Wales. I believe that I wrote quite a long letter to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and copied it to a number of other noble Lords to address this matter.

The policy of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and related committees was first announced in July 2010 so stakeholder and interested parties have had plenty of time to consider the matter. During this time, key stakeholders also had the opportunity to make their views known to Defra during meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural wages committees. The department felt that a four-week consultation period was proportionate and realistic given the length of time that the policy had already been in the public domain.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the issue—which, again, I believe was raised in Grand Committee—over the lack of use of the Public Bodies Act. To address this directly, the Public Bodies Act was only one method by which the Agricultural Wages Board could have been abolished. The Government are perfectly free to bring forward primary legislation to abolish the board.

The removal of the board will provide simplification and greater flexibility and allow the agricultural sector to compete on a level playing field with all other sectors of the economy, encouraging employment and competitiveness which will benefit all those in the industry. The noble Lord’s amendments would retain the Agricultural Wages Board and the separate employment regime for agriculture. This would continue the dual regulatory burden for farm businesses. The proposal that the board should be able to fix minimum pay rates by reference to any periods of the employment is intended, we presume, to make it easier for the board to provide for annual salaries. We are not convinced that the amendment would serve its purpose.

The provisions on the enforcement of the agricultural minimum wage are derived from the National Minimum Wage Act, which dissuades farm businesses from offering annual salaries. Moreover, the introduction of salaries would not be enough in itself to bring employment in agriculture into the 21st century. If the amendment were accepted, the opportunity for the agricultural industry to move forward and modernise would be lost. Instead, agriculture would be stuck in the past with an antiquated system of statutory wage fixing and prescriptive regulation of employment practices.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could also answer the point that I raised earlier. Does he know of any form, format or regulation that will deal with the question of what payment rates should be for work over and above the minimum hourly rate?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for that question. It is best that I get back to him in writing after the debate.

While I welcome that the amendment acknowledges the need to abolish the 15 agricultural wages committees and 16 agricultural dwelling house advisory committees in England, we do not consider that there is a need to retain any of the functions. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord provides the Agricultural Wages Board itself to take over the functions of the ADHACs in England. The Government are committed to growing the rural economy. A key part of that would be to ensure a dynamic and prosperous future for the agriculture industry.

We are already taking forward the recommendations of the Farming Regulation Task Force which will remove a range of unnecessary regulatory burdens from farm businesses. We are improving access to superfast broadband and the mobile network coverage in rural areas, which will make it easier for farm and rural businesses to operate. We have provided almost £57 million to the Welsh Government to ensure that broadband access is available to homes and businesses including the hardest to reach areas in Wales.

Some £100 million is being invested from the Rural Development Programme for England, which will help small rural businesses to improve their skills, facilities and competitiveness. We have also introduced a pilot of rural growth networks to share lessons learnt to stimulate sustainable economic rural growth.

This whole package of measures, together with the ending of a separate agricultural minimum wage, will support the agriculture industry in having a successful and competitive future, which will benefit all those who work in agriculture and the rural economy.

The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is supported by industry bodies, including the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Association of Labour Providers. It is supported by independent professional advisers, such as the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers and the Agricultural Law Association. In view of the above, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and I commend the government amendments to the House.

[Lord Greaves]

On the question of dairy prices, is the Minister aware that for many dairy farmers, many of whom have been forced out of business, the farm gate price which has been forced on them by the market power of supermarkets and milk processors has been around or even below the cost of producing the milk? The supermarkets and milk processors have been able to use their market power to force down prices. The fact that there may be cheap milk imports means that the supermarkets can do that. But it is the supermarkets themselves who are responsible.

20:15

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank my noble friend for his comment. I understand that the code adjudicator is called in in this particular case. But I owe my noble friend a full answer to his question and I will follow up after this debate.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has participated in the debate, particularly those who supported my amendments. Those who objected to my amendments, including the Minister, seem to have two points—that we have to get rid of archaic bureaucracy and that this will not have any effect because wages will be paid well above the rate and that farmers as employers will not notice the disappearance of the Agricultural Wages Board.

As for bureaucracy, most of us are on the same page. We are happy to see the abolition of the 31 bodies. Our amendments would allow significant modernisation and simplification of the procedures and substance of the Agricultural Wages Board. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that is why that form of phrasing is there—to move to annual salaries and so forth.

Indeed, when I was Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, will recall, I tried to get a lot of modernisation through on the Agricultural Wages Board but to retain essentially the legal underpinning which is needed in this unique industry for an isolated, sometimes exploited workforce. We have had a benign picture of the way that farming operates, but actually we know that in large parts of farming and probably most obviously within horticulture, there is still some serious exploitation of workers in all their terms and conditions including their minimum wage. The Government have not answered my points regarding amendment and reform of the Agricultural Wages Board rather than abolition.

On the point about wages, we are facing a serious dilemma. By abandoning the Public Bodies Act route, the Government have not presented to the House detailed information. The impact assessment to which we have all referred is an authoritative document. It says that the Government’s best estimate—not the most extreme case, not the worst case, not the lowest case, and not the highest case either—is that in aggregate £240 million will be taken out of the pockets of current and future workers within the agricultural sector. That is the view and best estimate, not of the Minister’s department, but of the department of the noble Lord, Lord de Mauley, of what is going to happen. Obviously, there is a range of probabilities, but the Government’s best estimate is that this measure will lead to a reduction in wages in the agricultural sector by £250 million. That is the bare fact of this.

No doubt, in many of the enterprises of the noble Lords, Lord Cavendish, Lord Cameron and Lord Curry—I am sorry to fall out with him, but at least we are both being consistent on this issue—there will be better pay and little impact. But all the Government’s statisticians, agronomists and economists are looking at the total situation and saying, “The net effect of all this in aggregate across the whole of the agricultural and horticultural sector will be a loss of wages of that order”. That is their best estimate and that is at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, and the circle of farmers in which he moves. Although clearly they are in the same geographical area, they are a different lot from those among whom the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, moves. But, even if he is right for all those farmers, the Government’s view is that is not the total effect on the sector. Either the Government’s impact assessment is utterly wrong, or the anecdotal evidence from those who are close to land-owning interests in this House is not accurate.

[Lord Cavendish of Furness]

My Lords, I gave statistics showing that the way farm workers were paid was overwhelmingly higher. Those are the statistics that matter. I am not in a position to defend an impact assessment with its huge range, which seems to me entirely meaningless, but I gave the statistics that are irrefutable.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, nobody is disputing that, at present, after years of operation of the Agricultural Wages Board and the economics of the industry, a lot of agricultural workers are paid above the minimum rate and above rates in some other industries. To that extent, I agree with him. My point is that the Government have refused to do what the House asked them to do under the Public Bodies Bill and present us with a full explanatory memorandum with arguments for the abolition and arguments against any other alternatives. They have tried to cut corners on this, but their own experts tell them that the net effect of this will be a substantial cut in rural workers’ incomes.

If the House votes for the Government’s amendment and defeats my amendment to that amendment, that is what they are voting for tonight and they had better recognise it. That is the message they will be sending out to rural areas. I am looking perhaps particularly to people on the Liberal Democrat Benches who were not committed by their manifesto to this abolition, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said. I do believe that the Government have got this wrong. We could have had a more coherent debate had we gone down the route of the Public Bodies Bill and the Government had produced their range of statistics and we could have had a sensible argument. Instead, we have a minimalist consultation, minimalist information and the Government sticking to an ideological position, supported by some elements of the farming industry but by no means all, and prepared to try and push through something which has an impact on the incomes of a lot of rural workers and their families. My amendment would allow a better way forward, a modernising way forward, and a reduction of bureaucracy, but it would retain the central protection that those agricultural workers have had and which they deserve to retain.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords. I will be very brief. Three times the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has referred to the rural workforce. This is nothing to do with the rural workforce; it is to do with the Agricultural Wages Board and he is misleading colleagues if he keeps using that phrase.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate said two things. First, the agriculture workforce is a smaller proportion of the rural workforce than it used to be, but also the Agricultural Wages Board is taken, either in its substance or in the rate of increase, to a lot of other rural workers, so it does affect a wider range than those who are legally entitled to Agricultural Wages Board rates. It is not the whole of the rural workforce, but it is nevertheless taking £250 million out of the rural economy, ostensibly giving it to the farmers, but actually giving it to the supermarkets. If that is what the House wishes to vote for tonight, they had better be clear that that is what they are doing.

