House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
1. When he expects that the report from the commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons will be published.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
2. What progress the Government have made on resolving the West Lothian question.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
With this, I will also answer Question 2. The McKay commission, which the Government established to consider how the House of Commons deals with legislation that affects only part of the UK, reported yesterday. We are grateful to the commission for its work. This is an important issue, which is why the Government asked the expert commission to look at it. The report presents a positive step forward, and we will give it very serious consideration before responding substantively.
Harriett Baldwin
I, too, thank the McKay commission for such an erudite report. The commission outlines a principle: that decisions at UK level with a separate and distinct effect for England should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England. Will the Minister argue with her boss, who is a passionate believer in political and constitutional reform, to implement that sensible principle in the next Session?
Miss Smith
I commend my hon. Friend for her work on this important matter—she has campaigned long and hard and taken the time to go into the detail. As I have said, the Government take the report extremely seriously. We believe it is a positive step forward, and I am happy to talk to all members of the Government about its merits and otherwise.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that constituents of mine who use the health service in England, work in the public sector in England and use public transport in England, but who are represented by me as a Welsh Member of Parliament, want a say on matters relating to England? Does she accept that there are problems, but not always solutions?
Miss Smith
I ought to accept that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do a very good job for his constituents, which I am sure he does. However, I note that the McKay commission report refers to England matters and England and Wales matters. Those serious issues require extensive consideration.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
13. Next September’s referendum will, I hope, deliver a substantial no vote against separation. May I suggest that that would be an ideal time to implement the McKay commission’s sensible proposals and evolve the devolution settlement into one that will be acceptable on both sides of the border?
Miss Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I hear his view on the timing of what the Government must do next. We will take that decision seriously alongside the substantive issues in the report. I agree with him and many others that the people of Scotland should choose to stay in the UK next September, and am confident they will do so.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I wonder whether the resolving of the West Lothian question will help us to understand why the Liberal Democrats voted against air passenger duty in opposition, but voted for it while in government, as we saw last night.
Miss Smith
I do not believe that even I could persuade the McKay commission to cover that level of detail. However, as I said in answer to the previous question, the people of the UK are stronger together than they are apart. I hope the hon. Gentleman transfers that message to his constituents.
Mr Speaker
Order. As I think the House knows, the hon. Gentleman was practising the shoehorning technique, which was as mischievous as it was just about orderly.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The biggest threat to the UK might be not the Scottish referendum next year, but the increasing sense in England that the current constitutional settlement is not a fair one. Does my hon. Friend agree that we already have two different classes of MPs, in the sense that Scottish and Welsh MPs have colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly who perform some of the role that English MPs do?
Miss Smith
The McKay commission report deals with some of the questions the hon. Gentleman raises. As I have said, they are serious questions, and it will take time to ensure that we respond appropriately. We will do just that.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
3. What the Government’s political and constitutional reform priorities are up to 2015.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
5. What his plans are for constitutional and political reform for the remainder of the present Parliament.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Government continue to work on political and constitutional reform, particularly devolving more powers from Whitehall to our cities and regions. Work also continues on the implementation of individual electoral registration and developing proposals on recall and lobbying reform.
Karl Turner
Will there be a Bill to regulate the lobby industry in the Queen’s Speech?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are still reflecting on exactly how to proceed on lobbying, but we will do so. I cannot give him a precise date for when we will come forward with our proposals after the consultation, which provided a lot of feedback, but we will do so in due course.
Mr Bain
The European convention on human rights offers basic human rights protections for 60 million people in this country and is critical to the devolution settlement. Will the Deputy Prime Minister therefore echo calls from the Opposition to resist the radical right behind him, and to keep the Human Rights Act and the United Kingdom as a proud signatory to the convention?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there is a difference of opinion among the coalition parties on the status of the Human Rights Act and the ECHR which it incorporates. I have always been very clear that I think that the rights and protections in the Act are very valuable for all British citizens, and I will continue to defend them.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister’s answer a moment ago included the words “cities” and “regions”. What is he doing about islands?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The mere fact that the answer mentioned cities and regions does not mean that we are not also concerned about islands. I very much hope that by the end of this Parliament we will see a discernable shift of power and decision-making authority from Whitehall to all parts of the United Kingdom, whether islands, counties, cities or regions.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that decentralising power to local communities is not only good for our democracy and political system, but provides an opportunity to unlock economic growth locally across the country?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Not only has political power been centralised for far too long, but so has the way in which we run our economy. The Labour Government over-relied on one sector—financial services—in 1 square mile of the City of London, ignoring the needs and economic potential of 100,000 square miles across the country. We must devolve political decision making and ensure that our economy is also more decentralised.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the document “The Coalition: our programme for government” states:
“We will fund 200 all-postal primaries over this Parliament”.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of the progress on this promise and whether any pressure has been brought to bear on him by the Prime Minister, who may regret having primaries to select some of his Members of Parliament, bearing in mind how independently minded some of them have been recently?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We will make an announcement on that component of the constitutional and political reform programme in the coalition agreement in due course. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was slightly in abeyance as long as the debate about the boundary changes was still a live issue. As that has now been settled for the time being—if not satisfactorily in everyone’s opinion—we will of course return to the issue of all-postal primaries and make our views clear.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
4. How many new members of the House of Lords the Government plan to create.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
As stated in the programme for government, appointments will be made to the House of Lords with the objective of creating a second Chamber that reflects the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the last general election.
Miss Smith
What I see is an avoidance of the reality of what happened after 2010, which was that the list of appointments contained the picks of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and Labour became the largest party in the Lords despite having lost the general election.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
If the intention of House of Lords reform was to cut the number of Lords, is it not strange that we intend to increase the number instead of reducing it by half?
Miss Smith
It is important to use facts in this debate. It might be of help to note that there has been a net increase of only 23 in the number of peers eligible to sit and vote in the other place since Tony Blair left office in 2007.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
As part of the pre-legislative consultation on the draft Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, consideration has been given to the elimination of dual mandates not only between the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but between the House of Lords and the Assembly. What is the Minister’s view?
Miss Smith
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to deal with her question in enough detail.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In September 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government wanted to reduce the cost of politics. To date, 128 new peers have been appointed at a cost of £131,000 each per year, with more planned. Why are the Government no longer concerned about reducing the cost of politics?
Miss Smith
The hon. Gentleman’s party refused to allow the timetable that would have allowed the Government to plan to instil greater legitimacy and constrain the size of the House of Lords. I think that answers his question.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
6. What steps the Government plan to take to improve registration levels when individual voter registration is introduced.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
Is the hon. Lady the Deputy Prime Minister now?
Miss Smith
It seems that some would like to promote me, which is no doubt a question for a commission to look into.
The Government are committed to doing all they can to maximise registration. We have published detailed research, which has informed our plans to use data matching, targeted engagement with under-registered groups and new technology to modernise the system to make it as convenient as possible for people to register to vote.
Mr Betts
I am sure the Minister is aware that, in principle, I am a supporter of individual voter registration, but I am concerned about the current low levels of voter registration. Will she therefore give an assurance that the steps taken with regard to data matching will ensure that there is no fall in the level of registration? Hopefully there will be an increase, but what will she do if it does not work out that way?
Miss Smith
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to see the greatest possible levels of both accuracy and completeness in the electoral registers, and I look forward to working with him and others to do that. Solving the problem of under-registration is not the responsibility of the Government alone; it is the responsibility of all politicians and many people across the community to work together to drive up rates. As I hinted in my previous answer, we are taking a number of measures as part of the individual electoral registration programme including: data matching, phasing in the transition over two years, a carry-forward to allow some of those not individually registered to vote in the next general election, a write-out to all the electorate in 2014, a publicity campaign and doorstep canvassing as at present.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
The areas where the electoral roll is most inaccurate in Chester are those with large student populations. Some students register in Chester where they are at university, some register at home, some register at both and some register at none at all. Has the Minister given any consideration to the registration of students under individual voter registration?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I mentioned in my previous answer, we all wish to see the greatest possible level of registration across all groups in society. We are running data matching scheme pilots aimed specifically at students and young people who are about to obtain the franchise. I look forward to his help on that in his university area, and that of other Members.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Working-class areas across the United Kingdom are quite often the areas where voter registration is lowest. Will the Minister ensure that they are targeted by both the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to ensure maximum registration in those areas?
Miss Smith
I can reassure the House that we are working with both the Electoral Commission, and, of course, electoral registration offices and administrators in all parts of the United Kingdom, to make the programme a success. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s particular concern about people in both his constituency and others, we expect EROs of particular local authorities to know their areas best and to work with us.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) about student registration, which is a big issue in my constituency. I heard what the hon. Lady said. Will she be working with universities, colleges and student unions to ensure a strong campaign to get every student registered?
Miss Smith
We are already doing that. Work has been undertaken with the National Union of Students. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for that campaign. I also note that one of the points of the programme is to encourage individual registration, and I hope that many students—highly educated as they are, after all—would recognise the benefits of doing so.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister update us on the administrative need to provide one’s national insurance number on registration and say whether she has modelled the impact of this on take-up?
Miss Smith
I certainly can confirm that the national insurance number will be used in registration. It is an important part of the process and one of the primary identifiers that we will be using. There will be others, as part of the exceptions process, which will perhaps be important to the people the hon. Lady may be concerned about. I would be happy to provide her with more detail as she requires.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
It seems to me that every time someone comes into contact with their local council, makes a benefit application, buys a house or rents a property, someone should ask them, “Are you on the electoral register?” What can the Minister do to encourage Government agencies, local government agencies and private companies to ask that question?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend underlines the point I was making earlier, which is that there is a responsibility across society to encourage people to take part in politics by registering to vote. I am sure he will be working with a range of groups in his constituency to do that. I can also confirm that the programme is using extensive data matching to ensure that records can be shared where appropriate, certainly between public sector bodies, to do the best job we can.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am grateful for the welcome from the Opposition Benches.
As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.
Stephen Gilbert
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that we need to rebuild confidence in our failing immigration system by tackling abuses and also bearing down on the legacy of incompetence?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that, having not only crashed the economy, Labour also left an immigration system in chaos, in which the public had absolutely no confidence whatever. Just as we are repairing, reforming and rebuilding our economy, we are having to do the same to the immigration system, which Labour left in such a lamentable mess. I agree with him that unless the public have confidence that the immigration system is competently administered, it is difficult to persuade people that we should remain the open, generous-hearted country that we are.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
In last week’s Budget it was announced that there would be a Government-backed mortgage scheme for homes up to a value of £600,000. Will the Deputy Prime Minister make it absolutely clear that it will not be available for people buying a second home?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the Chancellor made very clear, that is absolutely not the intention of the scheme. The intention of the scheme is to allow people to buy new homes, but as the right hon. and learned Lady very well knows, this is a complex area. There are anomalies that we need to address. For instance, we would need to ensure that the rules allow divorced couples to access the system just as much as anybody else. The Treasury is working on the details of the scheme to ensure that it does exactly what it is intended to do.
Ms Harman
It is not a question of complexity or detail: the Treasury is very familiar with the notion of sole or main residence. The Deputy Prime Minister has not answered the question. It is not about the intention; it is a question of whether the Government are ruling that out. Let me ask him about something else—not a detail, but something fundamental—and see whether he can be clearer about that. Will he make it clear that the Government have ruled out making this Government-backed mortgage help available to people who are not domiciled in this country?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the right hon. and learned Lady knows, the reason we have developed Help to Buy—which has two components: Government equity in new build construction and mortgage assistance —is of course not to subsidise people who have no stake in this country, nor is its intention to provide subsidies for people buying second homes. It is there to restore confidence in the housing market as a whole and ensure that the construction industry is given a significant boost, so that we employ more people and give people the opportunity to own their own homes.
Mr Speaker
Bob Blackman. Not here. It looks as if the hon. Gentleman is quickly getting to his seat without further delay. Hurry up. Mr Bob Blackman.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
T2. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My apologies; I was held up on London transport. With the local elections coming in May, will my right hon. Friend comment on the initiatives he is taking to combat postal vote fraud and impersonation at polling stations?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I hope my hon. Friend will know, the principal intention of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which we are seeking to implement as quickly as we can, is precisely to deal with the high levels of fraud in certain parts of the country, which most people of all parties felt was unacceptable.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
T3. What consideration has the Deputy Prime Minister given to lowering the voting age to 16?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is not something that the coalition is going to deliver. I am personally persuaded of the case for lowering the voting age, but it was not included in the coalition agreement, so it is not something that the coalition Government will deliver during this Parliament.
Mr Speaker
Mike Freer. He is definitely not here; perhaps he is stuck on London transport as well, who knows?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
T7. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me and the all-party group on North Korea in welcoming last week’s historic resolution by the UN Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate the grave violations of human rights in North Korea? I thank our Government for their vital work on this subject, and I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to thank those many civil rights organisations, such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, that have campaigned on this issue for many years.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in applauding the fact that the UN resolution was passed. As she knows, the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office have been working tirelessly on this issue. My hon. Friend has been an outspoken observer and critic of the behaviour of the North Korean regime, which continues to imperil peace and stability both in the region and globally. It is an issue that this Government and Governments across the world take very seriously indeed.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
T4. Local authorities are being forced to cut back the money they spend on electoral registration. Is the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) concerned about that and, if so, what does she intend to do about it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I would be happy to send the hon. Lady the figures, but I think it is simply not the case that local authorities have been forced to cut back on the resources they provide to electoral registration officers. Local authorities are, as we know, under financial pressure generally, and about a quarter of all public expenditure is passed through local councils, which is twice the amount of money we spend on defence. Given that the Labour party left us with no money, I am afraid that savings need to be made.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T11. Under what circumstances would the Deputy Prime Minister resign as joint chairman of the coalition Sub-Committee?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
T5. Perhaps I can think of one. Ministers have said that the second set of NHS privatisation regulations due to come into effect on 1 April will not force clinical commissioning groups to put health services out to competitive tender—in spite of legal analysis showing that they are just as bad as the first such regulations. Since the warnings about the Health and Social Care Bill have turned out to be true, if NHS services are privatised, will the Deputy Prime Minister resign?
The Deputy Prime Minister
This is typical scaremongering from the Labour party. It was the hon. Lady’s party that wasted £250 million of taxpayers’ money subsidising the private sector in a deliberate act to undermine the NHS. It is the Government who have made it illegal, directly in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to have competition based on price rather than on quality. The hon. Lady would know, if she looked in detail at the new regulations—the so-called section 75 regulations—that they make it quite clear that clinical commissioning groups are not forced to open services to competition unless they think it is clinically justified in the interests of patients to do so.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I advise my right hon. Friend that a popular way of devolving power away from Westminster and Whitehall would be to abolish Essex county council and replace it with unitary authorities.
The Deputy Prime Minister
We do not presently have any plans to do what my hon. Friend recommends, and which he has recommended consistently over a long period. I hope that he acknowledges, however, that we have already launched eight city deals to give new powers to the eight largest cities outside London and the south-east. That will be followed this year by 20 further city deals, which are still to be concluded, and a massive devolution of financial power to local councils so that they retain business rates, starting next month.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T8. It is not only unfair but poor value for money for disabled people in specially adapted homes to be hit by the pernicious bedroom tax. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit the Government to look again at making it mandatory to exempt disabled people from that disgraceful tax?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the spare room subsidy is not available to thousands upon thousands of families who receive housing benefit in the private rented sector but it is available to families who receive the benefit in the social sector. Therefore, we are trying to ensure that the two systems are fair. A total of 1.8 million households are on the social housing waiting list, yet taxpayers are subsidising 1 million bedrooms that are not being used. That is what we are trying to sort out, but I accept what he says: there will be difficult cases that we need to be able to address adequately. That is why we have provided millions of pounds extra to the discretionary housing payment pot, which now totals £150 million, and made a number of other changes. During the implementation of the policy, we will look at those cases and take further measures where we think they are justified.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern that three quarters of Britons regard human rights as a charter for criminals and the undeserving? Does he agree that there is time to reform and modernise human rights in this country?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I certainly agree that there is a chronic need to reform the way in which the European Court of Human Rights processes cases. It takes too long. Not enough people in the Court in Strasbourg are equipped to deal with cases expeditiously. That is why the former Secretary of State for Justice was right to get an agreement with all signatories to the Court to ensure, under the Brighton agenda, that the Court’s procedures are reformed. That is the kind of sensible reform we can all agree on.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
T9. My constituent’s adult son has spina bifida. He keeps his wheelchairs in his spare box room and will lose £14 a week as a result of the bedroom tax. Is that in accordance with Liberal Democrat principles?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I say, we have made a number of changes already to the detail of the spare room subsidy. We have provided a considerable amount of extra money for discretionary housing payments. Councils, including the council of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, have discretion to use that money and to change the way the policy is adapted in practice. However, we will, of course, look at these difficult cases, work with councils and, if we need to, further adapt the way in which the policy is implemented.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thoroughly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about city deals. Will he take note of the governance model for Greater Manchester, and does he recognise the value of a system that does not have a big mayoral figure?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not know which big mayoral figure my right hon. Friend might be thinking of, but I agree with him about the model of co-operation between local authorities of different political persuasions in Greater Manchester, which operates under the city deal system. Greater Manchester is pioneering the earn-back system, where Greater Manchester will be able to keep more revenue for infrastructure investment in the local area to the benefit of the people in Greater Manchester. That may prove to be a model that others seek to emulate elsewhere.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
T10. The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that independent researchers have concluded that the Budget and recent welfare reforms will substantially increase child poverty and material deprivation among children. Is he proud of that?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady will know, we have set out some ideas on child poverty. In addition to the existing poverty targets, which we are duty-bound to seek to meet, we have tried to ensure that the factors that hold back children from fulfilling their potential—whether it is poor housing or poor education—are addressed through measures such as the pupil premium; there is £2.5 billion of extra money to help the most deprived children in school. In addition, as of this September, the Government are making 15 hours of free pre-school support available to two-year-olds from the most deprived families, something that her Government never delivered.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister said that he wants to see cross-party consensus on solutions to the airport capacity issue, so can he explain why he and his party have welcomed the re-inclusion of Heathrow into the Davies commission, given that his party had already ruled it out for ever? Surely that means he risks wasting an awful lot of money and everyone’s time.
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend rightly says that I and my party are not persuaded at all of the case for Heathrow expansion, but equally we should not seek, and no party on either side of the House should seek, to tie the hands of the independent commission looking at this issue in the round. We will await with interest, as I guess everybody will, the results of the interim report of Howard Davies’s commission and its final report after the next general election.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
T13. Given the Deputy Prime Minister’s feeble response to the question from the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, in which he gave no safeguards that people, including people from abroad, will not be able to buy second homes with the mortgage subsidy, can he deal with two other problems? First, all the analysts say that this measure will create a housing bubble and inflate house prices. Secondly, it will trap many people who would not otherwise get on to the housing market in sub-prime mortgages that they cannot afford in the long run.
The Deputy Prime Minister
One would have thought that a party that crashed the economy, sucked up to the banks and let them get away with blue murder, and presided over a massive housing boom and bust would have a hint, a note of contrition in its questions about the housing market. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to deprive his constituents of the ability to get their feet on the first rung of the property ladder? Why does he want to deprive young families who want to have a home they can call their own of the ability to do so? Instead of constantly carping about our attempts to fix the mess he and his colleagues left behind, perhaps for once he should come up with some ideas of his own.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the measures in the coalition’s Budget for small and medium-sized businesses, including introducing the business bank, changes to national insurance and the industrial strategy, all add up to a massive confidence boost for the small business sector? That is great news for our economy, and we should be right behind those measures.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, we all know that times are very difficult and that the British economy is taking time to heal. That is why it is a great tribute to the Chancellor and his team that in the Budget we have none the less found measures that will take 2 million people on low pay out of paying income tax altogether, that will give small employers and businesses around the country £2,000 off to allow them to employ more people, and that included £1 billion extra for the aerospace industry. It means that people will not face the higher petrol and fuel prices they would have faced under Labour, and it has got rid of the beer escalator and made sure that we ease the squeeze on household budgets.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has changed his mind on cash bonds for some visitors coming to the UK—a very different policy from the one he advocated in his Opposition days—could he put in the Library a list of the items he believed in and argued for before the election, but which he no longer believes in and, indeed, has totally changed his position on?
The Deputy Prime Minister
What I would put in the Library, if the hon. Gentleman wishes, is the fact that the last Labour Government removed exit controls on our borders, so they had no idea who was leaving this country and who was coming in. The reason why we can pilot the so-called security bonds for people coming here on temporary visas is that, unlike his Government, we are reinstalling the exit checks that we have been campaigning—as Liberal Democrats and now in government—to reinstall for many years.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Business growth in Basildon and Thurrock, supported by Essex county council, is three times higher than the regional average. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the recently introduced employment allowance will encourage those new businesses to take on their first, or an additional, employee, thus supporting both businesses and those seeking work?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. This new employer’s allowance is a very exciting way of encouraging small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of the British economy, to take on more people. When it comes into effect it will mean that a small employer will be able to employ someone on up to about £22,000 without paying any national insurance whatsoever.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Did the Deputy Prime Minister have any hand in the air-sea rescue helicopter service being sold off or given to a Texan company rather than to the British Navy and Air Force? Is he responsible for that? Does he approve of it, as it seems a rather strange decision?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do if the service is better and if the Department for Transport, which has run this tender, is clearly persuaded that this is the best way to ensure the safety and security of the British people in the future and to do so at the best value for taxpayers’ money. Those are precisely the criteria on which everyone—any reasonable person—would judge this decision.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Cornwall may not look like a city but, as my right hon. Friend knows, it has both the ambition and the building blocks to negotiate a deal with the Government on devolved powers. Will he ensure that those ambitions can be fast-tracked to reality?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner, with his Cornish colleagues, for emulating the idea of a city deal but adapting it for the needs of Cornwall, now and in the future. I applaud him for that, and I will make sure that he and his colleagues can meet the Minister for cities and decentralisation, to make the case directly for a bespoke deal for Cornwall at some point in the future.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Is there any chance that the announcements made about the housing package in last week’s Budget could create a housing bubble here in the UK and risk repeating the mistakes of the United States sub-prime market?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The key way to make sure that there is no repeat of the disastrous mismanagement of the housing market that we saw under the previous Government is to ensure that more homes are built. That is why one significant component of the Help to Buy announcement that the Chancellor made last week is precisely that Government equity being put towards the construction of new homes should lead to extra construction activity and a further supply of housing. The Budget also included an announcement of a further 15,000 social homes being built, in addition to the several thousand more that are already in the pipeline.
Mr Speaker
Order. We had 23 questions in that period but we must now move on.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
1. What recent representations he has received on the effect of membership of the European convention on human rights on the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have not received any recent representations on this subject, but I am clear that the United Kingdom’s enviable reputation for upholding the rule of law is closely linked to our country’s commitment to the European convention on human rights and to ensuring that those rights are enshrined in our own laws.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the Attorney-General for that answer. Some Government Members are talking about exiting the European convention on human rights. Will he assure us that that will not happen? I know that he believes in the convention, so may I tell him that he will have the support of Opposition Members in the battle to ensure that we remain in it?
The Attorney-General
I have noticed, on occasion, irritation in all parts of the House about the operation of the European convention on human rights, but the Government’s position remains clear: our adherence to the convention is in the national interest.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is it not possible to be proud that this country created the European convention on human rights in 1948 to counter communism and fascism while also being dismayed that, because of judicial activism, the Court is interfering in the rights of this democratic Assembly to come to its own conclusions on issues such as prisoner voting rights?
The Attorney-General
My hon. Friend is right to say that the United Kingdom has not been uncritical of the way in which the European Court of Human Rights has operated. That is why we initiated the negotiation with other countries which led to the Brighton declaration. We believe that the principles of subsidiarity should be re-emphasised, that the selection of judges should be improved and that the backlog of the Court needs to be addressed. Those are important reform packages. We were successful in getting agreement on them last year, and we intend now to see that they are implemented.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Does the Attorney-General agree that it is simply not possible or right to start picking and choosing which decisions of the European Court of Human Rights we agree or disagree with? We are signed up to that charter, which guarantees the human rights of people all over Europe, including in this country. Surely that is something of which we should be proud rather than trying to undermine it all the time, as many of his Back Benchers consistently do.
The Attorney-General
The convention is an international legal obligation that we take extremely seriously and I have no doubt that our adherence to it is extremely helpful in raising standards of human rights elsewhere and in countries that have much poorer track records. The advantages to be derived from such an international legal obligation applied across countries need to be weighed in the balance when people are critical of how it is sometimes interpreted.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Will the Attorney-General ensure that all Ministers and members of his own party are at all times honest and accurate about both the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights?
The Attorney-General
I am quite sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends always strive for accuracy in this department. It has to be said that I sometimes open my newspaper and am quite surprised to read some of the material published on the subject, so if anyone relies on such newspaper articles, it may be that they are likely to be misled.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Will the Attorney-General confirm very simply that the European convention on human rights was founded by the Council of Europe and is nothing to do with the European Union, and that it is legitimate to be against the European Union while being supportive of the European convention on human rights?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is it true that some of the judges on the Court that enforces the European convention have no legal training whatsoever?
The Attorney-General
I would be hesitant to make such a comment. It is true that the judges are sometimes appointed from academic backgrounds, but it is worth bearing in mind that our national judiciary, apart from the fact that they have sometimes sat part time as judges, are not formally trained for judicial office even domestically. One must be a little wary of making such a sweeping statement, but there is no doubt, as I said, that the quality of the judiciary needs to be improved.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Given that one of the early backers of the European convention on human rights was Winston Churchill, does that not add an historical tone as to why it would be irresponsible to remove oneself from the convention?
The Attorney-General
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that Winston Churchill was a great proponent of the convention’s coming into force. It was supported on both sides of the House. There were some hesitations at the time, but it was undoubtedly seen as a marked step change in improving human rights on the European continent.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of prosecutions for human trafficking and related offences; and if he will make a statement.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
As a member of the interdepartmental ministerial group on human trafficking, I keep the effectiveness of prosecutions for that very serious form of crime under review. Wherever possible, the Crown Prosecution Service brings prosecutions for human trafficking or other related offences.
Fiona Mactaggart
Has the Solicitor-General asked for advice on the letter signed by a dozen charities on 28 April, which predicts that when the EU trafficking directive comes into force on 6 April the UK will be in breach of the following: the protection of victims during criminal procedures, access to compensation and legal assistance, and the provision of a guardian for trafficked children during legal proceedings? What is he going to do about that?
The Solicitor-General
As the hon. Lady will know—I hope she will forgive me—we do not, as Law Officers, explain when and where we have given advice. Her point is very important, however. Victims of human trafficking need to be identified and it is important that they should not be prosecuted or treated disrespectfully once that is known. That is one of the points being discussed in the interdepartmental ministerial group and she is right to highlight it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend referred to the interdepartmental ministerial group. Is not one of the problems that there are lots of different Acts of Parliament? Would there be any merit in pulling all the different Acts together in a consolidation Act on modern day slavery?
The Solicitor-General
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. It is possible to consider putting a number of laws into a consolidating statute, but the problem is that we tend as a House of Commons to say, “We have these laws. Do we want to spend time consolidating them when we might have other matters to deal with?” Taking such an action was recommended in the recent report from the Centre for Social Justice, however. I have discussed it with the authors and the interdepartmental ministerial group will consider it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Northern Ireland has had a number of convictions for human trafficking, and there are cases pending. Legislation will soon be introduced in the Northern Ireland Assembly by my colleague, Lord Morrow. Will the Solicitor-General outline the co-operation across all regions of the United Kingdom to tackle human trafficking?
The Solicitor-General
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been considerable co-operation and co-ordination of effort, particularly over intelligence and how those offences can be disrupted. Of course, there is an issue about the new National Crime Agency and exactly how it will operate—he will be aware of the situation and the ongoing discussions. It is important that there is that co-ordination of effort, which happens across the United Kingdom and the wider world, in trying to tackle the problem.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the success rate, measured by convictions, of investigations by the Serious Fraud Office.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The SFO has a 71% conviction rate by defendant for the current financial year to date. It prosecutes highly specialised cases, the number of which is small, so year-on-year change in the rate is not a particularly good indicator of trends. Although there is always room for improvement, I am broadly pleased with the SFO’s conviction rate. The report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate in November last year found that the outcomes in SFO cases demonstrate that it can deliver under pressure. There will be a follow-up inspection within the next year.
Kevin Brennan
SFO investigations have increased in duration to 28.8 months on average, success rates are down, as the Attorney-General has just told us, and its previous director handed out £1 million to departing staff without authorisation. Can the Attorney-General tell us how much money will have to be set aside on his watch for legal fees and damages as a result of botched investigations by the SFO?
The Attorney-General
I take it that the final part of that was the question and the rest was comment. The position is that at the moment the SFO is handling ongoing civil litigation within its budget. In so far as it requires further resources, it will speak to the Treasury.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the House that the way those statistics are recorded changed three or four years ago and outline the reason for that change?
The Attorney-General
My hon. Friend is right that the statistics for SFO cases were previously based on the number of defendants sentenced, rather than those convicted. Consequently, because the number of cases is very small, we can get huge statistical shifts simply by looking at it in a different way. That is why, as I explained earlier, I do not think that trends in the statistics are a good indication of performance. Overall, I prefer to rely on HMCPSI’s report.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
As the Attorney-General knows, the offence of misconduct in public office occurs when a public officer, without reasonable excuse,
“wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself… to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.”
Is he aware of any reason why the former director of the SFO, Richard Alderman, should not be investigated for misconduct in public office over the circumstances of his failure, as senior accounting officer, to obtain authorisation for payments to senior staff members of over £1 million?
The Attorney-General
As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, if it is thought that somebody has committed a criminal offence and it will be subject to investigation, that would not be a matter on which I could possibly comment in the House.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
The SFO received 2,731 tip-offs from members of the public last year but launched only three investigations into information supplied by the public. If members of the public report something to the SFO, can they have confidence that it will be investigated?
The Attorney-General
Yes, they can be confident that the reports will be looked at. Indeed, there are other routes by which reports might come to the SFO, including through the City police and Action Fraud. There is clearly a requirement for prioritisation, but the SFO will examine and consider any reports it receives.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to strengthen conviction rates.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Crown Prosecution Service secures convictions in over 17 out of every 20 cases. The Director of Public Prosecutions has concentrated particularly on improving rape and domestic violence outcomes for victims, and conviction rates for both have improved substantially over the past two years. As for the statistical performance of the Serious Fraud Office, my hon. Friend will have heard the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).
Mr Raab
I thank the Attorney-General for that answer. For all the controversy over terrorism legislation, LIBOR rate rigging and tax-dodging, terrorism convictions plummeted by 77% over the past five years, convictions for false accounting fell by 73%, and convictions for tax evasion slumped to 107 under Labour. What action is he taking to plug the gaping prosecutorial deficit left by the previous Government?
The Attorney-General
The Home Office is responsible for producing official statistics on casework outcomes in terrorism. The latest published Home Office data for the year ending September 2012 indicate that 24 out of 29 defendants were convicted, at a conviction rate of 82.8%. At that time, 134 prisoners classified as terrorists or domestic extremists were convicted and remanded. On fraud, the number of prosecutions has increased by 25% since 2010 and the conviction rate remains at 86.2%. On tax evasion, in the financial year to date 86% of cases originating with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have resulted in conviction. I should like to write to my hon. Friend about the overall figures on this.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Does the Attorney-General share my concern about the memo leaked by the CPS that showed there was a risk of CPS prosecutors deliberately choosing cases that were likely to crack because of lack of evidence, in order to save costs?
The Attorney-General
I think that the conviction rates speak for the efficiency of the CPS. I have seen nothing to suggest that cases are not being pursued outside the ordinary tests of public interest and the reasonable prospect of getting a conviction. Obviously, if those do not apply then there should not be a prosecution at all. I am certainly not aware of there being any fiddling and of decisions being made not to prosecute certain cases that should be prosecuted.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
5. What steps he is taking to increase the effectiveness of the pursuit by the Crown Prosecution Service of high-value confiscation orders.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Crown Prosecution Service is generally very effective in the pursuit of high-value confiscation orders. My office and the CPS are represented on the Home Office-led criminal finances board, at which asset recovery performance is discussed. Asset recovery is a long process. Assets are often hidden. Third-party litigation, appeals against conviction and confiscation orders all mean that the enforcement of such orders may take a significant amount of time. Due to the way in which the value of a confiscation order is calculated, in many cases it is not possible to recover the full amount that has been ordered.