20:24

Division 3

Ayes: 163

---

Labour: 135
Crossbench: 16
Independent: 3
Liberal Democrat: 1
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 192

---

Conservative: 120
Liberal Democrat: 56
Crossbench: 11
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1

20:34

Amendment 83 agreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 9.34 pm.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Announcement

20:36

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I appreciate that many noble Lords wish to leave the Chamber after that event. The right reverend Prelate is ready to begin his Question for Short Debate and this has taken two minutes out of his time. We might find at the end of this that the usual channels will arrange for an extra two minutes so that he does not lose a precious second of his Question for Short Debate.

Crime: Sexual Violence

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

20:36

Asked By

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the level of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, when Robert Runcie, then the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave the Falklands service—which rather surprisingly became controversial—he quoted Pope John Paul II. He noted the Pope’s speech in Coventry in his 1982 visit to this country, in which he said:

“War should belong to the tragic past, to history. It should find no place on humanity’s agenda for the future”.

The Archbishop himself noted:

“War is a sign of human failure, and everything we say and do in this service must be in that context”.

That last comment came, of course, from someone who had not only driven his tank up the Normandy beaches and rescued another person from a burning tank, but who had also entered the newly liberated death camp at Belsen as an Allied military observer.

Sadly and wretchedly, war remains a part of the tragic present, and today’s debate takes us to the very heart of contemporary conflict. Sexual violence in conflict stretches back into history, well before the 20th century. That conflict-strewn century saw such abuses of our common humanity multiply terrifyingly. In the Bosnian conflict, in our own continent of Europe, somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 women were raped. In a continent that traces the history of its civilisation back to antiquity, and indeed in a continent ravaged by two world wars in that century, these figures can scarcely be taken in.

More terrifyingly still, in the Rwandan genocide between 300,000 and 400,000 women were raped in a period of only 100 days. These figures alone give us cause enthusiastically and energetically to support and develop the Government’s initiative, led personally by the Foreign Secretary: the preventing sexual violence initiative. I am sure that the Minister will elaborate further on that initiative, and on the prospects for achieving a resolute consensus on this matter at the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting next month, so I shall focus in the minutes available to me on further background.

The 2012 Human Security Report Project challenged this dominant narrative on a number of fronts. It pressed home some important points and argued that such violence is exceptional and confined to certain conflicts. Sometimes the claims are not based on evidence. The omission of male victims from the mainstream narrative is also crucial. Indeed, some of the data were missing. These exaggerations and weaknesses can too easily play down the significance of sexual violence in wider society. However, the figures quoted earlier from specific conflicts are sufficient to indicate the alarming abuse of humanity implied.

Sadly, we are seeing such terrifying abuse committed in Syria today. I would welcome some comment from the Minister on how we might properly document such abuse, so that future legal redress and prosecution will be possible. In Syria, for reasons we all know, the western nations appear powerless to halt the appalling atrocities being committed by both sides in the conflict. What, then, are the crucial questions? First, this is obviously more than a moral issue. However morality is defined—by human rights, by a categorical imperative, by natural law, by respect for persons—sexual violence is an extreme denial of moral purpose and integrity, even in the extraordinary and tragic conditions of war and armed conflict.

Secondly, there is the issue of impunity. The facts of war do not somehow remove culpability and the normal patterns of human responsibility. Rape and sexual violence are inhumane and immoral in every circumstance, but fear has too often driven out a proper challenge and response to these tragic and inhumane abuses. In places such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which I know well, this is the precise situation. In the case of that republic, Her Majesty’s Government should be encouraged to push the donor community to enforce all aid-funded reforms: in the army and justice sectors, in infrastructure, in basic services provision and elsewhere. By pressing this home, there is that much more chance of putting an end to the conflict in general, and also to respond to the lack of protection and the fragile situation of women. In the DRC, many agencies, including the churches, have been muzzled by fear and terror of retribution, not only individually but within entire communities. This is true, and it is one of the reasons why it has been difficult even for churches to act together without somehow endangering some members of their sister churches.

Universally, genocide is certain to collapse courage and invade human integrity. This breeding ground of fear has led to a coalition among the Christian churches under the title We Will Speak Out. The catalyst for this, the Tearfund report, Silent No More, particularly documented the churches’ responses in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The churches are determined to set their faces against the muzzling of those caught up in such conflict. It would be good to hear from the Minister how the bottom-up, community-based efforts of churches and other faith-based organisations might best feed into the Government’s own initiative.

As was hinted at by the Human Security Report Project, there is a correlation between the incidence of sexual violence in armed conflict and its incidence in wider society. The frightening fact is that the collapsed barriers in conflict spin out into a wider world. To remove proper ethical norms in these extreme conditions cuts at the very roots of a common morality. It is often seen as unfashionable to link the study of history with moral purpose. Disconnect the two, however, and we shall repeat, or even deepen, moral dis-ease. Her Majesty’s Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative is rooted in a belief in moral purpose. It is one crucial step among others towards restoring the integrity of the human community.

I am coming close to my conclusion and I hope that the usual channels will be impressed that I may not even take up the whole of the time that I was offered. However, I beg noble Lords to accept that we dare not ignore this initiative, which has the active support of this Bench. Out of the tragedy of war and armed conflict, we have an imperative to encourage our humanity to flourish and be fulfilled.

20:44

[Baroness Eaton]

My Lords, I give my thanks to the right reverend Prelate for bringing this debate to your Lordships’ Chamber this evening and for presenting to us the sobering issues of war in so many parts of the world. It is heartening to recognise, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the seriousness with which Her Majesty’s Government have approached the problem of sexual violence in conflict areas and to note the attention being paid to it through the Foreign Secretary’s initiative on preventing sexual violence. The initiative aims to address the culture of impunity, to replace it with one of deterrence and to change the balance of shame away from the survivors to the perpetrators of these crimes.

Two minutes is a very short time, so I shall concentrate on an area of concern in post-conflict areas. Rape as a weapon of war is unacceptable. Equally abhorrent is the practice that has become almost the norm in some post-conflict countries, where young men seek to rape women as a form of male sexual initiation.

The root causes of sexual and gender-based violence lie in society’s attitudes towards and practices of gender discrimination, which place women in a subordinate position in relation to men. The lack of social and economic value attached to women and women’s work, along with accepted gender roles, perpetuate and reinforce the assumption that men have decision-making power and control over women. Through acts of sexual and gender violence, the perpetrators seek to maintain power and control over others. In post-conflict areas, there is an urgent need for campaigns that rethink gender awareness, that inform everyone that rape is a crime and an unacceptable practice, and that focus on respect for women.

20:47

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield for securing this debate and for his excellent, comprehensive introduction. I am certain that, even in the two minutes that each of us has been allocated, we could collectively ensure that our voice is heard on this vital topic ahead of International Women’s Day.

In Rwanda in 1994, as has already been mentioned with a different statistic, at least one woman was raped every two minutes while the genocide was taking place. As was said, potentially as many as half a million women were raped in that small country that year. From the Balkans to the Congo, from Haiti to Syria, rape is used all too often as a weapon of war. Extreme sexual violence, committed regularly in many countries against children not just under the age of 16 but under the age of 10, is designed to terrorise and subjugate women, their families and their communities. Mass rape has been used in far too many situations as a strategy for ethnic cleansing of the population.

I have seen too often the tortured memories and the present-day fear in the eyes of women and children from the Congolese jungle to wonderful city of Sarajevo. That is, frankly, a vision of hell and we must be clear in our resolve never to tolerate or accept it. I have also seen visions of hope. I have seen women in Nepal organise for their legal rights in a way that is starting to put the horrors of the past behind them. I have seen young girls in Liberia—young mums, the victims of rape—with the support of Save the Children rebuild their lives and give their children the potential of a better future.

We need not only to prosecute the guilty; we need to support the victims. We need also to ensure that we do something to bring about lasting change. In the 2015 review of the millennium development goals we must ensure we deliver the capacity-building that will ensure safety and security for citizens in individual fragile states, and also ensure that women have the legal, political and economic empowerment that can deliver that lasting change. If we do that we will make a real difference.

20:50

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, if I were raped I believe I could count on the support of my family, my friends and my community, including the men—provided that I could bring myself to talk of something that to some is literally unspeakable. I would not become an outlaw from my own society. However, in many cultures the victims of sexual violence are outlaws. It is a terrible, vicious spiral when violence is a systematic response to opposition to a regime. The victims and the children born of rape are stigmatised. The health, social and economic impacts are obvious.

I say with huge humility from the comfort of my own background that a major part of the work facing a world seeking to help is to change attitudes to sexual violence—where it is regarded as normal and not to be questioned—and the response to it. Those affected need support and treatment, not ostracism. I know that training and facilitating work by local people is a focus of the PSVI. It must be because it is best led by members of the communities involved, particularly men and boys and especially religious leaders.

There are immediate and long-term needs. The immediate need is the provision of safe, protected areas for women and children who are refugees to protect them from continued violence when they have fled their own country. In the long term victims need help to give evidence of what has happened. Prosecutions need evidence; evidence needs witnesses; witnesses who are traumatised victims need treatment, both to rebuild their own lives and to be able to give evidence to prosecutors and the courts. The burden of acting as a witness must not be overlooked.

The issue has moral, political and practical dimensions so, as others are saying, let us work with everyone who can contribute and especially those who from their own lives have a deep understanding of the cultural dimensions.

20:52

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this debate today. I have worked with women in conflict in many countries and I want to share some of the things that they say donor countries could do to help.

The UK Government in their engagement with the UN could contribute by seeking to place the issue of sexual-based violence on the agenda at peace negotiations. There can be no amnesty in law for rape and violent crimes in times of war. However, very little has been done not just to bring offenders to book but even to articulate that rape is a crime and action will be taken against those responsible. These issues rarely form part of peace negotiations and that is because the offenders are the people at the table and they have no interest in bringing the issue to the table. If supporting Governments, such as the UK, could make it clear that aid and assistance will only follow if women have a place at the negotiating table and if the peace agreement contains a clear statement about sexual violence and its consequences, this would provide a context for beginning to address the problem. The UK could also use its influence to promote compliance with the requirement that peacekeepers deal with their own perpetrators of sexual violence and most particularly that they deal with, and provide for, the UN babies—those born out of the conflict.

Another contribution that the UK is very well placed to make would be in the context of criminal investigation. Any complaint that a rape victim makes has to be in the context of local and national law. Women often have to accept that they have no access through criminal law courts and their only redress is through local laws. The Government could, in their aid packages, prioritise a functioning police and judiciary. Women in these countries express the fact that they need to be able to work closely with the social guardians to disseminate messages about GBV. They say that when church and state and any UN and EU peacekeeping units work together with the women to say these things, it works.

Women want recognition of the level and extent of that violence. They want databases established to demonstrate that. That will make self-evident the need to address the issue. They need to be able to report. They need a functioning police service. They need aid which will support the development of policing, with an emphasis on the need to provide for women. They need, above all, more than a desk and a computer in a sexual violence unit. They need cameras to photograph injuries. They need properly equipped medical services. They need medication. They need the capacity to carry out investigations. Most of all, they need a methodology through which forensic science facilities can be made available to produce, for example, DNA testing of semen left in women after rape. Properly retrieved and handled, that evidence can be conclusive. It may negate the need for investigation.

We have highly developed forensic science facilities. I am not suggesting the creation of labs across the world, but it should be possible to develop a system by which evidence could be sent to a forensic science lab for analysis and reporting. That might provide a breakthrough. Women would see that there might be some point in reporting; it would encourage and affirm them. Of all the issues that I have discussed with women in the third world, this is the one that they most want.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords—

[Baroness O’Loan]

I apologise, my Lords.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I know that we are very tight on time, but perhaps people will remember that when the clock shows two minutes, you have had your two minutes. Most people are taking a good two and a half minutes or more. Please can noble Lords keep their remarks brief.

20:55

[Lord Sheikh]

My Lords, rape and other forms of sexual violence have been used as weapons against women in conflicts all over the world. The militias in eastern Congo are violating women as a means of exerting control, humiliation and submission. The abuses in the region are said to account for the majority of the work carried out by international aid organisations. The level of brutality is alarming and leaves victims with physical and psychological wounds. There is a stigma attached to rape which results in many victims being ostracised from mainstream society. The majority of victims are therefore reluctant to report their abuse for fear of rejection by their communities.

Some of the most brutal sexual violence occurred in Srebrenica, which was the worst atrocity on European soil since the end of the Second World War. It is a sorry state of affairs that so far only 30 people have been convicted for the 50,000 rapes committed during the Bosnian war.

There are also reports of rape being used as a weapon in Syria. In this regard, I would like to say that the Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—instructed his followers not to lay hands on women, children and elderly people in any form of warfare.

Ending sexual violence is central to conflict prevention and peace-building worldwide. It is important that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to justice. I am pleased that the Government have formed a UK team of 73 experts devoted to combating and preventing sexual violence in armed conflict. The experts will be able to be deployed overseas to gather evidence and testimony that can be used to support investigations and prosecutions.

I wholeheartedly support the plans to deploy UK experts to Libya, Bosnia, South Sudan and eastern Congo. I also support the Government’s decision to provide £1 million in funding to the office of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict. The Government deserve praise for ensuring that victims of these abhorrent crimes will be given access to the support and justice that they deserve.

20:58

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield for securing and introducing the debate.

Sexual violence tends to occur in conflict situations far more than in others. That is so for three reasons. First, the perpetrators of sexual violence think that they have a right to the bodies of their victims, either because they have subdued them in war or because they have spared their lives. Secondly, there is a culture of immunity. They believe that they will be able to get away with this. Thirdly, there is a collective ethos that supports and encourages such behaviour, because of either a breakdown in law and order or a climate of hatred.

If these three are the conditions that facilitate sexual violence, the answer has to lie in addressing them. In the one and a half minutes left to me, I suggest that there are half a dozen things that we might think about, and I am simply going to list them.

First, it is very important that we must change the intellectual climate of the armed forces. They should not think that subduing somebody gives you a right to that person’s body.

Secondly, there should be successful prosecution. In order for that to happen, there must be a team of experts who will gather evidence and make sure that the prosecution succeeds.

Thirdly, as a result of conflict there are peace agreements in which perpetrators of this sort of violence are generally exempted from punishment or given amnesty. That should not happen.

Fourthly, the West must set an example. In all the cases we have talked about it is always the other part of the world that engages in sexual violence. We forget the fact that the American forces in Iraq behaved no better and that, sadly, some of our own have not proved exactly worthy of the highest standards that this country sets them. It is important that the West should set a good example.

Fifthly, the churches should play a very important role. It is not entirely a matter for the state. The churches have either been silent, as in Rwanda, or partisan.

Finally, there must be a way of introducing some kind of early-warning system. Sexual violence does not break through the surface just like that; there is a build-up to it, and if it can be caught early enough it can be stopped.