Chris Williamson
Four out of five of the largest confiscation orders sought by the CPS in the past three years have concerned VAT fraud. Will the Attorney-General ensure that prosecuting these high-value and highly complex fraud cases is prioritised by the CPS?
The Attorney-General
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will raise the matter with the CPS, but I have no reason to think that it is not doing that. The evidence suggests overall—I cannot break it down for VAT fraud—that year on year the amount being confiscated is rising from what was a very low and rather unsuccessful level after the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 first came into force. In the past year, £107 million was realised through confiscation. I will write to him about his specific point on VAT.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service as a prosecutor of employers who evade the minimum wage.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute national minimum wage cases, but the cases are investigated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Since 2010, three cases have been referred to the CPS by HMRC, two of which resulted in convictions, most recently in February 2013, where the defendant was fined £1,000.
Diana Johnson
Shockingly, there were no prosecutions for minimum wage evasion in 2011 or 2012. If the Government are really serious about dealing with low-skilled immigration and its causes, why have they not been enforcing the minimum wage legislation properly?
The Solicitor-General
It is important to bear in mind that HMRC has two sorts of powers that it can use: criminal investigation, which we have already discussed, and the civil powers that enable it to look at the books and then to impose penalties and recover arrears. It is for HMRC to decide on the best way forward. The hon. Lady is right that these are important matters.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Is the Solicitor-General aware that the number of relevant inspections by HMRC has been falling for the past two or three years? Does that not make the sort of convictions that he is talking about less likely in the future?
The Solicitor-General
These are important matters and I will pass the hon. Gentleman’s comments on to Treasury Ministers. It is important that this matter is taken seriously and that there is proper enforcement. The Government certainly consider it to be an important matter.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in rape prosecutions.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The conviction rate for rape cases has increased from 59.4% in 2009-10 to 63.4% in the current year.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Solicitor-General for his answer. However, in 2011-12, the CPS took no further action in nearly half the cases that involved a rape allegation that were referred to it by the police. What reasons have the Law Officers identified for that?
The Solicitor-General
It is difficult to prosecute some cases. Often, it is the word of one person against the word of another. It is important in those circumstances to ensure that the victim who is the witness is properly supported. In addition, it is vital to have corroborative evidence and to use it effectively. It is sometimes said that there are a lot of incorrect allegations, but recent research by the CPS shows that there are very few cases of that sort. There has been a big improvement in the conviction rate, but we cannot be complacent. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important to tackle this matter.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2013
Presumption of Death Act 2013
Mobile Homes Act 2013
Antarctic Act 2013
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013
Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013
Diocese in Europe Measure 2013
Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure 2013.
Petition
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition is from Residents Against Cemetery. A petition in similar terms has been signed by 943 people. The petition states:
The Petition of Residents Against Cemetery,
Declares that the Petitioners are against the granting of planning for a cemetery at Aldridge Road, Walsall.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to consider the objections of local residents.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. [P001171]
Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry.
I congratulate my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), on setting up the public inquiry and on the many changes that he made in foreseeing its likely recommendations. I also pay tribute to Robert Francis QC for his work in producing a seminal report that will, I believe, mark a turning point in the history of the NHS.
Many terrible things happened at Mid Staffs, in what has rightly been described as the NHS’s darkest hour. Both the current and former Prime Minister have apologised. However, when people have suffered on such a scale and died unnecessarily, our greatest responsibility lies not in our words, but in our actions. Our actions must ensure that the NHS is what every health professional and patient wants: a service that is true to NHS values, that puts patients first, and that treats people with dignity, respect and compassion.
The Government accept the essence of the inquiry’s recommendations and will respond to them in full in due course. However, given the urgency of the need for change, I am today announcing the key elements of our response so that we can proceed to implementation as quickly as possible. I have divided our response into five areas: preventing problems from arising by putting the needs of patients first; detecting problems early; taking action promptly; ensuring that there is robust accountability; and leadership. Let me take each in turn.
To prevent problems from arising in the first place, we need to embed a culture of zero harm and compassionate care throughout the NHS; a culture in which the needs of patients are central, whatever the pressures of a busy, modern health service. As Robert Francis said,
“The system as a whole failed in its most essential duty—to protect patients from unacceptable risks of harm and from unacceptable, and in some cases inhumane, treatment that should never be tolerated in any hospital.”
At the heart of this problem is the fact that current definitions of success for hospitals fail to prioritise the needs of patients. Too often, the focus has been on compliance with regulation rather than on what those regulations aim to achieve. Furthermore, the way hospitals are inspected is fundamentally flawed, with the same generalist inspectors looking at slimming clinics, care homes and major teaching hospitals—sometimes in the same month. We will therefore set up a new regulatory model under a strong, independent chief inspector of hospitals, working for the Care Quality Commission. Inspections will move to a new specialist model based on rigorous and challenging peer review. Assessments will include judgments about hospitals’ overall performance, including whether patients are listened to and treated with dignity and respect, the safety of services, responsiveness, clinical standards and governance.
The Nuffield Trust has reported on the feasibility of assessments and Ofsted-style ratings, and I am very grateful for its thorough work. I agree with its conclusion that there is a serious gap in the provision of clear, comprehensive and trusted information on the quality of care. In order therefore to expose failure, recognise excellence and incentivise improvement, the chief inspector will produce a single aggregated rating for every NHS trust. Because the patient experience will be central to the inspection, it will not be possible for hospitals to get a good inspection result without the highest standards of patient care.
The Nuffield Trust rightly says, however, that in organisations as large and as complex as hospitals, a single rating on its own would be misleading. The chief inspector will therefore also assess hospital performance at speciality or department level. This will mean that cancer patients will be told of the quality of cancer services, and prospective mothers the quality of maternity services. We will also introduce a chief inspector of social care and look into the merits of a chief inspector of primary care to ensure that the same rigour is applied across the health and care system.
We must also build a culture of zero harm throughout the NHS. This does not mean there will never be mistakes, just as a safety-first culture in the airline industry does not mean there are no plane crashes, but it does mean an attitude to harm that treats it as totally unacceptable and takes enormous trouble to learn from mistakes. We await the report on how to achieve this in the NHS from Professor Don Berwick. Zero harm means listening to and acting on complaints, so I will ask the chief inspector to assess hospital complaints procedures, drawing on the work being done by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Professor Tricia Hart to look at best practice.
Given that one of the central complaints of nurses is that they are required to do too much paperwork and thus spend less time with patients, I have asked the NHS Confederation to review how we can reduce the bureaucratic burden on front-line staff and NHS providers by a third. I will also be requiring the new Health and Social Care Information Centre to use its statutory powers to eliminate duplication and reduce bureaucratic burdens.
Secondly, we must have a clearer picture of what is happening within the NHS and social care system so that, where problems exist, they are detected more quickly. As Francis recognised, the disjointed system of regulation and inspection smothered the NHS, collecting too much information but producing too little intelligence. We will therefore introduce a new statutory duty of candour for providers to ensure that honesty and transparency are the norm in every organisation, and the new chief inspector of hospitals will be the nation’s whistleblower-in-chief.
To ensure that there is no conflict in that role, the CQC will no longer be responsible for putting right any problems identified in hospitals. Its enforcement powers will be delegated to Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, which it will be able to ask to act when necessary. We know that publishing survival results improves standards, as has been shown in heart surgery, so I am very pleased that we will be doing the same for a further 10 disciplines—cardiology, vascular, upper gastrointestinal, colorectal, orthopaedic, bariatric, urological, head and neck, and thyroid and endocrine surgery.
The third part of our response is to ensure that any concerns are followed by swift action. The problem with Mid Staffs was not that the problems were unknown; it was that nothing was done. The Francis report sets out a timeline of around 50 warning signs between 2001 and 2009, yet Ministers and managers in the wider system failed to act on those warnings. Some were not aware of them; others dodged responsibility. That must change. No hospital will be rated as good or outstanding if fundamental standards are breached, and trusts will be given a strictly limited period of time to rectify any such breaches. If they fail to do that, they will be put into a failure regime that could ultimately lead to special administration and the automatic suspension of the board.
The fourth part of our response concerns accountability for wrongdoers. It is important to say that what went wrong at Mid Staffs was not typical of our NHS, and that the vast majority of doctors and nurses give excellent care day in, day out. We must ensure that the system does not crush the innate sense of decency and compassion that drives people to give their lives to the NHS.
Francis said that primary responsibility for what went wrong at Mid Staffs lies with the board. We will, therefore, look at new legal sanctions at corporate level for organisations that wilfully generate misleading information or withhold information that they are required to provide. We will also consult on a barring scheme to prevent managers found guilty of gross misconduct from finding a job in another part of the system. In addition, we intend to change the practices around severance payments, which have caused great public disquiet.
The General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other professional regulators have been asked to tighten their procedures for breaches of professional standards. I will wait to hear how they intend to do that, and for Don Berwick’s conclusions on zero harm, before deciding whether it is necessary to take further action. The chief inspector will also ensure that hospitals are meeting their existing legal obligations to ensure that unsuitable health care support workers are barred.
The final part of our response will be to ensure that NHS staff are properly led and motivated. As Francis said,
“all who work in the system, regardless of their qualifications or role, must recognise that they are part of a very large team who all have but one objective, the proper care and treatment of their patients”.
Today I am announcing some important changes in training for nurses. I want NHS-funded student nurses to spend up to a year working on the front line as support workers or health care assistants as a prerequisite for receiving funding for their degree. That will ensure that people who become nurses have the right values and understand their role. Health care support workers and adult social care workers will now have a code of conduct and minimum training standards, both of which are being published today. I will also ask the chief inspector to ensure that hospitals are properly recruiting, training and supporting health care assistants, drawing on the recommendations being produced by Camilla Cavendish. The Department of Health will learn from the criticisms of its own role by becoming the first Department in which every civil servant will have real and extensive experience of the front line.
The events at Stafford Hospital were a betrayal of the worst kind—a betrayal of patients, families, and the vast majority of NHS staff who do everything in their power to give their patients the high-quality, compassionate care they deserve. I want Mid Staffs to be not a byword for failure but a catalyst for change, and to create an NHS where everyone can be confident of safe, high-quality, compassionate care, and where best practice becomes common practice, and the way a person is made to feel as a human being is every bit as important as the treatment they receive. That must be our mission and I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the measured way in which he introduced it.
The NHS is 65 this year, and if it is to be ready for the challenges of this century, it must learn from the darkest hours of its past. The NHS was founded on compassion and, as the Secretary of State said, what happened at Stafford was a betrayal of that. Rightly, apologies have been given, but it is now time to act and make this a moment of change.
Robert Francis delivered 290 careful recommendations after a three-year public inquiry and, like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to him today. In response, the Prime Minister promised a detailed response to each recommendation by the end of this month. Although the Opposition welcome much of what the Secretary of State has said today, his statement falls short of that promised full response and contains serious omissions on which I would like to press him, in particular, on four of Robert Francis’s flagship recommendations, which I shall take in turn.
First, we welcome the move to place a duty of candour on health care providers and believe it could help bring about the culture change the NHS needs. The Francis report, however, goes further and recommends a duty of candour on individual members of staff. Will the Secretary of State say more about why he has only accepted this recommendation in part and not applied it to staff? Has he ruled that out or is he prepared to give it further consideration?
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the duty will apply equally to all providers of NHS services, including private providers? His statement was a little vague on that point. More generally, with more private providers coming into the NHS, is it not the case that we will not get the transparency we need unless the provisions of freedom of information apply fully to all holders of NHS contracts and information cannot be withheld under commercial confidentiality?
Secondly, on patient voice, the Government have announced new chief inspectors of hospitals and social care. Those were not Francis recommendations and, while we give them a cautious welcome, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that regulation alone will not be enough to prevent another Mid Staffs. Instead, we need a powerful patient voice in every community that is able to sound the alarm if things are going wrong. Rather than pulling down the shutters, as the NHS has a tendency to do, complaints should be embraced as opportunities to learn and improve.
It is just a matter of days until the new NHS comes into being and the concern is that patient voice has not been embedded at the heart of the new system. A third of councils say that their local healthwatch will not be up and running by the 1 April deadline, and there are wide variations in both structure and membership. Will the Government accept Robert Francis’s recommendation of a consistent basic structure for healthwatch programmes throughout the country before it is too late and they go their separate ways?
Thirdly, on regulation and training, Robert Francis has made a very clear case for a new system of regulation of health care assistants to improve basic standards—a case that we made during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012—yet it did not feature in the Secretary of State’s statement. Have the Government accepted in principle the regulation of health care assistants?
We support moves to rebalance nurse training and to include more hands-on experience, but student nurses already spend 50% of their time in clinical practice and face significant financial barriers when completing their training. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that requiring a year on the ward will not increase the financial barriers to young people entering nursing and, if more trainees are to be on the wards, will he ensure that there are enough staff with the time to train the extra students?
That takes me to my fourth point and the most glaring omission from the Secretary of State’s statement, namely safe staffing levels. We will never get the right culture on our wards if they are understaffed and over-stretched, but there is evidence that things are going in the wrong direction and the Secretary of State was silent on the issue today.
The CQC has recently reported that one in 10 hospitals in England do not have adequate staffing levels. Just last week, work force figures showed that there had been a reduction of 843 nurses between November and December last year. Does that not sound the clearest of alarm bells that some parts of the NHS are already in danger of forgetting the lessons of its recent past by cutting the front line too far? Do not communities need a clear, objective benchmark so that they can challenge staffing levels on wards, and would it not be a great help to them for the Francis recommendation on staff-patient ratios to be accepted? We learned last week that the Department has handed £2.2 billion from last year’s budget back to the Treasury. Surely that money would have been better invested in the front line and in bringing all hospitals in England back up to safe staffing levels.
Finally, I want to turn to Stafford hospital itself, which Monitor has recommended should be placed in administration. This doubt about the hospital’s future will be causing real concern to the people of Stafford. After all they have been through, I think we can all agree that they deserve a safe and sustainable hospital, and I hope the Secretary of State will soon set out a plan to achieve that.
Learning the lessons of Stafford cannot be done overnight. We all have to play our part. The Government have made a start today, but much more needs to be done and we will hold them to that.
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Gentleman talks about glaring omissions in the Government’s response, but there were glaring omissions in his response too. Where was the apology for Labour’s targets culture that led to so many of the problems; the apology for failing to set up a regulatory structure that had proper safeguards; and the apology for missing all those warning signs? This was not just the darkest day in NHS history, but the darkest day in Labour’s management of the NHS. It is time the Labour party recognised the policy mistakes it made.
Let me go through what the right hon. Gentleman says are omissions. First, on the duty of candour, we accept the principle of the duty of candour when it applies to hospital boards, but we want to be absolutely sure that there are not unintended consequences of applying it to hospital staff, because another part of the Francis report is on the importance of a culture of openness and transparency, and we do not want a culture of fear. We have therefore not ruled out criminal sanctions for hospital employees who breach a duty of candour—they already have a contractual duty of candour —but, as I said in my statement, we want to wait for the result of Don Berwick’s report on zero harm to ensure that we do not take any measure that impedes the openness we need in hospitals.
The inspection regime will apply to all providers. It is important that it should, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who mentioned private providers, that the problems happened at an NHS hospital. Trying to turn this into a debate on privatisation tells people that Labour is missing the point in the response to Francis.
We will not introduce statutory regulation of health care assistants, but we will introduce minimum standards of training for them. We will not introduce statutory regulation because we believe there is a risk that a database of 0.5 million to 1.5 million people could end up being a box-ticking exercise that fails to raise standards in the way we need. We believe we have another way to achieve the same end, which is what we will implement.
On nurse training, we believe it is important that nurses have hands-on experience of the front line, because nurses, when they are properly qualified, will be managing health care assistants. It is therefore important that nurses understand what it is like to be a health care assistant. We will be very careful in how we implement that to ensure that we do not create financial barriers because, obviously, we want to attract the best people into nursing, regardless of income.