21:01

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I suppose it is a tragic inevitability that shooting, bombing, injuring and killing people violently is part of war, and there is often debate about which incidents of bombing, shooting or violence are within the moral or legal framework. However, there is no dispute that sexual violence in the context of war is outside all moral and legal limits. I believe that those who in engage in this kind of behaviour know perfectly well that they are outside what is morally acceptable—unless they have so dehumanised those whom they are abusing that they have largely lost their own humanity. We should be clear about this: there are no contexts in which this is acceptable, either to the overwhelming majority of victims who are women, or as we are increasingly seeing in Syria, the minority who are men, often young men.

That is why I am proud that our own Government have seized on this issue as one of the most important for the G8 and for our foreign policy. Can my noble friend assure me that, as the Foreign Secretary and colleagues move to try to engage in negotiations about a new international protocol on this issue, these crimes will be taken to the International Criminal Court if such a protocol is accepted? Can my noble friend also assure me that we shall see not just a legal change but, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said, a cultural change, which will ensure that those who engage in sexual violence can never be regarded as national heroes, but always as cowardly and brutal people who damage their own humanity as they damage that of their victims?

21:03

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, I want to draw attention to sexual violence in Colombia and to ask the Government if they will reconsider their decision not to include Colombia as a designated priority country under their excellent PSVI programme.

The Colombian Constitutional Court itself has said that sexual violence is,

“a habitual, extensive, systematic and invisible practice in the context of the Colombian armed conflict”.

The UN special representative noted only last May that all armed groups there—the guerrillas, the security forces and the paramilitaries—use sexual violence as a strategy of war and terror, with near total impunity.

I believe there is a great deal that the UK could do to help the situation in Colombia, and that the excellent work being carried out by our embassy in Bogota would be all the more effective if backed up by further dedicated resources and the authority of priority country designation.

First, there is the issue of impunity and effective amnesty for crimes of sexual violence. Colombia has recently begun peace dialogues with the FARC guerrilla group, but if these talks are to conform with UN Resolutions 1325 and 1820, this amnesty must be reversed, Colombian women themselves must be represented, and the issue of sexual violence must be on the negotiating table from day one. Colombia has not even drawn up an action plan on implementing Resolution 1325.

Secondly, there is the issue of the attacks on, threats to and killing of women human rights defenders and even their children. This has increased markedly in the past few years. Finally, there is a lack of effective security and psychosocial support for survivors, who are often the ones feeling shame and guilt. This is exacerbated by cultural issues in indigenous communities. We know that Afro-Colombian women are particularly exposed to constant physical assaults and violence. Will the Minister therefore undertake to review the status of Colombia within the PSVI, in particular the resources available to support women’s organisations, which are documenting and prosecuting cases of conflict-related sexual violence while supporting survivors?

21:05

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate. I wish to raise three practical points. First, the Foreign Secretary has stated that rape and sexual violence are used as a deliberate weapon of war. That said, will he take the lead at the G8 in calling for rape and sexual violence in conflict to be classified as a war crime?

Secondly, we had reassurances during the debate tabled by the Lord, Lord Lester, two weeks ago that after rape during conflict, women are entitled to have a safe abortion, if they want it, under international humanitarian law. Can we therefore have this specifically included in DfID’s paper on safe and unsafe abortion, so that it is quite clear? It is unthinkable that women who have been raped should be forced to continue their pregnancy, should they not want to.

Finally, NGOs often pool funds for specific projects and I have been totally unable to establish whether the USA’s ban on funds for abortion is affecting our projects in this field. NGOs that I have approached—and there are many—are unable to give me any figures at all so how can we be sure that our money, channelled through DfID, is being used for safe abortion? Please can the Minister give us some more information?

21:07

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I offer my thanks, briefly but sincerely, to the right reverend Prelate for having given us the chance to debate this important matter. I need to draw the House’s attention to my involvement with the charity Freedom from Torture, which offers solace, comfort and rehabilitation to refugees in the UK who have been tortured overseas. All too often, I am afraid, that torture involves rape.

In the rest of my remarks, I want to focus on an aspect of this terrible topic that has not been raised before: that is to say the rape of men, young boys and adults. It is an equally ugly but less reported crime and one where perpetrators are rarely, if ever, brought to justice. Male rape does not fit easily into the narrative. As my noble friend Lady Eaton said, men are supposed to be strong and dominant, not vulnerable and weak. Further, male rape, which will inevitably involve anal penetration, gives rise to particularly horrific injuries. In countries where homosexuality is culturally frowned upon or remains a criminal activity, such injuries are even more likely to remain unreported and untreated.

The right reverend Prelate referred to the Democratic Republic of Congo. The American Medical Association, which surveyed that country, said that 30% of the women had been raped but that 22% of the men had been raped as well. It is not just in Africa that these stories remain unheard. One of the few academics to have looked into the issue in any detail is Lara Stemple of the University of California’s Health and Human Rights Law Project. Her study, Male Rape and Human Rights, notes incidents of male sexual violence as a weapon of war or political aggression in countries as diverse as Chile, Greece, Croatia, Iran, Kuwait, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia.

Finally, as we inch towards the exit door in Afghanistan we are in danger of leaving behind an endemic male-rape culture. As the BBC reported recently, every police base has at least one “chai boy”, who usually looks between 13 and 15 years old. Police commanders often see it as their right to abduct a local boy from his family and keep him as a servant and sex slave. Is this what we went to Afghanistan to preserve?

21:09

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I express my appreciation for this debate and for the right reverend Prelate for having introduced it. It goes way beyond this House. I am a trustee of Saferworld, I also work very closely with bodies such as Amnesty International and UNA and many others of course who have accumulated vast amounts of evidence about the sickening brutality of the way rape is now used, as has been argued in this debate, as a weapon of war. All the people working day after day on these issues are really grateful for the right reverend Prelate’s pressure on this matter.

Impunity has been mentioned and the United Nations Development Programme for Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office gives one example. It is just one of a great number. In the years between 2005 and 2007, 14,200 rape cases occurred in South Kivu in the Congo. What is really disturbing is that only 2% of the perpetrators were ever brought to justice. The Foreign Secretary has put on record his conviction that effective response to sexual violence needs to be built into every aspect of conflict prevention and peaceuilding. Could we perhaps be told what progress is being made on that?

Access to justice in tackling sexual and gender-based violence in conflict necessitates improving security and justice systems. What progress is being made on that? Physical protection, medical protection, including emergency reproductive health services, particularly taking HIV and AIDS into account, psychosexual support and legal assistance are all essential. Are we making progress on these? Also essential is building sustained capacity of women’s organisations coupled with support and protection for the women involved because the risk to them and the threats to them can be acute. What are we doing in a co-ordinated way to meet all these points? Are we really using our knowledge and concern to influence effectively the remaining stages of our engagement in Afghanistan?

21:11

[Lord Hussain]

My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield for securing this debate. I would like to draw your Lordships’ attention to the sexual violence used by occupying Indian forces in Kashmir. Out of many cases, I would like to mention one incident of the night of 23-24 February 1991 when the Fourth Rajputana Rifles troopers entered the village of Kunan Poshpora in north Kashmir. This incident was reported widely by Indian media, by the UK newspaper the Independent on 19 March and the New York Times on 7 April 1991. Amnesty International has also quoted this incident. In its judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission concluded:

“Analyzing the statements of all the witnesses/victims it transpires that at about 10 to 11 pm in the night, security personnel cordoned the village. The men folk of the village were ordered to come out and were confined in a Kothar”—

store houses. It continued:

“Then small groups of security forces made their forced entry into the houses. They had consumed liquor and then gagged the mouths of the victims and committed forced gang rape against their will and consent. The personnel from the security forces had actually turned into beasts and had lost their sense of reasoning as even minor girls of 8 years were also raped. The indecent incident continued approximately till 3/4 AM. Almost all the women folk of the village suffered some atrocities during the whole night”.