On staffing levels and nursing numbers, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the problems at Mid Staffs happened when Labour was in power, when budgets were going up quite significantly, and when numbers were going up. To distil the problem to one of numbers is, again, to miss the point. This is about the values of the people on the ward. If he wants to talk about numbers, he must accept that, because this Government have protected the NHS budget, which he wants to cut from its current levels, there are 6,000 more clinical staff in the NHS today than there were at the time of the last election.
On Stafford hospital, it is extremely important that, when we have problems such as the ones at Mid Staffs, we create a structure that makes it impossible not to deal with them. That is a difficult process. We are announcing today a time-limited process to ensure that Ministers and the system cannot duck difficult decisions when we have a failing hospital. Obviously, we will follow the Monitor trust special administrators’ recommendations and look at them carefully, but it is important to address the issues. The wrong thing to do would be to fail to do so, because that would lead to clinical failure.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman broadly accepts the Francis recommendations. He asked whether we would respond to all of them. The inquiry was a public inquiry, which he refused to set up. As a result of that detailed public inquiry, there are 290 recommendations. It takes time to go through all of them in detail, but I thought it was right to come to the House today with our initial response so that we can get cracking with the important things right away.
Mr Speaker
Order. Dozens of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that the Government have scheduled today three ministerial statements on important matters, and colleagues will note that there are three Back Bench-inspired debates to follow, in which 48 hon. Members are interested in speaking. There is therefore a real premium on time, and I must appeal for single, short supplementary questions and characteristically pithy replies.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and making a statement that helps to restore our confidence in the NHS, which has been so badly undermined by Labour’s appalling stewardship. Will he take steps to ensure that any complaints procedure provides protection to patients and relatives who raise concerns?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The thing about complaints procedures is that we must have a system that is not about process and whether there is a response to a complaint in three days. The question is whether a hospital looks at and learns from a complaints procedure and changes its behaviour. That is what the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Professor Tricia Hart are looking into. Hospitals will be inspected against best practice to try to encourage as many of them as possible to adopt the very best complaints procedures.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has announced that he will consult on a barring scheme to prevent managers who are found guilty of gross misconduct from finding a job in another part of the system. To how many managers of Mid Staffordshire would he expect that to apply?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady will know that, when it comes to individuals—appalled as I am, and as appalled as all hon. Members are, by what happened at Mid Staffs—I must try not to prejudge due process. If we are to bar people from employment, we must have a fair process and system and a right of appeal, which is required under our law anyway. However, I would not expect any manager responsible for the kind of things that happened at Mid Staffs to be able to get a job in the health service ever again.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Peter Walsh from Action against Medical Accidents has described the legally enforceable duty of candour as the
“the biggest advance in patient safety and patients rights in the history of the NHS.”
Does the Secretary of State agree?
Mr Hunt
I listened to Peter Walsh’s thoughtful contribution to the “Today” programme this morning. We will consider carefully whether to apply the statutory duty of candour, backed up with criminal sanctions, to hospital employees. The review on zero harm and creating the right culture in hospitals will report not in a long time, but before the summer break, so it is right to wait until we have it before making our final decision.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Francis report said that three areas went wrong: the first was unprofessional behaviour; the second was a lack of leadership; and the third was that the overwhelming prevalent factors were lack of staff in terms of both absolute numbers and appropriate skills. Given that we have lost thousands of nursing posts in the past few years, is the Secretary of State missing the point?
Mr Hunt
If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I have said, he would know that the number of clinical staff has gone up by 6,000 since the last election, which would not have been possible had we cut the NHS budget, which is what Labour Front Benchers want. It is important to ensure that we have the right numbers in wards to care for people. That is exactly what the new chief inspector will look at. There is evidence that hospitals that have the highest and most respected standards of care ensure they have adequate numbers not just of nurses, but of health care assistants. The whole NHS needs to learn the lesson that it must not cut corners when it comes to care.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s welcome statement shows just how important the inquiry was, and how vital its lessons will be for patient care and safety. The royal colleges have a great responsibility. Will he call them together on a regular basis to discuss how they are checking and raising standards in their professions to ensure first-class care for patients?
Mr Hunt
First, I thank my hon. Friend for his extraordinarily tireless work and for the extremely measured and mature attitude he has taken to the problems in the hospital, which is on his patch. Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome that. He is right about the role of the royal colleges. There are some challenging suggestions in the Francis report for some of those colleges, but when we are seeking to raise standards, it is important that setting up that scorecard for the new chief inspector happens with the help of the royal colleges, whose business it is to raise standards in the NHS.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and we welcome the continuation of this discussion at the Health Committee. One of the recommendations of Francis was for the Secretary of State to look at the overlap between the CQC and Monitor, both of which were involved and have accepted they were part of the failings. Under the new inspection regime, will the chief inspector report to the Secretary of State or to the NHS Commissioning Board?
Mr Hunt
Neither. The chief inspector will report to the CQC. The hon. Lady is right that one of the problems is the overlapping roles and the confusion of roles. What we are announcing today is a significant change in the responsibilities of the CQC. It will no longer be involved in putting right problems in hospitals: its job will simply be to identify problems, so it is not compromised in its ability to be the nation’s whistleblower-in-chief. The responsibility for putting right problems will lie with Monitor, the NHS Trust Development Authority, the NHS Commissioning Board and the wider NHS system. We want to make sure that the chief inspector is unconstrained and unconflicted, when his or her team goes into hospitals, from shouting loudly if there is a problem and continuing to shout loudly until it is solved.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
These changes all come against a background of other changes in the NHS, such as clinical commissioning groups, Healthwatch and health and wellbeing boards, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to put in the Library a plain person’s guide, so that we can understand how these new regulators, inspectors and various other bodies fit in with each other—who is accountable to whom—so we as constituency MPs will know whom to approach and on what occasion. I am sure that all these changes are very welcome, but we need to understand how they relate to each other.
Mr Hunt
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s sentiments are shared on both sides of the House. Indeed, I could have done with such a guide when I started this job last September. I am happy to do as he requests, but from today’s announcement the most important thing that the country should know is that when it comes to failures in care, the buck stops in one place. It will be the chief inspector’s job to identify such failures and shout publicly about them, and that will be an important clarification that the system needs.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
This is not a debate about private or public, but will the Secretary of State ensure that the duty of candour is applied equally to private providers of NHS services?
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is his intention that the statutory duty of candour—and the introduction of a ratings system—will apply to home care and care homes, not just NHS providers?
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State talks about severance and follow-on employment. Does he think it is acceptable that when the former chief executive of Morecambe Bay hospitals trust had to step down in February last year, because of the problems there, he was kept on the books in secret and paid £250,000 from local trust budgets—which could otherwise have gone to local health care—and was transferred to the NHS Confederation where his responsibilities could include teaching future leaders and helping to redesign the system?
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the return of student nurses to the wards for a year of their training. Project 2000 has much to answer for. On the subject of resourcing and staff to patient ratios, may I remind my right hon. Friend that many of the reports we have seen in the last few years, criticising hospitals for poor care and lack of dignity in the care of older people in particular, have shown that wards in the same hospitals have had very different standards of care? How can that be about resourcing?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that these assessments are made not just at an organisation level, but drill down into the different parts of a hospital, and we have taken that message on board from the Nuffield report on ratings. She is right that it is not just about resources, but sometimes it is about resources. Parts of a hospital can be understaffed when it comes to people who are required to perform basic and important roles in terms of care. Because it is a complex picture—and because numbers can be part of the problem, but are certainly not the whole problem—we want a chief inspector who will take a holistic view of every aspect of the performance of a hospital and be able to give proper feedback that a hospital can use to improve its performance.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
May I press the Health Secretary on this point? I have raised several times the point that adequate staffing levels are crucial to patient safety and good care, but we seem to dodge around saying that it is a question of values, not of numbers. Francis said clearly that one of the issues was numbers. I have given examples of my local hospital, which views it as crucial that it has the right staffing mix, which it adjusts every single day, for the patients that it has. Will he stop avoiding this question and address it directly, because one in 10 hospitals do not have adequate staffing levels?
Mr Hunt
I am not avoiding it. I agree that adequate staffing levels are essential to patient care. I remind the hon. Lady that the shadow Health Secretary said to the Francis inquiry:
“I do not think that the Government could ever mandate a headcount in organisations. Whilst we could recommend staff levels, we were moving into an era when trusts were being encouraged to work differently and cleverly, and take responsibility for delivering safe care whilst meeting targets”.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Secretary of State rightly talks about a betrayal of trust of the worst kind, and he is right. He is also right about zero harm, and about much else that he has done. But there is one serious omission—of accountability—and that must be robust and include the resignation of Sir David Nicholson. I also apportion responsibility to those former Secretaries of State who were not called to give evidence but bear a heavy responsibility for not having done the right thing at the right time.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend knows that I have a different view of the level of responsibility of Sir David Nicholson, but I agree that everyone working in the system at that time shares some responsibility for what happened. We must make sure that it can never happen again. The accountability that we are introducing, including criminal sanctions for boards that fail in their statutory duties, will be a significant change. The body that was responsible for what went wrong at Mid Staffs, according to Francis, was the board of the hospital, so that is where our focus must be. Today is also about getting the right structures outside the hospital to make sure there is accountability there too.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State has referred to the fact the chief inspector will inspect hospital performance at specialty or department level. How will that be done? If records, paperwork and bureaucracy are being reduced in hospitals, will hospitals’ own records be used to make those assessments or will the inspector use other information?
Mr Hunt
Of course we need to rely on good information being supplied by hospitals, and that is why we have said today that it will be a criminal offence for hospitals knowingly to supply wrong information. This goes back to an earlier question, and we will work closely with outside bodies, such as the royal colleges, to ensure that we establish the best way to judge, for example, cancer survival rates. One of the lessons of the success of measuring heart surgery survival rates is the importance of having a good risk-adjustment process in place. We will do that across the other 10 specialties that I announced today.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
Although I acknowledge the Secretary of State’s genuine desire to improve hospital standards by the introduction of his new inspectorate, I am concerned about the further reliance on systems above individual responsibility. Will he assure the House that his new inspectorate will not become yet another component of the merry-go-round of management employment schemes currently found in the NHS? Will he also assure me that those implicated in previous hospital management scandals will not be employed as inspectors in the future?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right: we have to ensure that the inspectorate works in the successful way that Ofsted has worked in the school system, and does not make the mistakes that have been made by other regulators inside the NHS system. It is important that it is based on respected peer review, is thorough and is respected in terms of the input that it is able to give hospitals on improving their performance. We will work hard to make sure that we deliver that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Who is expected to pay for the additional year that nurses will spend as health care assistants?
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Every time there is a scandal, the response of the British political establishment is to load more controls, accountability and bureaucracy on professionals, yet every nurse and doctor I meet is fed up with what already happens. As a result of the reforms, will the Secretary of State assure us that we will now trust professionals to get on with the job they love?
Mr Hunt
I agree with those sentiments strongly. In parallel to this process and these changes, I have asked the NHS Confederation to recommend how we can reduce the bureaucratic burden on hospital front-line staff by a third, precisely because I want to avoid the issues that my hon. Friend mentions. This is about freeing up time for people at the front line, and one way is to have an inspection system in which everyone has confidence. Once there is the confidence that problems will be identified, it becomes much easier, as has happened in the education system, to give more freedom to people on the front line.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The public inquiry has been thorough, with new standards put in place and lessons learned from the NHS in Staffordshire. Health in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. Will he confirm that the report will be sent to the Northern Ireland Assembly Health Minister, Edwin Poots, so that improvements and guidelines can be improved for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend’s emphasis on leadership? In Colchester, we have seen periods of good and bad leadership, and good leadership is self-evidently the right answer to hospital management. Can I therefore ask him to lay more emphasis on what constitutes good leadership and trust between good leaders and their employees in the health service right through the system, including from Sir David Nicholson downwards, and not to rely overmuch on regulation, which is no substitute for good leadership?
Mr Hunt
I agree wholeheartedly. It is very important that we understand that the benefit of the new inspection regime will not just be that it identifies failing hospitals, but outstanding hospitals too, so that we have a good model of leadership in the system from which other managers can learn. Yes, it is really important to have the right relationships between managers and their staff, but we should not mandate or regulate that from the centre. We want to have a system where people can learn from each other.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I received a distressing piece of constituency casework yesterday that underlines the importance of the announcement my right hon. Friend has made today. Does he feel that his reforms will build more of a culture of compassion in nursing care?
Mr Hunt
That is at the heart of what the reforms intend to achieve. An organisation as complex and as large as the NHS needs corporate objectives and targets—for example, we need to do a lot better on dementia—and we do set system-wide objectives. However, we have to ensure that those objectives, set by whichever party happens to be in power, never compromise the fundamental care and compassion that needs to be at the heart of what the NHS does. We are putting in the safeguards that ensure that that cannot happen.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
Given the mobility of both the work force and students, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the devolved Administrations regarding the proposed changes to funding nurse places and training?
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the decision to grant foundation trust status to Mid Staffs in 2008 was catastrophic in terms of the trust taking its eye off the ball and focusing on targets rather than on care, and that, now it is being abolished just five years later, never again must a Government pressurise a trust into a particular organisational form just to validate its ideological policy, rather than because it improves the care of patients?
Mr Hunt
I would also like to thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does for his local hospital in difficult circumstances directly involved in this terrible scandal. I agree with him: the corporate objective to become a foundation trust overrode everything else in the hospital, at huge expense to patient care. We must never allow that to happen again.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
What most people want when they use the NHS is a reliable, accessible service, and to know that when something goes wrong somebody will be held to account and brought to book. Clearly, that has not happened. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure our constituents that people will be held accountable on an individual level, and that we will not see this happen again?
Mr Hunt
That accountability is extremely important and happens on many different levels. In particular, we have professional codes of conduct for doctors and nurses, so that in the exceptional situations where those codes are breached, we know, as members of the public, they will be held to account. Those are done at arm’s length from the Government by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, but we are talking to them about why it is that still no doctor or nurse has been struck off following what happened at Mid Staffs—I think that is completely wrong.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I know I repeat myself, but adequate registered nurse-to-patient ratios are often at the heart of these failings, yet on page 68 of the report my right hon. Friend rejects the idea of any kind of national benchmarking or guidelines with regard to patient ratios. Will my right hon. Friend keep an open mind and meet me, Professor Elizabeth Robb of the Florence Nightingale Foundation and others from the profession so that we can explore this issue?
Mr Hunt
We are not saying that minimum standards of adequate staffing levels are not needed, but we reject the idea that they should be mandated from the centre—I think there is cross-party agreement on that. The chief inspector will look at and highlight the reasons for poor care and, if they are due to inadequate staffing levels, ensure that something is done about it.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On the rare occasions when a clinician or other member of hospital staff raises a problem and it is not taken care of, may I suggest that employers have a box in which to put in a note saying what the problem is? There should be a receipt so that if there is an inquiry later, it can be shown what the hospital should have paid attention to right at the beginning.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Staffing levels are important, but so are bed numbers. Many of the 41,000 beds lost under the previous Government were in my constituency. Consequently, we have massive pressure on beds, wards on purple alerts and very high mortality rates. Will any inspection regime include an assessment of safe bed levels?
Mr Hunt
The inspection regime will of course cover such issues as part of its inspection of whether basic standards of care are being met. Yes, of course such issues matter, but there are challenges beyond what an inspection regime can deliver which we will need to address to deal with these issues. In particular, a problem we are wrestling with at the moment is who will take responsibility for the frail elderly when they are discharged from hospital. One reason why they stay in hospital for a long time is because geriatricians are nervous about sending them back into the community. They do not think anyone will take responsibility for them and that is something we have to look at.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
On the respective roles of CQC and Monitor, can my right hon. Friend indicate that he expects Monitor to use the full regulatory tools at its disposal and give appropriate challenge to the boards of foundation trusts and hospitals where failure is indicated?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the changes we are announcing today is that, in the case of foundation trusts, CQC will be delegating its enforcement powers to Monitor so that it has more powers to insist on necessary changes and ensure that fundamental standards are not being breached.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend note that the Patients Association and campaigners such as the Powell family in Wales will not be satisfied by what he has had to say about the duty of candour until we have a full statutory duty in line with what Robert Francis recommended?