It is sad to see that no prosecution has taken place so far—not one. I ask the Minister whether the Foreign Secretary will raise this issue with his counterpart in his next meeting to bring those responsible to justice.

21:14

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate. I, too, welcome the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative and the Foreign Secretary’s plans to use the UK’s leadership of the G8 to raise awareness and seek concrete commitments to help combat the widespread prevalence of sexual violence in conflict.

However, not only must we be tough on the crime we have to be tough on its causes. We must tackle the underlying problems of lack of empowerment, education and inclusion. I heard Justine Greening on “Woman’s Hour” this morning and could not have agreed more with her sentiments. Challenging attitudes and beliefs around gender-based violence is critical alongside the implementation of effective legislation. But I would have liked to have heard more about how we translate those positive sentiments into action. I therefore ask the Minister how much funding the UK Government are willing to commit to PSVI. How much are we asking the other G8 countries to commit? How can we ensure that this issue is prioritised among the G8 Foreign Ministers at the G8 meeting, and that the momentum continues after April to translate the commitments into co-ordinated and effective action?

Finally, I ask the Minister whether the PSVI and G8 messaging and funding include increasing support to survivors and broader protection systems, as well as efforts to tackle the root causes of sexual violence in conflict, including addressing gender and age discrimination and creating livelihood opportunities.

21:16

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield for securing this extremely important and timely debate. In this week of International Women’s Day, I am glad that we have this focus tonight and that so many noble Lords chose to contribute, albeit briefly.

The statistics on violence against women and girls are shocking. Globally, one in three women is beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. In conflict and post-conflict situations, sexual violence can be even more widespread, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, pointed out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others have said, women and girls are the poorest and most marginal in society, with the least power. In conflicts, they are the most vulnerable. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and others have pointed out, we also see rape being used as a weapon against the woman, her family, her community and her society. However, as the right reverend Prelate says, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson emphasised, we also see sexual violence against men and boys used to degrade and destroy. We see that now in Syria. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, rightly emphasised the stigma of rape.

How do we break the silence on this and change behaviours? Unless we do, we undermine the likelihood of peaceful resolutions. We know that sexual violence causes huge physical and psychological trauma. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to that. But it also exacerbates ethnic, sectarian and other divisions, further entrenches conflict and undermines efforts to restore peace and stability. It reduces progress towards the millennium development goals and represents one of the most serious forms of human rights violation or abuse. For all these reasons, tackling violence against women and girls is central to the Government’s work overseas. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that women and girls must continue to be at the heart of whatever replaces the MDGs.

This year, 2013, is a hugely important year for this agenda. We are working hard with other Governments to ensure that this year’s UN Commission on the Status of Women, whose focus is on violence against women and girls, is a success and agrees a set of robust global standards to protect women and girls from discrimination and violence. My honourable friend Lynne Featherstone is leading the UK delegation. We also want to see women and girls at the heart of the new millennium development goal framework to be published later this year. Their inclusion is critical to achieving our goal of ending extreme poverty.

This year will also see greater government action to address the use of sexual violence in conflict as we further develop and implement the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative, to which noble Lords have referred. In our own lifetimes, millions of women, men, and children have endured this horror, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo, to which noble Lords have referred, in South Sudan, in Colombia, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, in Bosnia and in Syria. The truth today, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, is that the perpetrators of these appalling, life-shattering crimes more often than not go unpunished.

We believe that more must be done to combat the use of sexual violence in conflict. We want the international community to address the culture of impunity that has been allowed to develop for these crimes and to increase the number of perpetrators brought to justice, both internationally and nationally. As other noble Lords have mentioned, the Foreign Secretary has placed this issue at the top of the G8 agenda for 2013. We want G8 Foreign Ministers at their April meeting to speak out against those who use sexual violence in conflict and to declare that rape and serious sexual violence amount to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. This is a very significant step in the development of international humanitarian law. Declaring that serious sexual violence and rape amount to grave breaches sends the message that these crimes are to be treated in the same way as the most serious category of war crimes. I can therefore reassure my noble friends Lady Tonge and Lord Alderdice that these crimes will become the most serious category of war crime in international law. I can also assure my noble friend Lord Alderdice that they can be taken to the International Criminal Court. Consultation with prosecutors at the ICC has clearly identified that a lack of clarity over investigations and collection of evidence led to the low number of prosecutions in the ICC and other international tribunals. The protocol will directly address this.

We are also proposing a set of practical G8 commitments that, taken together, will promote justice and accountability and provide greater support to victims. I hope that my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lords, Lord Parekh and Lord Judd, and others will welcome them. These commitments are, first, to improve investigations and the documentation of sexual violence in conflict, including through endorsing a new international protocol; secondly, to provide greater support and assistance to survivors, including child survivors, of sexual violence, so that they can rebuild their lives and attain justice for what they have endured; thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, emphasised, to ensure that the response to sexual and gender-based violence is fully integrated into wider peace and security efforts; and fourthly, to improve international co-ordination, including through the UN, because a co-operative approach to addressing sexual violence will have a much greater long-term impact.

To underpin these international efforts, the Government have established a new specialist UK team of experts, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, referred, who can be deployed to conflict areas to help local authorities and organisations address sexual violence. This team has already been deployed to the Syrian border to help train local health professionals. In answer to the right reverend Prelate, we aim to work with, and support, those who can document these abuses in that area. We also plan to deploy the team to at least five other countries this year. It will go to Libya, to support survivors of sexual violence committed during the revolution; to South Sudan, to work alongside the UN and the Government to strengthen local justice; to eastern DRC, to help doctors and lawyers to investigate crimes against the hundreds of women and girls who are raped each month; to Bosnia-Herzegovina, to help courts and prosecutors address the backlog of war crimes cases; and to Mali, to provide human rights training to the Malian armed forces on preventing and responding to sexual violence. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, emphasised, in order to address these issues, we need first the law to protect and then we need to work with those who can help to ensure the implementation of those laws: the police, the judges, civil society and the media.

Our plans for the initiative have been developed in consultation with UN agencies, other international bodies, NGOs, and—I can also reassure the right reverend Prelate—representatives from faith groups. These groups have a particular role, not least because of their ability to reach out across communities. We want to continue to work closely with them as we challenge the myths and stigma associated with victims of sexual violence.

There were a number of questions. My noble friend Lady Tonge asked about the proposals we brought forward earlier this year in terms of international humanitarian law. In conflict situations, even if it is contrary to national law, abortion care can be offered where its denial would amount to torture or cruel treatment. We need now to focus very much on bringing our international partners with us on this. We are very forward-looking on this, as we have been in the area of safe abortion as well, and it is extremely important that we take others with us. However, if the noble Baroness has any evidence that UK aid is not being used appropriately and is not reaching women, will she please let us have those details?

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about Columbia. PSVI is working in partnership with the UN special representative’s office and its team is leading on these issues in Columbia. We support that. I will be very happy to provide further details for the noble Baroness.

My noble friend Lord Hussain spoke about the abuse of human rights in Kashmir. I hear what he has to say in this regard, and we welcome the invitation by the Indian Government to the UN special rapporteur, who is to look in detail at those allegations. We are not willing to put up with abuse of human rights, wherever it happens in the world.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about funding. I will be very happy to spell this out further in writing. The G8 commitments are essentially very practical, but groundbreaking. By working with our international partners we have moved this forward in a very significant way, and we now need to take our international partners with us so that we can ensure that this is as effective as it needs to be. It needs to be done right across the international spectrum.