Mr Hunt
We will have a full statutory duty, in line with what Robert Francis says, when it comes to the boards of hospitals. We are carefully considering whether that should apply to individual hospital employees, but we want to wait until we have Don Berwick’s review of zero harm.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best system in the world will not succeed if individuals who behave inhumanely get away with it and people who observe them behaving inhumanely do not report it? I therefore re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) has just said: if individuals see this inhumane behaviour, they must report it.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, particularly the parts about where perverse effects of the old target culture kick into the NHS. When the dust has settled on the Francis report and its conclusions, will he look at targets that affect the ambulance service and how they directly affect rural communities across the country?
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but does he share my sorrow that it has taken so long and so many deaths to reach this stage, when Labour was presented with reports by Don Berwick himself highlighting bad quality assessment, when 120 bodies had overlapping responsibilities and when he said that patient safety was not central to the NHS? Is it not tragic that it has taken this long?
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
We are fortunate to have a high-performing general hospital in Keighley and Ilkley, but does my right hon. Friend agree that even hospitals such as Airedale hospital must not be complacent? Quality must be paramount. Every member of staff has a responsibility to deliver the high level of compassionate care that he spoke about.
Mr Hunt
I agree with my hon. Friend. I visited Airedale hospital and was very impressed with the level of care I saw there. It is one of the only hospital trusts in the country—if not the only one—where doctors can see the full history of what patients going into A and E have been prescribed by their GPs, which has an important impact on patient safety.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action he has taken, particularly re-instilling the importance of compassion in the NHS and the changes he is proposing to the training of nurses. Can he inform the House of any other NHS trust where similar concerns are being investigated?
Mr Hunt
One of the problems at the moment is that we do not have a good way of identifying other hospitals. The hospital inspection regime will start this year. That will obviously be the start, but prior to that we are conducting an investigation into 14 hospitals with higher than average mortality rates. That is one indicator: it might not mean there is a problem, but it is something we think is worth checking out.
Finally, let me say that my hon. Friend has an extremely good record on improving standards in education by understanding the importance of rigour. That is something we can learn from in the inspection regime for hospitals.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any revised patient care ratings include an enhanced emphasis on the degree to which things are explained clearly to patients and relatives and how relatives are kept informed?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is absolutely essential that the new chief inspector’s team talks to patients and relatives to get that feedback. One of the biggest changes from what we have now to what we will have is the element of judgment in the assessments made. We will not just be looking at the data, the dials or the numbers; there will be someone going to a hospital, smelling the coffee, understanding the culture of the place and talking to patients and relatives.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I commend the Secretary of State for his statement and for what I think is an absolutely outstandingly powerful report. However, I have concerns about recently proposed changes to the consultant-led maternity services at Eastbourne district general hospital. Will he confirm for the record that any changes that I and others have concerns about will be considered by the new chief inspector of hospitals?
Mr Hunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenious segue. All hospitals—all NHS trusts—will be inspected by the chief inspector, so everything that happens at Eastbourne will be covered by the new regime. It will be strong, rigorous and independent, so that any concerns that my hon. Friend has should be picked up by anything that the chief inspector reports on.
Rail Franchising
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future of our railways. It is a positive future. It is almost 50 years ago to the day since Dr Beeching published his report. No one would have imagined then, or even 20 years ago, when the Government privatised the railways, which were still in decline, that the industry would now be booming. Traffic has doubled since privatisation, from 750 million journeys a year to 1.5 billion now. There are more services and record levels of investment, and our railways have the best recent safety record in Europe. That has not been achieved despite privatisation; it has been achieved because of privatisation.
Today I am setting out a programme that can achieve even more, because our country has to compete for jobs and growth. We need a transport system that is second to none, so we are spending unprecedented sums on infrastructure, such as Crossrail, the biggest construction project in Europe, and the northern hub cross-Manchester link, which will transform services across the Pennines. In return, it is right that we demand more from the industry, because for the money that passengers and taxpayers are putting in, we should expect ambition, innovation and even better performance for passengers. This is the way we are going to get it.
Last year, serious and unacceptable mistakes were made when it came to refranchising the west coast main line, but I have put in place a new structure and process in the Department, as the Laidlaw report recommended. In January, I announced our initial proposals for the three franchises most immediately affected: Great Western, Essex Thameside and Thameslink. Today I can confirm that I am accepting the next stage of the findings of the Brown review of rail franchising. I am also pleased that Richard Brown has agreed to chair a new franchise advisory board. I am publishing its terms of reference today. The Brown review called for a full refranchising programme to be announced by the end of April. I am pleased to be announcing it today.
I want to be as open as possible with the market, which is why I am publishing a prior information notice to set out not just the programme for franchising, but the way in which franchises will be let and the benefits they will bring. In doing so, I have applied three principles: first, that the passenger gains; secondly, that the rail industry thrives, with growing companies and new competitors coming into the market; and thirdly, that the taxpayer gains, through a more efficient use of public money and less waste in the industry. Those three principles are essential points on which the future of our railways rests.
Let me turn in detail to what I am announcing today —a programme that will give great improvements to the passenger, certainty to industry and a fair deal to the taxpayer. It will provide stability, so that we can invest more, and flexibility, so that different routes with different demands can be managed in different ways. The programme will also give fair weight to passenger satisfaction, which has not always been respected as it should have been, with long-term franchises that can run for up to 15 years if operators meet the standards they promise at the start. To ensure a competitive market, we will hold no more than three to four competitions a year, starting with a smaller number as the programme gets up to full speed and extending up to 12 current franchises to give certainty to passengers and allow the full programme to get under way.
There are those who would like our railways to go back to the days of state ownership, decline and under-investment. They are wrong. I share the view of the last Labour Government, who said that franchising worked. In 2009, Ministers brought in Directly Operated Railways on the east coast as a short-term stand-in. They did what was needed in difficult circumstances, but the east coast main line, upgraded in the 1980s, now needs revitalising. New trains, to be built in the north-east, are now on order. Now is the right time to invite bidders to put forward proposals for investing and improving those services. This will be the first of the new inter-city franchises to be awarded in 2014 in a programme that meets my three essential principles of better service, better competition and better value.
I wish to make one final point. The Beeching report was about closures and cutbacks, but its 50th anniversary tomorrow sees an industry marked by growth, not decline—investing in High Speed 2 for the future, as well as providing better services today. That is why I am pleased to announce the front runners in our fund to open new stations. They are Lea Bridge in Walthamstow, Pye Corner in Newport West and Ilkeston in Erewash. I expect to announce further winners soon. I commend this statement to the House.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. He inherited a Department in crisis and a rail franchising system in chaos. I acknowledge that he has had to work hard to try to put things back on track. He has rightly reversed many of the decisions of his two predecessors, not least by restoring some of the key posts in the Department that had recklessly been axed by them. We welcome the speed with which the right hon. Gentleman has worked with Richard Brown and his departmental officials to put together the plans he has set out today. However, it is also true that his revised franchising timetable has exposed the full impact of the failure of his predecessors, all of whom either remain in the Cabinet or have been promoted to it.
The Great Western contract will be awarded in July 2016—three years and three months later than planned. The west coast contract will not be awarded until April 2017—four years and four months late. Some competitions are to be delayed by as much as 50 months—not five months, but 50—yet instead of focusing on the chaos in franchising caused by his Government’s incompetence, the Secretary of State has decided to embark on an unnecessary and costly privatisation of the east coast inter-city services—a privatisation due to take place weeks before the date of the next general election.
The right hon. Gentleman hinted that investment was dependent on that happening, but will he acknowledge that the planned investment in the east coast main line, to be delivered by Network Rail, and the new generation of inter-city trains will happen regardless of this privatisation? Is it not the case that Directly Operated Railways has reinvested all of its £40 million profit in the east coast service on top of the £640 million paid to Government, with every pound of profit going back in for the benefit of passengers? That profit will, under the Secretary of State’s new plans, be shared with shareholders in future. Instead of talking down the current operator of the east coast, will he join me in praising the team there for the work they have done, and think again about his plans?
Will the Secretary of State update the House on the latest cost of the franchising fiasco, not least since his Department appears to be facing legal action from several more train operating companies? Will he correct the claim in his Department’s press notice today that this is the first time that a full franchise timetable has been published? I have with me the previous full timetable that was inherited from the previous Government and republished by his Government. Does he accept that what has changed is simply the fact that all the competitions have now been delayed?
The Secretary of State has also changed the proposed order of the competitions, leading in some cases to very long extensions to existing contracts. What is his thinking behind that decision? Will he clarify the role of the new franchising advisory board that Richard Brown recommended in his review and is now to chair? The first version of the written ministerial statement this morning stated that it would be a cross-industry body and that it would support bidders, but the corrected version appears to have dropped those claims. What, then, is it to do exactly?
What has happened to the Government’s previous enthusiasm for devolution? Will the right hon. Gentleman update the House on discussions with transport authorities covering the Northern and TransPennine franchises and services in the midlands? Does he still anticipate devolving responsibility at the revised start date for these franchises? Have the Government given further consideration to the calls from the Mayor of London and Transport for London for devolution of the remaining former Network SouthEast services?
For the sake of passengers, taxpayers and those working across the rail industry, the whole House wants to see us get beyond the problems of the past year. I wish the Secretary of State well in doing that, but I urge him to focus his efforts on getting back on track the bits of the system that need fixing, rather than those that do not.
Mr McLoughlin
I thank the hon. Lady for her response to my statement. It was not quite as warm as that of the CBI, Passenger Focus or the British Chambers of Commerce, which were much fuller in their acknowledgement of our putting the future for the rail industry so clearly.
The hon. Lady has obviously forgotten what the last Labour Secretary of State, the noble Lord Adonis, said on 9 February 2010:
“The Government believe that the ability of private sector operators to attract more passengers, grow the market, improve the service and receive revenue benefits of such actions is a key element in the current franchise model and one of the reasons for the significant growth delivered in recent years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2010; Vol. 717, c. WA122.]
It is certainly true that we are talking about a huge growth in rail traffic and rail transportation, with people relying on the railways. I could go on to quote—but I know you prefer shorter answers, Mr Speaker—the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who occupied my position before the last general election, as he praised the role of franchising.
I believe that the east coast line should be the first under the new system. I pay tribute to the work done by Directly Operated Railways, which has operated it, but when the hon. Lady talks about figures, she should look at the track access charges paid in control period 3 by National Express when it ran the east coast line. It paid £210 million in track access charges, whereas DOR now has to pay its track access charges of £92 million. [Interruption.] I can tell the shadow Leader of the House that that was paid in the year to which I referred.
That explains why we have set out a very clear set of proposals about where we are going, notifying the industry about the future, which I think is a bright one, and setting out the huge investment that we—and, indeed, Network Rail—are putting into the rail industry.
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that a further statement is to follow and then no fewer than three Back-Bench-inspired debates to which 48 Members wish to contribute. There is therefore a premium on brevity for Back and Front-Bench Members alike.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It is evident from today’s announcements that the Secretary of State’s Department will be under a great deal of pressure to deliver a vast programme of infrastructure projects. That pressure has obviously been intensified by the west coast main line franchise failure and of course the recent judicial review failure on the consultation process for HS2. Given those failures, what reassurances can the Secretary of State give us that his Department is still not overstretched and under-resourced?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what I think was support at least for what I am doing on franchising. She talks about judicial reviews, but it is fair to say that of the 10 judicial reviews on HS2, the Department was found not to be wanting in nine cases. Only one judicial review went against us, and I am fully prepared to accept it. I wish the protesters, too, would accept the decisions made by the courts.
I can assure my right hon. Friend that my Department has the resources, and I am mindful of what Sam Laidlaw said in his report about what needed to be put into operation, and we have done that. I think that the Government’s setting up of the franchising advisory board was important—I am sorry that I failed to respond to the hon. Lady’s point about it earlier. It will report directly to the Government and to my advisory board on how the franchises are doing. I am sorry that a mistake was put out in one of the earlier press notices.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am disappointed that there has been no mention of the word “fares” in any of the statements so far. Will the Secretary of State clarify what he will do to bring down fares, and what he will do about staffed ticket offices?
Mr McLoughlin
I think the hon. Gentleman will know that we are undertaking a full review of fares. That will report later this year, probably in June; the date may move a bit, but I hope it will report in June. He will make his points on fares during that review. However, I would point out that, on a number of routes, cheap fares are available if people book in advance.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
By deciding to refranchise the east coast main line, we risk not being able to assess whether the public sector or the private sector is best for the passenger, the taxpayer and the railways in general. Surely as a minimum, therefore, we should allow Directly Operated Railways to bid for the franchise.
Mr McLoughlin
That is not the case—Directly Operated Railways is not a company in its own right; it is a company owned by the Department for Transport. We will certainly be able to see how the companies are doing. The process will be open. I have already seen reports, although I have not had it confirmed, that Virgin will put in a bid for the east coast main line, and a lot of people were very happy with the service they received on the west coast main line.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
On that very point, given that Directly Operated Railways is owned by the Department for Transport, surely the Secretary of State could instruct Directly Operated Railways to put in a public sector comparative bid so that we can judge who will provide best value for money and best value for the customers.
Mr McLoughlin
I would just point out to the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House some time, that he was very happy to support a Government whose Secretary of State said:
“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”. —[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]
I agree.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The east coast main line is integral to the economy of Peterborough, and my constituents are concerned about value for money, punctuality and cleanliness. The Secretary of State rightly mentions the PAC report, which found that this Government inherited systemic lack of leadership and of oversight, miscalculation of risk capital and failure to heed legal advice. Is he absolutely convinced that, in respect of the east coast main line, we have learnt those lessons and that mistakes will not be made again?
Mr McLoughlin
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we have learnt a number of lessons as a result of what happened with the west coast franchise. I well understand the importance to his constituents of the service that is provided on the east coast main line. It will be one of the first lines to get the new intercity express programme trains, which are due to come into service in 2018-19.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
As a north-east MP, I have been approached by a number of the companies that hope to bid for the east coast line, all of which are backed by foreign countries. Why does the Secretary of State think that it is not okay for the Government to run British railways, but it is okay for the French, German and Dutch to run them?
Mr McLoughlin
I think I pointed out clearly in the statement the vast growth we have seen in the railways. I do not think that that would have happened without privatisation. We have seen levels of investment that were not seen beforehand. I point out to the hon. lady the simple fact that I inherited the system of franchising that operated under the previous Government.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Can he give a bit more detail on how he will increase competition and improve efficiency on the railways?
Mr McLoughlin
Reading station, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, has seen a major refurbishment. That will make a huge difference. There will be closures over Easter, but more platforms will open and the work at the station will conclude in two years. About £800 million has been invested. We would not be investing that kind of money if we were not getting a good return for the passenger, his constituents and those who are served further along that line by First Great Western.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Passengers on the east coast main line have twice suffered the catastrophic collapse of a private franchise. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give that whichever company gets the new franchise will not collapse, and will the railway headquarters remain in York?
Mr McLoughlin
As for where the headquarters will be, that will depend on the case that is put forward by the various companies that I hope will compete for the franchise. The hon. Gentleman is right: two franchises collapsed under the previous Government, so that and this Government have both had some problems with franchising. I hope we have learnt our lessons. The rail industry has become a lot better at competing for these franchises.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Secretary of State rightly spoke of the innovation and ambition that he expects from the new franchise companies. Can he assure me that that innovation and ambition will extend to providing services off the east coast main line, most notably to Cleethorpes?
Mr McLoughlin
I am certainly willing to discuss in greater detail with my hon. Friend the services to his constituency, which I know have been very badly disrupted because of earth movements, which must be put right; the work is taking longer than we would have hoped.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that success on the railways has been achieved because of privatisation. The rolling stock in east Lancashire must be among the worst in the UK—it is absolutely dreadful. Privatisation has certainly not worked. The northern franchise is coming up, so what will he do to ensure that my constituents and others in east Lancashire benefit from that success?