Tackling the impunity of those responsible for sexual violence is essential for any conflict or post-conflict society seeking to come to terms with past abuses. It is also essential to prevent their recurrence. This is an absolutely key year as we seek to take this forward. This is the year to ensure that we make the difference for those who are at risk of this horrific form of abuse.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, as several of the final speeches were shorter than time allowed for, and as one speaker withdrew at the last minute, we have now come rather short of our time limit. I thank everyone for their indulgence at the unpleasant roles that Whips have to play, and I suggest that the House should now adjourn until 9.36 pm.

21:29

Sitting suspended.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day) (Continued)

21:36

Amendment 84

Moved by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

84: After Schedule 19, insert the following new Schedule—
“Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies: consequential provision1 In section 28 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (duty of housing authority upon receiving application that agricultural worker be re-housed etc), in subsection (3), for “The authority” substitute “If the dwelling-house is in Wales, the authority”.
2 The repeals and revocations in the following table have effect.

Reference	Extent of repeal or revocation
Agricultural Wages Act 1948 (c. 47)	Section 1.
	In section 2— (a) in subsection (1)— (a) the words “England and”, and (b) paragraph (a), and (b) subsection (4).
	Sections 3 to 4.
	Sections 6 to 16.
	In section 17— (a) in subsection (1), the definition of “the national minimum wage”, and (b) subsection (1A).
	Sections 17A to 19.
	Schedules 1, 2 and 4.
The Agricultural Wages Committee Regulations 1949 (S.I. 1949/1885)	Regulation 3(2)(a) and the word “and” after it.
	Regulation 16.
Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51)	In the table at the end of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, the words “Agricultural Wages Board.”
Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)	In Schedule 2, the words “Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.”
Agriculture Act 1967 (c. 22)	Section 67.
Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (c. 34)	Section 46.
Agricultural Wages Committees (Wages Structure) Regulations 1971 (S.I. 1971/844)	The whole instrument.
Agricultural Wages Committees (Areas) Order 1974 (S.I. 1974/515)	In article 3(1), the words— (a) “Subject to the provisions of this order”, and (b) “an agricultural wages committee for each county in England and”.
	Article 3(2).
	Article 4.
	The Schedule.
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975 (c. 18)	In Schedule 2, paragraph 32.
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)	In Part 3 of Schedule 1, the words “Member appointed by a Minister of the Crown of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.”
Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25)	In Part 3 of Schedule 1, the words “of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales or”.
Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (c. 60)	In Schedule 4, paragraph 10.
Employment Protection Act 1975 (c. 71)	Section 97(1) and (2).
	Schedule 9.
	In Schedule 17, paragraph 12.
Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 55)	In section 4(1)(c), the words from “(including” to the end.
Agricultural Wages Committees (New Combinations of Counties) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/179)	The whole order.
Agricultural Wages Committee (Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1173)	The whole order.
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992 (c. 6)	In Schedule 2, paragraph 4.
Agricultural Wages Committees (Areas) (England) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/3186)	The whole order.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18)	In section 35— (a) in subsection (2), paragraph (a) and the word “or” at the end of that paragraph, and (b) in subsection (3), paragraph (b) and the “and” before that paragraph.
National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39)	In section 16(6)— (a) in the definition of “the agricultural wages legislation”, paragraph (a), and (b) in the definition of “relevant authority”, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
	In section 16A(5)— (a) in the definition of “enforcement officer”, paragraph (b), and (b) in the definition of “the relevant legislation”, paragraph (b).
	Section 46(4)(a).
	In section 47— (a) subsection (1)(a), (b) subsection (2)(a) and (d), (c) subsection (4)(a), (d) in subsection (4)(b), the words “(similar provision for Scotland)”, and (e) subsection (6)(a).
	In section 55(1), in the definition of “regulations”, the words “by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly or”.
	Part 1 of Schedule 2.
National Minimum Wage Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1999/584)	Regulation 38(5)(a).
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)	In Part 6 of Schedule 1, the words “An Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales”.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)	In Schedule 25, paragraph 28.
Employment Relations Act 2004 (c. 24)	Section 47.
	In Schedule 1, paragraph 1.
Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/5)	In Schedule 1, in the entry relating to the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural wages committees, the words “Board and”.
Employment Act 2008 (c. 24)	Section 8(6).
	Section 9(6).
Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (S.S.I. 2012/88)	In Schedule 1, in the entry relating to the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural wages committees, the words “Board and”.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 84ZA (to Amendment 84) not moved.

Amendment 84 agreed.

Amendment 84ZB

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

84ZB: Before Clause 66, insert the following new Clause—
“Annual report on copyright licensing
(1) The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part VII (miscellaneous and general), after section 301 insert—
“301A Annual report on copyright licensing
The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament an annual report from the Intellectual Property Office which shall include a review of the state of copyright licensing in the United Kingdom, of cross border co-ordination with other jurisdictions and of progress on protecting metadata.”.”

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, since we are starting Part 6, which I suppose is a form of light relief from earlier parts of the Bill, I want to thank the Minister. All those participating in Part 6 will have noticed that the Minister has been a prolific correspondent. In case full details are not provided on all the amendments we have put forward, those outside the House should know that letters were passed on 25 February to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on the orphan works aspects of Clause 69 and on Clause 67; to myself on 11 February, and on 4 March on Clause 68; and, most recently, on 5 March there was a letter on extended collective licensing. I thank the Minister for the clarification that a lot of that has produced.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Like other noble Lords, I much appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said. However, should we not also thank the Minister for his willingness to meet with noble Lords on a number of occasions? It has been extremely helpful to enable us to understand the Government’s thinking and for him to be able to understand some of ours.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said. I quite agree. It is refreshing to be able to have that communication. It is not always a game of ping-pong or tennis. One can resolve some of these issues as we go along. In particular, this probing amendment is designed to elicit further information from the Minister. I thought we had a very good assurance from him that the IPO would publish an annual report which would be laid before Parliament, and that this could include a progress report on work towards a digital hub for licensing purposes.

When the Government’s response to the informal consultation on the role of the Intellectual Property Office came out very recently, it was very good to see that precisely that is enshrined in the document. Essentially, the Government are confirming that they will do that and that it will take place, particularly in terms of progress on licensing.

I would like to push the boat out a little further. In Committee we had a very useful discussion about metadata, its treatment and its protection. It is, of course, an issue of great importance to many creators, and we discussed that informally as well when we met the Minister. Work is ongoing in a working group, but as yet there is no indication of what its work might produce, technologically or legally. This new amendment is really designed to get a further assurance from the Minister that there will be regular progress reports on this aspect and that the proposals for action by the working group will be acted on. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. Of course I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, but it gives me an opportunity to intervene and to say how much I appreciate what my noble friend on the Front Bench has been able to do in the light of the Committee debates and of the several meetings that he has been kind enough to hold. Indeed, there are now amendments on the Order Paper in his name, which I think will be extremely welcome.

Noble Lords will remember that, when we started debating the copyright clauses in Grand Committee, I moved a new clause to set up what was in effect intended to be a champion for IP. I was gratified by the support I had from all parts of the Committee for that new clause. I have not retabled it for the very good reason that I think my noble friend Lord Younger has gone a long way to prove that he will be an effective champion of IP. He made it clear in his reply to the debate that he was, in fact, in charge of IP at his department, and he has been as good as his word in the amendments that he has tabled.

I can assure him that the correspondence that I have had since the end of Committee, and in particular since the government amendments were tabled, has entirely changed in tone. Those who were very deeply concerned beforehand at what the Bill appeared to portend for the future of copyright property rights seem to have been greatly reassured. For that reason I have not retabled the amendment asking for a champion because I think my noble friend has gone a long way to satisfying me that he will do his best to perform that function.

Moreover, my noble friend’s speeches and letters, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred, have made it very much clearer than it was before what the Bill is intended to do and what the Government’s policy on this issue is. I like to think that there has been not only a change in tone but a change in substance, and recognition that IP is indeed a hugely important economic factor in this country’s economy, involving many billions of pounds and many hundreds of thousands —indeed, millions—of people whose livelihoods depend on it. If the Government have really hoisted that one on board, that can only be a credit to the debates that we had in this House and, above all, to my noble friend.

21:45

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I add my support to my noble friends who have already spoken and congratulate the Minister on all that he has done to engage with us and our concerns in relation to this part of the Bill.

When I have spoken on this Bill previously, I have said that it has much to commend it, and I am still of that view—very much so. Close scrutiny through Grand Committee has given the Government the opportunity to improve the Bill further and indeed in many cases they have. I am particularly interested in Clauses 67 to 69, which have a direct impact on the cultural fabric of and economic opportunity for the UK. In particular, the creative industries have shown incredible concern about the manner in which these proposals were formed and the perception that there is a will within Government and the Intellectual Property Office to unpick the intellectual property framework that underpins many creators and rights holders, in favour of US technology companies and others who want to use more copyright content for free. Of course, the Minister has gone a long way to seek to allay those fears.

However, commercial companies and organisations in our creative industries quite rightly expect a financial return from investing in creating original content and then archiving and preserving it for others to pay a licence. They lead the way in it and in many sectors such as audiovisual there is healthy competition, sensible pricing and industry-driven innovation to adapt to the digital age. Therefore, it is wholly wrong, in our view, for legislation to reduce these commercial incentives in favour of the radical and in many cases I believe ill-advised recommendations from Professor Hargreaves that inform the copyright measures in this Bill.

One of the reasons for putting my name to this particular amendment is that we have to think about competition not just in terms of cross-border and close to home but further afield. For example—I may refer to this later when we are looking in more detail at extended collective licensing—China has just announced that it would implement ECL in its copyright law. It is said that the details will be in regulations yet to be published. The UK Government will not be in a position to demand appropriate safeguards for licensing of UK copyrights by ECL in China if we ourselves do not have them in our own legislation as the Nordic countries do. Nor will UK rights holders or their representative bodies be in a strong position to safeguard UK rights abused by ECLs in foreign countries if the UK’s own statute lacks the necessary safeguards.

I support this amendment. A regular update so that we know about progress in terms of the Intellectual Property Office is really important. I feel that the Minister is on our wavelength and understands our issues, and we would be grateful for some positive comments from him with regard to this amendment.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister’s commitment that an annual report should be published by the Intellectual Property Office. It may not reach the top of the bestseller lists, but it is right in principle that the public should have the opportunity to be informed about what the current issues are and what developments in policy are or may be. That is very proper. Of course, Parliament in particular should have that information. I hope that we would find the opportunity to debate the annual report each year that it comes out.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, and his co-signatories on the terms in which they have they expressed this amendment and the particular examples that they have given of the kind of material that should be covered in the annual report. The report would need to review the state of copyright licensing in the United Kingdom. I hope that in fulfilling that requirement it would provide a discussion about how the Intellectual Property Office seeks to balance its absolutely right and necessary defence of the interests of intellectual property holders with wider interests that the public may have in the early and extensive benefit that can be received from the dissemination of this new information, knowledge and material. That is important.

I am also pleased that the expectation would be that the annual report should review cross-border co-ordination between our own jurisdiction and jurisdictions in other countries. For example, we would certainly want to know how the Intellectual Property Office and BIS are looking to mesh the complementary policies that we develop in this country with the policies that are being developed in the European Union and other countries that may be ahead of us in some respects.

For example, we know that the European Union orphan works directive is very limited and strictly curtailed in what it would allow. Only cultural sector bodies and educational establishments, not companies, could benefit from its provisions. Public/private partnerships, for example, would be prevented. That represents what is at the moment too limited and cautious an approach on the part of the European Union.

Mass digitisation projects are only going to be able to be carried out by our great cultural institutions in partnership with the private sector, and that ought to be contemplated as policy-making develops both in this country and in Brussels. The attempt to continue to draw absolute distinctions between commercial and non-commercial purposes will prove to be too restrictive of the ability of great institutions that are publicly funded in this country, such as libraries, universities and museums, which ought to be able to work freely in partnership with the private sector but which may be constrained by legislation as it has so far appeared to develop.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also mentioned the question of metadata. That is highlighted in the amendment. It is excellent that, at last, we have a working group looking at the problems that arise with metadata and digital photography. The working group is trying to find out why this stripping happens, why creators do not get paid and, above all, what solutions might be found, presumably by way of new technology but perhaps in other ways, to ensure that intellectual property is not stolen from photographers. The fact that it is already illegal to strip metadata under Section 107 sadly does not prevent it happening. There is a legitimate and very important issue there and I hope that progress on that will be covered in the report, as the noble Lord said.

I also hope that the report will inform us as to how the Intellectual Property Office seeks to gather views and reconcile different interests and points of view. I have very much sympathy with it in the very difficult and sensitive task that it has to carry out.

Let me give an instance. I saw in the British Journal of Photography recently a story headed:

“News agencies go on the offensive, call for judicial review of copyright changes”.

I was surprised to learn that:

“The world’s largest news agencies have delivered a Letter Before Claim to the UK’s business secretary Vince Cable in what is described as the first step in the process of initiating a Judicial Review - a formal legal challenge to governmental planned legislation”.

The article goes on to suggest that the Government are proceeding quite improperly. It challenges the Government’s plans to introduce their proposed changes through what they were pleased to call “Henry VIII clauses”—secondary legislation which is not subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament.

That is not very complimentary to your Lordships. We are engaged in quite serious and intensive scrutiny of this legislation. We certainly will be when we have the regulations in due course. What was completely bizarre was then to read a quotation in the name of Mr Paul Ellis of the Stop43 organisation:

“The technology, academic and cultural heritage sectors want to be able to use other people’s copyright property without having to ask or pay for it, and view copyright law as an obstacle. Under their intense propaganda and lobbying onslaught several governments have fallen for this line and are trying to introduce laws that weaken copyright, such as the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill now going through Parliament”.

He then goes on to denounce,

“these lobbying-driven legislative attempts to confiscate our property”.

It seems a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The serious point is that the IPO is very vigorously lobbied from a multiplicity of sources and by a multiplicity of powerful commercial interests; the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to some of them. It has always to be the duty of the IPO, the Government and us in Parliament to ensure that workable policies are arrived at that represent an appropriate balance between the range of competing, relevant and, indeed, legitimate interests that are all intensely concerned about what we do.

I hope that the annual report will include some account of how the IPO weathers these storms and what its philosophy is in terms of receiving and listening to representations and establishing working groups which allow people to have the opportunity to contribute their thinking and remind policy-makers of their legitimate interests but, at the same time, do not cause the policy to be unduly tipped and biased in favour of those who shout loudest. That would always be wrong. I have every confidence that that will not be allowed to happen. However, it may be helpful to those who have this arduous and difficult responsibility of developing the technical details of policy in the copyright field that we have a better understanding of what it is that they have to cope with. I support this amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I will make a few brief remarks in closing this short debate. First, I associate myself with the warm expressions of thanks and support to the Minister not only for his very assiduous work in responding to the questions and queries that were raised at earlier stages of the Bill but for the meetings that he has had. I am not quite sure how he has managed to keep going—he is looking a bit shell-shocked, although that may not just have been today. We are all very grateful to him for what he has done. Indeed, it has brought a different sensibility to the whole way in which we have been able to engage with this and I am very grateful for that. I am sorry that the choir has lost his very nice tuneful voice as a result, but I hope he will get back into it after this intensive work is over.

Having said that, has the mood really changed? We have just heard that there are still quite big guns out there, and the reference from my noble friend Lord Howarth to the judicial review—I have benefited from the courtesy of being shown a copy of the 36-page document that went in—certainly suggests that there are still some people with axes to grind out there and serious points, too, which need to be considered and reflected. Although we are making progress and, I think, beginning to arrive at a common position on a number of issues raised in this part of the Bill, there are still some hurdles ahead which we have got to think about. For instance, I got two letters and several e-mails today from people again expressing concern about what is happening here. They are not sighted and perhaps not up to speed with what is going on but they certainly feel very strongly about it.