Mr McLoughlin
A lot of rolling stock has been and is being ordered. I hope to see a roll-out to all areas, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement as a sensible way forward for franchising, but may I urge my right hon. Friend to use the temporary extension of the west coast franchise to urge Virgin and London Midland to work together temporarily to ease overcrowding on services from Euston, in the evening peak at least, until the full franchise is let and London Midland’s new train order comes through?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who follows this subject particularly closely, not just for his constituents but as a member of the Select Committee on Transport. I know that he sent me and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport a fairly comprehensive letter, which I hope to respond to shortly, and I will see what can be done.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
This morning, a statement by the Secretary of State’s own company, Directly Operated Railways, on the east coast main line said:
“Since 2009, the East Coast business has been transformed. The Company has returned more than £640 million in cash to the taxpayer”.
That is not because of privatisation, but because the public sector bailed out the private sector. There is huge support for continued public ownership. The private sector has already let down the travelling public on this route twice. Why risk it again when we are returning so much money to the taxpayer?
Mr McLoughlin
I was simply referring to what was said by the Secretary of State in the previous Government. It was a short-term measure. By putting out the franchise to the private sector, there will be better services. That is what I am interested in. I am not particularly interested in who owns it. I am interested in getting better services to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, who want to take advantage of them.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Although I welcome the new station for Derbyshire, can the Secretary of State assure me that it will not be serviced at the expense of two other stations on that line, namely Alfreton and Langley Mill?
Mr McLoughlin
I think that that was a welcome for the new station and for the greater investment. Of course one always has to strike a balance when these cases are put forward, but I think that Ilkeston, Derbyshire county council and my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) made a strong case for why Ilkeston should be successful. The case was judged by a panel that did not include me, and I am very pleased that Ilkeston has been successful.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
So much for the Government’s grand promises to radically change franchising—only three franchises will be let before the next election. Some of the extension periods are enormous, following the extensions that operators have already had. What guarantees has the Secretary of State had that there will be investment by those companies during the extension periods?
Mr McLoughlin
I can assure the hon. Lady that there will be investment during those periods. In anything where I negotiate directly in awarding contracts, I look at the way services can be improved, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly on some of those particular services.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that Southeastern is consistently one of the worst performing and most expensive train operating companies in the country. Can he therefore explain why it has been given the longest extension—50 months? Can he assure my constituents that the extension is not a reward for failure? What opportunity will passengers have to engage in the process of direct awards as it is finalised?
Mr McLoughlin
None of these direct awards will be made without getting the maximum we can out of the companies, talking to them and getting improvements in services. Where there have been let-downs, I will certainly want the companies concerned to address those problems.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
May I suggest to the Secretary of State that there is indeed a public sector comparator for Britain’s railways: the nationalised railway systems on the continent of Europe? McNulty found that they are up to 40% cheaper to run than ours. We have the highest fares in Europe and a ballooning public subsidy. Is not keeping the railways in the private sector just driven by ideology and a desire to put public money into private pockets?
Mr McLoughlin
I am somewhat surprised—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was expressing support for the McNulty recommendation that we should take costs out of the railways. I did not expect such support from the hon. Gentleman, but any help I can get, I am always happy to bag.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
The First Great Western franchise runs old trains with no wi-fi, and often no food, through run-down stations. Commuters in Cornwall and Devon would welcome average-speed rail, let alone high-speed rail. What can the Secretary of State do to push investment in this route before July 2016?
Mr McLoughlin
I know the hon. Gentleman was unable to attend my meeting with First Great Western because of other engagements. I am very keen to improve services, particularly in his part of the country. I am going there in a little while to look at those services first hand, and I will certainly pass on the representations he has made when I have discussions with First Great Western—and Network Rail, as both are involved.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Can the Secretary of State give a cast-iron guarantee that any east coast main line franchisee will at the very least be obliged to retain the existing level of service north of Edinburgh through my constituency to Aberdeen?
Mr McLoughlin
That is something I need to talk to the Scottish Government about.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I welcome the certainty today’s statement brings and the opening of the east coast main line franchise. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that passenger gain will be at the forefront of the franchising process?
Mr McLoughlin
I assure my hon. Friend that we are going to take passengers’ views very much into account in this system. That has not happened before, and today Passenger Focus has welcomed that development. It is part of the judgement that we must make when considering whether franchises are achieving their targets.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that tomorrow, to mark the 50th anniversary of Beeching, passenger groups and trade unions will demonstrate outside 80 railway stations against privatisation and job losses? Will he protect passenger safety and rule out job losses on the railways?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not sure the hon. Lady was listening to my statement. I pointed out that we have had a better safety record on our railways in the past few years than for a number of years, and we are one of the safest rail operators in Europe. Jobs have been created as a result of more people using the railways. Privatisation has doubled the number of people using the railways. I would have expected the hon. Lady to welcome that, and unions to be out welcoming it too.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
In the light of the 27-month extension that has been given to the Greater Anglia franchise, what improvements to services will be appended to the existing franchise as a condition, so that local commuters see improvements to the service before the next franchise comes up?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, along with colleagues from the Greater Anglia area, have given me a pamphlet setting out the changes being made. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), does not lose an opportunity to tell us how we must improve the services used by not only my hon. Friend’s constituents, but his.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) was disturbing. He said that he was not bothered who would run the franchise or where they came from, and could not confirm where such a company would be headquartered. Can he not use the tendering process to ensure that these details are nailed down and that the headquarters are in the United Kingdom?
Mr McLoughlin
I fear that the hon. Gentleman is taking me out of context. What I said was that my main concern is the service to the passenger, which I care very much about and want to see improve. The location of the headquarters will be up to the individual franchisees when they put their case forward, and they may make strong representations.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State and I, and our constituents, use the midland main line. Will he confirm when the franchise is up for renewal, and will he allow prospective bidders to come forward with proposals for new electric trains, instead of the Department insisting that they use recycled trains from other lines?
Mr McLoughlin
The date of the new contract for East Midlands will be mid-way through 2017, and a direct-operated tender deal will come to fruition in 2015. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that the fact that electrification of that line is included in next set of Network Rail works shows our commitment to it. I know how important—
Mr McLoughlin
The hon. Lady says that, but the process starts in 2014, which is in this Parliament. I can assure her that 2014 will be in this Parliament, not the next Parliament, in which case we will be electrifying that line.
Mr Speaker
Before she attends to her next pressing commitment, let us hear from Catherine McKinnell.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with the Secretary of State that if our country is to compete on jobs and growth, we need a transport infrastructure that is second to none. Can he therefore reassure me that today’s announcement is in no way driven by the view expressed by the chief executive of the North Eastern local enterprise partnership that there is no need to invest in north-east transport, and that he does not share that view?
Mr McLoughlin
There is every need to invest in transport across the United Kingdom, and LEPs have a very important role to play. I have not seen the exact quote, and I should like to see it in context.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today’s statement, particularly the great news about Ilkeston station, which will immediately transform and regenerate the area by providing connectivity. Is this the new dawn for the National Forest line—the old Ivanhoe line; can we look forward to that, too?
Mr McLoughlin
I am sure I will hear a lot more about the Ivanhoe line from my hon. Friend. I am pleased that she welcomes the opening of the station at Ilkeston, along with the other two stations I have announced today. There will be further work on that, but she is right: the fact that I, as Transport Secretary, have appeared at the Dispatch Box today is a reflection of Members wanting more services. That is why it is so important that we get the investment levels right and the train companies operating the kind of services passengers want.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the open access slot on the east coast main line will still be available to services such as Hull Trains and will not be rolled up in any franchise tender document?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Wiltshire’s passenger rail offer stands to benefit from a multi-million pound grant from the coalition Government’s local sustainable transport fund. Now that the future of the franchise is clear, what is the Secretary of State’s advice to the promoter, Wiltshire council, and to First Great Western? Is it more “wait and see”, or that they should now get on with it?
Mr McLoughlin
I think I would need a bit more notice before answering that question. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I will look at the issues in more detail. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), says, “Just get on with it.”
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Thameslink and Southern Railway recently announced new rolling stock to operate from the four stations within my constituency. Can he assure me that the changes to rail franchising announced today will not affect the delivery of that rolling stock?
Mr McLoughlin
It certainly should not affect the delivery of the new trains. I know of no reason why it should and if I am wrong, I will obviously write to my hon. Friend.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Portsmouth’s experience of franchises awarded under the last Government was that the rolling stock was downgraded from the agreement. When will passenger comfort and service standards be written into the agreements, to ensure that passengers have access to a toilet and that commuters are not crippled by suburban rolling stock being used on main line routes?
Mr McLoughlin
I am very disturbed to hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will certainly look into her points and get back to her in more detail in the very near future.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
There have been massive improvements on the west coast main line since privatisation and Virgin, but one way to improve things in the future—to continue improving competition and to keep down costs—would be by encouraging more operators to enter the market. Is there anything in my right hon. Friend’s statement that would encourage open access operators to come in on more existing services?
Mr McLoughlin
There are some open access services, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) referred, on the east coast main line. I believe that applications for other open access services are with the Office of the Rail Regulator at the moment. I am happy to look at those and act on advice when I get it from the rail regulator.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Rail users in Rugby will welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement about the Virgin franchise being extended on the west coast main line. Will he reassure my constituents that an extra 29 months will be enough to encourage Virgin to continue to invest in the railway?
Mr McLoughlin
I know that Virgin is keen to continue with investments on that line and is happy to receive representations, both from my hon. Friend and from me, if good cases are made for investment that has a positive return.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. May I also thank him for reducing train fares in the south-east by reducing the retail prices index plus 3% provision to RPI plus 1%? Under the previous Government, Southeastern had RPI plus 3% whereas the rest of the country had RPI plus 1%, and that was exceptionally unfair.
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The truth is that we are putting massive further investment into the railways. That has to be paid for by both the fare payer and the taxpayer, but it is right that we try to get that balance right. I am pleased that the Chancellor was able to take the increases down to RPI plus 1%, not only for this year, but for next year.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his intent to put the interests of passengers at the heart of rail franchising. The best interests of rail passengers in my constituency would be served by the reinstatement of fast off-peak services to Nuneaton, which were taken away by the previous Labour Government in 2008. Will he come to Nuneaton and meet me to discuss this vital issue at greater length?
Mr McLoughlin
I am certainly more than happy to meet my hon. Friend at Nuneaton station. I believe that a date is going in my diary this afternoon—if it was not already, it will be now.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Suffolk commuters will be disappointed by the delay, although they are used to it as passengers, even though things have improved under Abellio. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this will not deter or delay the needed investment in the freight line from Felixstowe to Nuneaton?
Mr McLoughlin
The announcements I have made today will have nothing to do with the freight line. Again, I make the point to my hon. Friend that we are seeing not only an increase in passenger numbers, but a huge increase in the amount of freight using our railways—I believe that the figure is about 60%. I know that most colleagues and the general public welcome that very much.
Mr Speaker
Order. Questions from 34 Back Benchers were answered by the Secretary of State in 25 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, which is an impressive record. Might I suggest that rather than sending his ministerial colleagues an Easter egg, the Secretary of State should send a DVD of the statement and the exchanges on it, which will be a great example for them to follow in the future?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman wants to raise a point of order, but I am afraid that he will have to be patient. There is another statement, and statements come before points of order, as the hon. Gentleman, having been here 11 years, should know.
UK Border Agency
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I think the words “follow that one” come to mind, Mr Speaker.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of the UK Border Agency. Since 2010, the Government have been getting to grips with the chaotic immigration system we inherited. We have introduced a limit on economic migration from outside the EU, cut out abuse of student visas and reformed family visas—as a result, net migration is down by a third. We have also started to get to grips with the performance of the organisations that enforce our immigration laws: through the Crime and Courts Bill, we are setting up a National Crime Agency with a border policing command; the UK Passport Service continues to operate to a high standard; and since we split the Border Force from UKBA last year, 98% of passengers go through passport control within target times and Border Force meets all its passenger service targets.
However, the performance of what remains of UKBA is still not good enough. The agency struggles with the volume of its casework, which has led to historical backlogs running into the hundreds of thousands; the number of illegal immigrants removed does not keep up with the number of people who are here illegally; and while the visa operation is internationally competitive, it could and should get better still. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has published many critical reports about UKBA’s performance. As I have said to the House before, the agency has been a troubled organisation since it was formed in 2008, and its performance is not good enough.
In truth, the agency was not set up to absorb the level of mass immigration that we saw under the last Government. That meant that it has never had the space to modernise its structures and systems, and get on top of its work load. I believe that the agency’s problems boil down to four main issues: the first is the sheer size of the agency, which means that it has conflicting cultures and all too often focuses on the crisis in hand at the expense of other important work; the second is its lack of transparency and accountability; the third is its inadequate IT systems; and the fourth is the policy and legal framework within which it has to operate. I want to update the House on the ways in which I propose to address each of those difficulties.
In keeping with the changes we made last year to the UK Border Force, the Government are splitting up the UK Border Agency. In its place will be an immigration and visa service, and an immigration law enforcement organisation. By creating two entities instead of one, we will be able to create distinct cultures. The first will be a high-volume service that makes high-quality decisions about who comes here, with a culture of customer satisfaction for business men and visitors who want to come here legally. The second will be an organisation that has law enforcement at its heart and gets tough on those who break our immigration laws.
Two smaller entities will also mean greater transparency and accountability, and that brings me to the second change I intend to make. UKBA was given agency status in order to keep its work at an arm’s length from Ministers—that was wrong. It created a closed, secretive and defensive culture. So I can tell the House that the new entities will not have agency status and will sit in the Home Office, reporting to Ministers. In making these changes it is important that we do not create new silos. That is why we are creating a strategic oversight board for all the constituent parts of the immigration system—immigration policy, the UK Passport Service, the UK Border Force and the two new entities we are creating. That oversight board will be chaired by the Home Office permanent secretary.
We will also work to make sure that each of the organisations in the immigration system shares services, including IT, because the third of the agency’s problems is its IT. UKBA’s IT systems are often incompatible and are not reliable enough. They require manual data entry instead of automated data collection, and they often involve paper files instead of modem electronic case management. So I have asked the permanent secretary and Home Office board to produce a new plan, building on the work done by Rob Whiteman, UKBA’s chief executive, to modernise IT across the whole immigration system.
The final problem I raised is the policy and legal framework within which UKBA has operated. The agency is often caught up in a vicious cycle of complex law and poor enforcement of its own policies, which makes it harder to remove people who are here illegally. That is why I intend to bring forward an immigration Bill in the next Session of Parliament that will address some of these problems.
The changes I have announced today are in keeping with the successes of this Government’s reforms so far. We are reducing net migration and we are improving the performance of the organisations that enforce our laws, but UKBA has been a troubled organisation for so many years. It has poor IT systems, and it operates within a complicated legal framework that often works against it. All those things mean that it will take many years to clear the backlogs and fix the system, but I believe the changes I have announced today will put us in a much stronger position to do so. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Today we have had a statement made rather in haste by the Home Secretary after yesterday’s major speech from the Prime Minister barely mentioned these reforms. Only after the Prime Minister’s speech was dismissed in the media as “smoke and mirrors”, as “unravelling” and as allowing “politics to trump policy” and only after yesterday’s damning report from the Home Affairs Committee on the effectiveness of the UK Border Agency has the Home Secretary suddenly decided to rush this statement out before the Easter recess.
The Home Secretary is right that action is needed to sort out problems at UKBA, which has had a series of problems over many years. We would have some sympathy with her proposals, but the problem is that she refuses to recognise that problems with enforcement and effectiveness at UKBA have got worse, not better on her watch. Enforcement has got worse, visa delays have got worse and 50% fewer people are being refused entry at ports and borders. She says that the number of illegal immigrants removed does not keep up with the number who are here illegally, but that is because she is letting rather more of them in. The number of people absconding through Heathrow passport control has trebled and the number being caught afterwards has halved on her watch.
We have had a 16% drop in the number of foreign prisoners deported, we have had a big drop in the number of employers being fined for employing illegal workers, and what is her remedy today? She plans to split UKBA into two different organisations. We have been here before. She has already split UKBA once: just 12 months ago she split it into the Border Agency and the Border Force and made a lot of promises. The Minister for Immigration would like us to believe that it has all gone hunky dory and that things are much better since then, but what has happened since last year’s split? Queues at the borders went up and the Border Force presided over some of the longest queues our airports have seen, with people waiting more than two hours to get their passports checked.