As other noble Lords have said, there are other things going on here. We are doing a lot of the work in this Bill but, in parallel, the outcome of the Hargreaves report and the various pieces of secondary legislation that will be going through, which radically change the way in which we deal with copyright and performance rights, need to be accommodated and brought alongside some of the movements that are here. A lot of what we have been saying in the discussions and debates on this Bill has been contingent on a satisfactory outcome for those things, and I do not want to prejudge where we are going to get to on parody, exceptions for educational use and desirable things like copying for archives. These are all important parts of the ecology that this Bill touches on but does not completely encapsulate. We must therefore be careful not to overcall what we are achieving here.

A third example on that list would perhaps be the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which is that we are not alone here; lots of other people are working on their copyright registrations and legislation and moving forward. That will always affect how we do things. We will not make the progress that we want to make in terms of this industry, and the work that goes into this type of activity in the UK will be for nothing, if we are outsmarted and outgunned by those who either have a much more advanced concept of copyright and licensing or none at all. These are important points.

22:00

However, I do not want to be the odd one out in this party. In general I want to support what we are doing in moving forward. In relation to the narrow point about what we are doing to welcome the report, may I just make three or four points? First, while I have the greatest respect for the IPO and for the work of the department to which it is attached, it is not the only part of government that deals with copyright issues. We were graced with a fleeting visit from the former Secretary of State at the DCMS, the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley. I am sure that had she been able to stay she would have said that her department—indeed, the Minister was briefly in that department—has a lot to offer in terms of copyright and intellectual property, and that not all of it is entirely on a par with what is emanating from BIS. I am sure these issues can be resolved, but I am not sure that the Whitehall structure has got that to the best possible pitch. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister, could say whether the point of view that is quite often expressed—with slight variance—by DCMS will be included in the reports that he will bring forward to Parliament. It is important that we should hear what is being said in the round.

That leads me to another point, which slightly follows up on what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. His suggestion that there should be an identifiable post within the structure was an interesting one, which provoked a very good debate. I was startled by discussions in Committee, and I am still thinking about some of the issues raised. For instance, there was a vogue a few years ago when there was a cross-cutting issue to try to identify who would champion that activity within each and every department in Whitehall. So there was an architecture champion in every department, because in some senses every department of state is involved with ensuring that the public realm is better and more appropriately designed and built than it is. It makes no sense to lock that away in one department. I wonder whether in today’s debate there might not be a case for having not one champion, but lots of champions, because this is really important stuff. There is intellectual property in every aspect of the work that the Government do, in every sector of the economy. We should think hard about how we can best advocate that across the whole area. Again, perhaps the Minister might do that.

In Committee we discussed the general feeling out there that somehow copyright—the licensing and use of rights created by those with the gifts and skills to work in the creative industries—has not until now been given quite enough attention by Parliament. We ought to try to reflect that in what we are doing. A lot of the angry letters I have received reflect the fact that this is a once-in-half-a-generation opportunity for a debate about what they do and why it is important. It would be really nice to find a way to leave the door a little bit more open, so that their views can be taken into account. I think that will pay off in the long run. Everybody would welcome the chance to have their views expressed, to hear people talking about them and to have their views tested and put to rest in terms of the overall debate.

Photographers certainly feel left out in the cold at the moment, and I know a lot of work is taking place on that. Again, I appeal for us to think hard. It is not just metadata; there is a wider concern there, which comes from photographers’ sense that their work is ephemeral and not of value. Yet we all know that is not true. The image still speaks more powerfully than a thousand words, as they say. Their work is influential in so many different aspects of our commercial and cultural life that we would be wrong to ignore what they say to us, and they are certainly saying it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, first, I appreciate the warm comments that have been made by my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Jenkin, and Lady Buscombe, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I agree that it is highly desirable from the Government’s perspective to understand and resolve issues outside the Chamber. I very much hope that will continue; I am sure it will. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the collegiate approach that he takes to these issues. It is much appreciated on this side.

I want to focus, as other noble Lords have done, on the report—or perhaps I should say the response to the informal consultation, a copy of which I have here —which I have read with interest. It is refreshing to read that views were in general very positive on having a report. I noted that the Motion Picture Association thought that the report should be developed in full and open dialogue with the copyright sector. That is all in the right spirit. Certainly, the Government believe that the proposed annual report will increase the transparency of IPO activities and they welcome the support from the respondents. Again, that should be a very good thing to highlight given some of the comments that have been made today.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about issues that might be covered within the report. I confirm that I will want to look very carefully at all his points to see what we can say about them in the report, so I thank him for his input on that.

The noble Lord spoke also about the judicial review. I am afraid that all I can say at the moment from the Government perspective is that we have received a pre-action letter concerning copyright measures in the Bill to which we have responded. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, stated that he did not want to prejudge the debate on copyright exceptions. As I hope he will be aware, I am keen that Parliament should have the necessary time for debate on the statutory instruments—I think that I made that clear in Grand Committee.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The Minister very kindly answered a Written Question on whether an individual impact assessment would accompany each of the regulations introducing new exceptions. While I normally follow the noble Viscount with ease and find his presentations pellucid, I did not find the answer to his question without ambiguity. While I recognise that the impacts of some of the regulations may overlap, I think that it is extremely important that, when Parliament is considering this very important secondary legislation, we should have in each and every case the best impact assessment that the Government are able to provide. Will he assure us that that will be the case?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. I shall look again at what I said and what we produced. If we can improve on it, we most certainly will. I shall get back to the noble Lord on that point.

The Government are keenly aware of and sensitive to the concerns of creators in relation to metadata. They believe that an industry-led approach is most likely to identify the key issues and the most effective solutions. They warmly welcome the establishment of a metadata working group which brings together key players from across the industry, including the Association of Photographers, Stop43, the BBC, the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies, Getty Images and News Corporation. We will consider carefully any recommendations aimed at government and, if they are proportionate and effective, will certainly support them. I also commit to keeping Parliament informed on progress.

The Intellectual Property Office will also be working with the Technology Strategy Board to consider other options to tackle the issues around the misuse of digital images as well as search and stripping of metadata. I hope that in the light of what I have said in my brief comments my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very useful assurances coming at the end of his speech that he will consider all the metadata working group recommendations and keep Parliament informed, and that the Technology Strategy Group will be involved in this as well.

Generally, we are breaking into fresh territory with the concept of an annual report. We seem gradually to be moving language forward more positively about the creative industries and the value of intellectual property. The language of the exceptions document before Christmas moved it on a notch; this response document moves it on a notch, in particular to meet what I thought were extremely useful comments on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, not only on what an annual report should contain but on impact assessments.

This report is quite positive about the improved evidence base that the IPO is going to adopt. A lot of people, particularly some of those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would say amen to that. Some of the impact assessments have not been up to scratch and this has created quite a lot of concern and, indeed, anger from some sectors when they see that the benefits are not clearly there but the costs to them are. It is an extremely positive move.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that there are a number of further issues we really must get to grips with as we move along on Report. Of course, any Minister is as good as his last set of assurances. I am sure we will put that to the test as we go along. I am grateful to the Minister for his responses. I am very grateful to noble Lords, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for his comments. I entirely agree with him about the Minister in the assumption of his role. It has been a very positive step. We have some way to go still, particularly in terms of the photographers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and also the news agency industry mentioned by my noble friend Lady Buscombe.

I hope that by the time we come to the end of Part 6 on Report, sweetness and light will reign and we will all feel that assurances of the right kind have been given. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 84ZB withdrawn.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.12 pm.