Things got worse at the Border Agency, too. The Select Committee’s report showed a 20% increase in the backlog of asylum cases in three months, a 53% increase in number of asylum cases waiting more than six months compared with the previous year, an increase in delays for tier 1 and tier 4 in-country visa applications compared with the previous three months and 59,000 cases not even entered on the database. As the Committee said, 28,000 visa applications were not processed on time in one three-month period—that is two thirds of visa applications not processed on time. In the words of the Committee:
“The Agency must explain to Parliament what has gone wrong throughout 2012”.
The Home Secretary’s reforms and her cuts are what have gone wrong throughout 2012, so why should we believe that the latest round of reforms will do any better?
The Home Secretary has cut UKBA’s budget by 34% since the election, so little wonder it is struggling to keep up. Will she answer the following questions? When will the reforms be completed and how much they will cost? Her last reforms to split the Border Force and the Border Agency cost money rather than saving money. How many more illegal migrants will be deported as a result of the reforms? The figure has dropped by 20% since the election. How much will it increase by as a result of the reforms? How long will legitimate migrants have to wait for their visas? Will those delays be cut or will they increase? How long will the waits on asylum claims be? There was a 50% increase in long waits last year. What will she get that down to? These are the practical questions to which we want answers.
So far under this Home Secretary, the only strategy we have had for border control has been cuts and cuts, splits and splits. But performance has got worse. When she was in opposition, she said to a former Immigration Minister:
“I’m sick and tired of government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”
So, will she recognise the things that have gone wrong since the election on her watch and give us practical information about and targets for putting them right and tell us what the improvements in performance will be?
We have had a lot of rhetoric on immigration from the Home Secretary but—this is really important—we need her to get the basics right and to do it now.
Mrs May
I am afraid to say that, yet again, we received a characteristic response from the shadow Home Secretary. We still have not had an apology for Labour’s mass uncontrolled immigration, and we have had no apology today for the state in which the previous Labour Government created and then left the Border Agency.
I can reveal to the House today, however, that the shadow Home Secretary now has an immigration policy. In a recent article for PoliticsHome, she said:
“We need much stronger action against illegal immigration to be a priority.”
I am sure that everyone in the House would agree, but how does the shadow Home Secretary propose to get there? We need, she said, a “taskforce”. So, that is it. That is how the Opposition think that we will get control of our immigration system: the classic new Labour solution of a taskforce.
After all the comments the right hon. Lady made, let us remember who we have to thank for the structure that is being dealt with today. The plans to create UKBA were set out in a paper published by the Cabinet Office in November 2007. Who was the Minister for the Cabinet Office at the time? None other than her boss, the Leader of the Opposition.
The right hon. Lady cited a number of figures and raised a range of issues. She referred to the fact that, to use her terms, two thirds of visas were not processed on time. I have news for her: more than 90% of visas are processed within the performance target time. She referred to clearing up the backlogs, which originated with the Government of whom she was a member. I will respond to the point, nevertheless. The structural changes that we are making today will make for better-run organisations with greater clarity and greater focus, with more transparency, more accountability and stronger management. That, as we have seen with the Border Force, will deliver better performance; but it is not the only answer, which is why I have also referred to the need for us to change the law, deal with the IT systems and improve the processes in the organisation. It will take time, but today’s announcements are an important start.
The right hon. Lady made a number of references to the Border Force and its performance. Until I took the Border Force out of UKBA last year, it was not possible to tell what its performance was. The Vine report, published last year, showed that checks were being suspended routinely and without permission for many years. That is no longer the case, thanks to the changes that I made.
The right hon. Lady cited numerous statistics about the performance of the Border Agency, but I suggest that she should have listened to my statement. I know that the performance of the Border Agency is not good enough. It never has been. That is why we are making the changes that I have announced today. The question for the right hon. Lady is whether or not she supports those changes.
The right hon. Lady asked when the changes will be made. The agency status will be removed at the beginning of April, and I shall return to the House with a further statement on the detail of the structural changes in due course. She said that there had been no reference until today to the possibility of changes to UKBA, but that is not right. If she had paid attention during Home Office questions yesterday, she would have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration refer to the fact that I would bring forward proposals. The Prime Minister also referred to that fact in his excellent speech on immigration yesterday.
The right hon. Lady suggested that I have made this statement only in response to the report from the Home Affairs Committee that was published yesterday, but the decision has been taken after many hours of serious work over many months. If I restructured UKBA every time the Select Committee criticised it, I would have restructured it on more than one occasion. [Hon. Members: “Quarterly.”] My hon. Friends are suggesting that we would have done so quarterly, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is a member of that Committee and knows that the restructurings would have been rather more numerous than the one that I am suggesting today.
We must remember why the Border Agency got into this situation. After the mess that the previous Government made of the immigration system, John Reid turned up at the Home Office, called the immigration system not fit for purpose and, instead of fixing it, turned it into an agency at arm’s length to keep all the trouble away from Ministers. That was a soundbite with no substance; but under the right hon. Lady, the Labour party is regressing, as she does not even have a soundbite. The Government have a very clear plan to get net migration down to the tens of thousands and to sort out the enforcement of our immigration laws. The Opposition have nothing. She is not serious; they are not serious; and the British people know that they cannot trust Labour with immigration.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House that, notwithstanding the notable interest in this statement, it is to be followed by three debates, to which no fewer than 48 hon. and right hon. Members wish to contribute, so there is a premium on brevity.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take absolutely no advice from the Labour party, which delivered massive net immigration and an asylum backlog of 450,000 and put in no transitional arrangements for eastern Europeans when it was in office. I congratulate her on applying common sense by taking back responsibility at ministerial level for the security of this country’s borders. Can she confirm that placing the new bodies that she has announced today under the direct supervision of Ministers will ensure the maximum scrutiny of the work that they do?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks. I can indeed confirm that we will be increasing scrutiny of the work that is done in relation to the immigration and visa system and immigration enforcement by bringing it into the Home Office, under a board chaired by the permanent secretary and reporting to Ministers. It is common sense and the right approach to deal with the problem caused by the creation of the agency under the previous Government.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Home Secretary on putting the United Kingdom backlogs agency out of its misery by delivering this lethal injection today? May I join her in paying tribute to colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), for their work over the years in exposing the agency’s shortcomings? I put this option to the Minister for Immigration yesterday and he said that he would reflect on it, so coming back in 24 hours is quite an achievement. Will the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that uppermost in her mind will be the clearing of backlogs, strong and effective leadership and strong parliamentary scrutiny? Only then will we have an immigration system in which the British people can have confidence.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I said, the Home Affairs Committee has been assiduous in its consideration of matters relating to UKBA over the years and has had a consistent message about the need to deal with some of the problems. It is obviously important that we deal with backlogs. It is also important that we ensure that the agency makes the right decisions on an ongoing, day-to-day basis, that those decisions are made not just appropriately but fairly and that people are dealt with properly when they interact with the agency. That will take some time. I think that we share an aim about the quality of system provided, but it will take some time to ensure that we fix all the problems UKBA is having to deal with.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she say something about the staff, from Mr Whiteman, whom the Home Affairs Committee will see at 3 o’clock to discuss his terms and role, to staff across the agency? We have recently returned from Abu Dhabi, where they seem to have turned around the visa processing unit. I think that there are really good people in UKBA who just need to be better led.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it gives me an opportunity to say that many people working for UKBA are dedicated officers who do an excellent job. Certainly, in some of the examples that he and other members of the Home Affairs Committee will have seen, such as the overseas operations, real change has been brought about. The work of the vast majority of staff in the areas of enforcement or the immigration and visa system will not change, but there will of course be change for the directors general heading up those two operations. Obviously, those are personnel matters on which the permanent secretary will make announcements in due course.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to take the agency back into the Home Office, which I think is the right one. Which of the new units will inherit responsibility for dealing with the backlogs, and how will she ensure that this does not become yet another opportunity to loose case files, passports and other documents in the ritual buck passing with which we have all become too familiar?
Mrs May
The differentiation between the two units will be clear: the immigration and visa section will deal with decisions on whether people should be entitled to enter or remain in the UK; and at the point at which those cases are closed and people need to be removed, cases pass to the enforcement part of the operation. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on bringing the agency back into the Home Office—I suggest that he has more of a policy on the issue than Labour Front Benchers. We are very conscious that it is important to work out that separation, which is why I think that this clear-cut separation will help us to ensure that we do not see the sort of losses of files, passports and so forth that we have seen previously, so we have to look at the processes, too.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It will be a pleasure for the Home Affairs Committee no longer to have to report quarterly on ongoing problems within UKBA. I congratulate the Home Secretary on her decisive action. For too long the agency has stood in the way of a coherent, fair and credible immigration policy. My concern is that in 2006 the immigration and nationality directorate was spun out of the Home Office because it was not fit for purpose, had a vast backlog and was poorly led. We now have an agency that is still not fit for purpose, still has a vast backlog and still has leadership problems. How can she be so sure that it will work this time?
Mrs May
We have spent considerable time looking at what the right structure is for the agency. We have had the experience of working with the Border Force. If we look at its operation today, we see that it is in a different place from where it was previously. That experience has shown that if we can create a smaller entity that has a clearer management and focus on its activities, we can make progress, and that is exactly what we are doing by splitting the agency in this way.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Is it not true that part of the problem is that ministerial attention has been diverted to policy stunts prepared for prime ministerial statements and speeches? Can the Home Secretary confirm that ministerial attention has recently been focused on discussions in the inter-ministerial group on barring migrant children from compulsory education? The Department for Education then intervened and the children’s rights adviser said:
“If we were to withdraw the right of education from any children in the UK, regardless of their status, we would be hugely criticised for it by the UN. With the periodic review report due to be submitted in January 2014, this would be very controversial.”
Can the Home Secretary confirm that statement?
Mrs May
We have been looking at public services across the board in relation to what we describe as the pull factors. We have focused on housing, health and the benefits system. We do not propose not having the provision of education for individual children, but the hon. Gentleman’s opening remark, which was that policy changes were about publicity stunts, is far from the truth. We have been sorting out a chaotic immigration system and immigration policy introduced by the previous Government that led to net migration in this country reaching hundreds of thousands a year. We aim to bring it down to tens of thousands. We have already seen net migration cut by a third. That is not a publicity stunt; it is a real benefit and a policy that the people of this country want to see.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Does she agree that one of UKBA’s main problems, apart from the inability to manage its data or communicate it correctly to the Home Affairs Committee, has been an identity crisis? It has tried to be an enforcement agency that pursues criminal investigations, but it has also tried to convey the message that Britain is open for business by offering a friendly customer service. Can she assure us that the new structure will fix that problem?
Mrs May
The aim of the new structure is that the two parts of the Home Office that will be dealing with these two areas of immigration policy will be focused more clearly on the roles within each part. The immigration and visa section will be focused clearly on giving an efficient and effective service on immigration and visa decisions, making the right decisions about who should be able to enter the country, but doing so in a way that gives individuals good customer service. The enforcement section will be able to focus clearly on the enforcement part. We are doing that precisely to get the focus my hon. Friend wants.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
From time to time, high-tech employers in my constituency ask for help with getting visas or work permits for highly skilled workers whom they desperately need for their businesses. If, in future, such workers do not have access to NHS care, there will be an increased cost either on the employer or the employee. Will the Government be reducing national insurance contributions for employers and employees in respect of those workers?
Mr Speaker
It is very hard to see the link with UKBA —[Interruption.] Well, it is a slightly strained connection, but we shall see, if the Home Secretary wants to give a brief reply.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the immigration Bill that the Government will introduce in the next Session will seek to ensure that those who have no right to be within the jurisdiction are removed from it? Does she not think it a pity that the shadow Home Secretary does not have the same perspicacity as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Home Secretary alluded to the setting up of the National Crime Agency with the border police command. Will she reassure the House that there will be ongoing discussions to try to ensure that the entirety of the United Kingdom is safeguarded, particularly the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?
Mrs May
I recognise, Mr Speaker, that my referring to the National Crime Agency opened up the possibility for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am well aware of the operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that the agency is able to do the job that it needs to do across the United Kingdom, and we are happy to continue discussions with those who share the same aim.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement. Should not UKBA now join the long list of Labour’s immigration failures, including the Human Rights Act 1998, an immigration backlog of 450,000, out-of-control and increasing net immigration and a total lack of control of eastern European immigration?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes very good points. It is precisely because of the difficulty that Opposition Front Benchers have in defending their poor record on immigration that we hear them trying to go on the party political attack rather than accepting the necessary decisions to deal with our immigration system.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Home Secretary confirm her estimates of the cost of her reorganisation and whether it will be met from existing budgets?
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that until the shadow Home Secretary apologises for Labour’s shambolic immigration policy when in government, anything that she or her party says on immigration lacks any credibility whatsoever?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is always a most courteous Member, but his question suffers from the notable disadvantage that the Home Secretary has absolutely no responsibility for the matter in question. She is responsible for the Government’s policy but does not have any responsibility for the policy of the Opposition.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
As the Home Secretary’s colleague, the Minister for Immigration, knows, I have been dealing with the case of Gordon Murray, a local councillor and college lecturer from Stornoway, who is trying to get his pregnant Chinese wife and unborn child from China to the Hebrides before she is unable to fly. The Minister has been very helpful—Gordon Murray and I are grateful for that—but he was bequeathed a system that is excessively bureaucratic and intimidatory and, in this case, is still cruelly dividing this family. Can we have, as Mr Murray has asked, a system that puts people’s needs at the centre rather than numbers and quotas?
Mrs May
I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has been dealing with this case. I want the immigration and visa part of the Home Office, as it will now become, to focus on customer service, but, of course, against the background of making the right decisions for individuals who apply to come to the UK.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Many of my constituents work at the UK Border Agency in Leeds, as do many other people across Leeds. Will the Home Secretary reiterate what these changes mean to the people who work there? Will she comment on how they will be able to do their job more effectively and get the results that they strive to achieve?
Mrs May
We do not intend that as a result of these changes there will be changes to any of the UKBA’s current sites. Most people will continue to do the job that they have been doing. As I have said, many staff are doing that assiduously and with the right commitment. It should be easier for them to do their job in the future because that part of the organisation, when within the Home Office, will have a much clearer focus but will also be making decisions that will enable us to improve the IT system and the processes within the organisation.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee discovered a backlog of some 33,000 legacy asylum cases and found that 59,000 cases have not even been entered on to the computer system. Is not one of the major reasons for that the loss of staff and resources presided over by the Home Secretary since mid-2010? Will she pledge not to be so comprehensively out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor in the next spending review as she so clearly was in the previous one?
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Although we always find that we get great personal service from individual members of UKBA, she knows, because I have raised it with her before, that many people in my central London constituency find themselves frustrated by some of the current arrangements. Can she assure me that the new arrangements will make it easier for some high-performing people to get their visas more quickly and thus send a keen pro-business message?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that in the House, as she has done with me directly. We certainly intend to ensure that the service provides a premium service for business people and others who may need to come here on a faster basis. Indeed, we are setting up in India the first super-premium service, which will provide a 24-hour visa service for individuals who need it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. One of the biggest complaints in my office about the UK Border Agency is the processing of visas and passports, which often takes up to 12 months. Staff are always helpful, and we appreciate that, but what assurance can she give to my constituents, who are totally frustrated with the delays that they face?
Mrs May
I am very conscious that this is one of the issues that we have needed to address in relation to the processing of applications. Particular concerns have been raised with us about the length of time that it has been taking to process business applications for tier 2 workers to come to the UK. That is currently being dealt with inside UKBA. I believe that having a clearer focus on that part of the business, but also working overtime to improve the IT systems and processes within it, will lead to the sort of outcome to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Given that most asylum seekers come to our shores via other nations, what happened to the previous convention of returning these people to the last safe country from which they came? If that has lapsed, can we bring it back through the immigration Bill that the Home Secretary has promised?
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
We all see in our surgeries lots of cases—sometimes dozens or hundreds of cases—of bona fide applicants who are waiting months and months, sometimes years and years, beyond the guidelines to get their applications dealt with. Can the Home Secretary assure us that the changes will lead to improvements in the near future for these people? We do not want this reorganisation merely to lead to more interim delay while it is put into effect.
Mrs May
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about ensuring that the reorganisation does not lead to further problems in the short term. Like the longer-term changes to IT systems and processes, it is intended to try to deal with precisely some of the problems that he identified regarding the length of time taken to make decisions.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the new system will quickly implement judicial decisions to deport foreign criminals back to their countries?
Mrs May
A number of problems are encountered when trying to deport foreign national prisoners back to their country of origin. The new enforcement command in the Home Office will be able to put greater focus and emphasis on the removal of those who no longer have a right to be here and the deportation of foreign national offenders who should be removed. There are other issues in such cases and those will be dealt with in the immigration Bill that I intend to bring forward.
Points of Order
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for standing pre-emptively earlier on. I was so excited by the number of statements and was wondering where the missing one was. Ash dieback is the biggest tree disease to hit this country since Dutch elm, and it has spread to 427 sites around the UK. We welcome today’s publication of the Chalara management plan, but it is available only on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website. The Government have briefed the press about the publication of the plan but have not informed the House about it, despite undertaking to present it to the House. I ask for your advice once again, Mr Speaker, on how the House can hold the Executive to account when they fail to deliver on what they have promised, which on this occasion was to bring the Chalara management plan that deals with ash dieback to the House for its consideration? Instead, it is only out there for the press and on the DEFRA website.
Mr Speaker
I am sorry to learn of what the hon. Gentleman has described in his point of order. What I would say to him is twofold. First, the Deputy Leader of the House is present on the Treasury Bench and will have heard the point that he has made. Secondly, there will be an opportunity in the upcoming general debate before the Adjournment for Members to raise this matter if they so wish. No other obvious remedies are available today, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have recourse to the Order Paper via the Table Office, I feel sure that he will do so.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I tabled a round robin question on 4 December last year asking how many computers, mobile telephones, BlackBerrys and other pieces of IT equipment had been lost or stolen in 2010-11 and 2011-12. I have received answers from every Department apart from the Cabinet Office. It was due to answer on 6 December. I chased an answer on 16 January and expected an answer on 21 January. I raised the matter at business questions on 7 February and the Leader of the House very kindly promised to endeavour to get me an answer. I still have not received an answer. What other options are available to me to try to hold this overbearing Executive to account?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has just deployed one of the options, which is to air the matter on the Floor of the House in the presence and earshot of the Deputy Leader of the House. He has described a regrettable sequence of events. He and other Members know that, from the Chair, I attach great importance to timely and substantive replies to questions to Ministers. In this case, such a reply has clearly not been forthcoming. I hope that that point will speedily be communicated to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude). He or a member of his team should furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information that is required sooner rather than later.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the third point of order about Members trying to bring the Executive to account. There were stories in this morning’s paper that, contrary to the coalition agreement, large subsidies will be paid to the nuclear industry. There is a motion after the ten-minute rule Bill entitled “Financial Assistance to Industry” on which there can be no debate. On making inquiries, I found out that the matter was discussed upstairs. The information available to me is only that the sum is up to £20 million. I can find no details on whether that money will go to the nuclear industry. Is it appropriate that this matter should come before us if it is not possible for Members to discover what precisely it is about or to air our objection that it is anti-democratic and contrary to the coalition agreement?
Mr Speaker
During the next 10 minutes while the ten-minute rule motion is discussed, the hon. Gentleman may wish to avail himself of the opportunity to read the verbatim text of the debate on that matter in Standing Committee. If that does not satisfy him—I am not an optimist in these matters so far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned—he may wish to return to the matter. Whether it was a Standing Committee of which one needed to be a member to contribute, I do not know. If he was not a member of the Committee, I am saddened for him. I cannot offer any compensation for him today, but knowing the hon. Gentleman, he will return to this matter just as predictably as a dog to his bone. We will hear from him on these matters ere long. I know that that is not satisfactory, but that is the best that I can offer him on this, the last day before the Easter recess. If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion. This is the hon. Gentleman’s opportunity to do his reading.
UK Elected Representatives (Disclosure of Party Membership)
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require individuals standing for elected office in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to declare any political party of which they are a member when registering to stand; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is simple. If enacted, it would mean that citizens who stand for elected office in the United Kingdom, whether in the European Parliament, the House of Commons, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or a county, district, town or community council, would have to declare any registered political party membership that they hold at the time that they submit their nomination papers.
The Bill would apply to all of us. Those like myself and the many hon. Members in the Chamber today who are open about their political party membership will have no problem with the Bill. It will confirm to electors what they already know about us as candidates. Those who are genuinely independent of party membership, such as yourself, Mr Speaker, will equally have no problem with the Bill, because they too will be declaring what the public already know. The Bill is aimed at greater transparency for those who stand under the banner of an independent, but who are allied to a political party to the extent that they are a member of it.
The genesis of the Bill goes back some time. When I was first elected to my local council—amazingly, it was 30 years ago in May—I noticed that a genial independent councillor who was elected in a very Tory ward always voted and spoke with Labour. When I asked him about it, he confessed that he was a member of the Labour party, but that he stood as an independent as he would
“never have been elected as Labour”.
I did not think that that was fair then and I do not think that it is fair now. Democracy is surely about people knowing what they are voting for, as far as is practicable.
My interest in this issue was rekindled last year during the police and crime commissioner elections, particularly in my area of north Wales. A number of candidates stood for the post, including Labour, Conservative, UK Independence party and independent candidates. One of the independent candidates for the post was Winston Roddick QC. He was the successful candidate and is now operating as the police commissioner for north Wales. May I say at this point that I wish him well in that post and hope that he does a good job? My concerns are solely about transparency in the election.
I knew of Mr Roddick before he became an independent candidate. He was a well respected senior civil servant in the Welsh Assembly and had twice been a Liberal parliamentary candidate. He was and still is a member of the Liberal Democrats, and yet he put himself forward under the banner of an independent before 500,000 voters in north Wales. That point was raised during the election, but it did not receive a high profile—nor, dare I say it, did the election itself. He received 25,175 votes on the first ballot on a turnout of less than 15% and 36,688 votes on the second and final ballot, and was elected.
Interestingly, by comparison, the Liberal Democrats have never received more than 18,000 votes for the north Wales region in the four Assembly elections, which have had much bigger turnouts. Indeed, in 2011, they got just 11,000 votes on a 40% turnout, compared with Mr Roddick’s 25,000 votes when he stood as an independent. I contend, therefore, that not having a party label helped his cause. The feedback afterwards included a tweet from a constituent of mine, which said:
“I voted for Winston Roddick thinking he was independent and it now turns out he’s a liberal.”
In that case, the winner has said that he will not take the whip. However, my contention is that it is very strange and a little unnerving that a fully paid-up party member can stand as an independent without resigning their membership and not be open about the values that they hold. Mr Roddick says that he was open about his candidature. In that case, I hope that he will support the aims of the Bill.
What happened in north Wales is not unique. In the police and crime commissioner election in Devon and Cornwall, a former chairman of the Devon and Cornwall police authority and head of the Liberal Democrat group on the Association of Police Authorities stood as an independent. Again, there might be good reasons for that—dare I say it, but the public might not want to vote for a Liberal Democrat—but the point is that the individual was a member of the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, I checked the website today, and he is still the leader of the Liberal Democrats on his local council, having not stood as an independent in that election.
The situation in the City of London corporation is the same, with most current councillors sitting as independents, despite being members of political parties. Only last week, an election was held for it, and although some candidates stood with party labels, many stood as independents, even though they had party cards in their back pockets. One independent winner is an officeholder of the City of London Conservative association.
It could be worse. I do not think any of us would be comfortable with the idea of members of parties such as the British National party and others being able to stand as independents and have people vote for them as independents in good faith. In my own constituency in 2004, an individual was elected as an independent, but two years later, when the BNP’s membership was leaked, it turned out that he was a member. I am sure that the voters who put faith in him then might not have done so had they known his party allegiance. Across the country there will very shortly be elections where people will be standing as party members, but also as independents, and it is important that we have clarity and transparency on those issues.
For those who worry about the potential infringement of civil liberties, let me be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not prevent anyone from standing for election or from calling themselves an independent. It does not even prevent people from standing as independent despite being party members. It will, however, inject transparency into the system, so that no one can ever stand again as an independent, be in a party and not declare it. There is nothing wrong with being an independent councillor or MP. It is not my choice, but there is nothing wrong with it. It is deeply worrying, however, that people can stand as independent, despite having a party membership card in their back pocket. It presents a real problem for our democracy, because the values that influence parties might well influence the electorate, and if those values are hidden, the electorate might vote blind on those issues.
I have raised this issue with the Government and had hoped for a positive response. Sadly, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith),has confirmed:
“The Government has no plans to require those wishing to stand as independent candidates to disclose any political party membership they might hold at the time of nomination. It is for prospective candidates to decide whether they wish to stand independently or on behalf of a registered political party.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 498W.]
That is a shame, but I hope that the Bill will be the start of a process that will shed light on this issue and allow the Government to come to a conclusion whereby independents will have to declare party membership if they hold it.
My proposal would add transparency to our democracy and help ensure the public have the information they need to make an informed choice. It will not add undue stress or expense to the election procedure and could be done simply, without the need for a particularly big shake-up of electoral procedures. This small bit of information could go someway to ensuring that voters get what they think they are voting for, rather than for what they are actually voting for without realising it. My proposal would add one small, but important, dimension to the system. It would require that if someone stands as an independent, or under any label, without declaring a party membership, action would need to be taken. I propose that the election be declared void, the member disqualified and a by-election called. I ask for no further penalty than that. I simply ask that those individuals have the opportunity to face the electorate under their true colours.
I believe that people should be public and proud about being members of the Labour party, and should not hide behind the banner of independence, if they hold a party membership. The Bill will provide some transparency. I am sure, as I have said, that there are examples across all parties, so I hope that this is not a party political point. I want transparency for all members. We should be proud of our democracy and how our elections operate. The suppression of such information is not good for our democratic system. I hope and believe that the House will share that view. I am pleased to have secured cross-party support from Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour Members, and I hope that nobody has anything to fear by it. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I had not intended to participate in this debate, but having heard the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I am driven to speak against the motion. I seek not to divide the House, but to put down a marker that the Bill would not have unanimous support. It would be a regulatory Bill cutting across the tradition of independence, particularly in parish and town councils, where people should not have to declare their party allegiance. It is perfectly legitimate that somebody stands for election to a parish or town council on the basis that they are independent, even if they are a member of a political party.
The Bill implies that people who belong to political parties belong only to one political party. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, which he put forward strongly, about the Liberal Democrats being duplicitous—I have no quarrel with him on that—but let us think of students. You, Mr Speaker, were once a student. Many of them join three or more political parties at the freshers fare in order to see which has the most attractive membership. That is a perfectly legitimate objective for many people who join political parties. It would be very confusing to the electorate if one of those students was to declare that they were a member of four political parties. Where would that leave the electorate?
Having heard what the right hon. Gentleman said and having not intended to participate in the debate, all I can say is that I wish him well with the Bill, but I shall be opposing it in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered
That Mr David Hanson, Ian Lucas, John Cryer, Rosie Cooper, Wayne David, Angela Smith, Sir Bob Russell, Mr Philip Hollobone, Craig Whittaker, Mr Virendra Sharma, Andrew Gwynne and Karl Turner present the Bill.
Mr David Hanson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May, and to be printed (Bill 155).
Business without Debate
14:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 128 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Has a Home Office Minister notified you that they intend to make a statement to the House this afternoon? It is being reported in the media that the Home Office has announced plans to change the rules on disclosure of criminal convictions, including removing the need to disclose adult cautions after six years and convictions after 11 years if the person has not been imprisoned. Given that this is an important matter, the House should be consulted on it, so could a Minister clarify the situation?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. I have not been notified that a Home Office Minister or, indeed, any other Minister intends to make a statement to the House today. Should that alter, the House will be informed in the usual way.
Backbench Business
Flood Insurance
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Mr Dominic Raab to move the motion, I inform the House that he will be able to speak for up to 10 minutes with up to two interventions, and there will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, with the usual two interventions.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the Environment Agency’s estimate that 570,000 properties in England and Wales are at significant risk of flooding; recognises the efforts of the insurance industry and past and present governments to reach agreement to ensure flood insurance will be made available to all homes and small businesses beyond June 2013; calls on the insurance industry to negotiate in good faith to conclude those arrangements; and further calls on the Government to acknowledge the need to provide some support for those arrangements and ensure that resilience and adaptation to flood risks and other natural hazards are amongst its highest environmental priorities.
May I first thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and the sponsors of the motion, who represent four parties across the House?
Today’s debate comes just three months before the expiry of the statement of principles agreed by the previous Government with the Association of British Insurers. The statement governs the provision of insurance to properties that are at “significant risk” of flooding—that is, properties that have a one in 75 or greater chance of being flooded in any given year. With the deadline for agreement looming, Ministers and the ABI remain deadlocked in negotiations. The House will be only too aware that the consequences of failing to broker a deal would be devastating.
If we were to move to an entirely free market model it is estimated that 1,113 businesses and homes in my constituency alone would face dramatic hikes in their premiums or even a refusal to insure. Nationwide, 215,000 more homes would face annual insurance premiums of more than £750. For owners who could not obtain affordable insurance, the risks are worse still. With a typical flood causing between £20,000 and £40,000 of damage per property, many small businesses and families would face crushing costs. Meanwhile, the Council of Mortgage Lenders warns:
“Uncertainty about the future cost and availability of insurance may affect the ability to sell or obtain a mortgage on a property,”
affecting up to 83,000 homes. Home insurance premiums are already rising as insurers prepare for a worst-case scenario. Constituents in Thames Ditton in my constituency are already reporting steep rises.
We urgently need a new, sustainable, long-term agreement. As far as I am aware, the only proposal on the table is that from the ABI, namely its “Flood Re” insurance scheme.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this very important subject. Does he agree that another factor to consider is the level of excesses that insurance companies charge? If they set the excess at £20,000, the family affected are, in effect, not insured.
Mr Raab
I will not, because I need to make progress and, under the strictures of Mr Deputy Speaker, I will need to give way later.
The “Flood Re” insurance scheme would create a non-profit fund to ensure that cover is available for the 2% of homes that are at significant risk of flooding. Like the current system, the model would be based on cross-subsidisation. High-risk home owners would pay higher premiums, subject to a cap, and benefit from a subsidy levied on lower risk properties. Today that subsidy costs the average property owner about £8 a year—that is the proportion of the insurance premium that they pay. Under “Flood Re” that would rise by an estimated £1. Those owning a band A property at significant risk of flooding would see a 15% increase in their premium, rising to 43% for more expensive homes. The point of the scheme, therefore, is to cushion the most vulnerable. In return, the insurance industry wants the Government to strengthen flood defences, provide access to flood risk assessments and enforce planning regulation on floodplains more rigorously.
The parameters of a balanced deal are emerging. Ministers have, understandably, refused to sign any blank cheques, including for bankrolling “Flood Re” or for providing a temporary overdraft facility underwritten by the taxpayer. That would be difficult to justify at any time, but especially with our public finances under such acute strain.
Mr Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I strongly support the motion and congratulate him on securing the debate. Is it not important to bear it in mind that the insurance companies do not have a completely free hand in this, because they are required by state regulators to secure reinsurance on the risk that they take on? Unless there is some Government participation to cap that risk, it will be impossible to get it at an affordable price and the disaster that our constituents are threatened with will happen.
Mr Raab
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has touched on some of the technical aspects, to which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), will respond. It is clear that the state needs to be involved in this. This cannot be left solely to a free market. Even a free-market MP like me would accept that.
It would be useful if Ministers could today explain their position on the gist of the “Flood Re” proposal, and any concerns they have now that the taxpayer is not being asked to underwrite the overdraft facility. One key issue is the balance of contributions by those owning properties at higher risk and ordinary insurance holders. Have Ministers considered the composition of the board of governors of the fund, and in particular the number and character of members who are independent of both the Government and the industry? How will the Government retain control and accountability over future increases in either the levy or ordinary premiums? Both aspects are important; it is a question of balance.
The “Flood Re” scheme inevitably invites comparison with models used elsewhere. In the United States, the national flood insurance programme is not funded on the basis of cross-subsidisation, but as a result was left $17 billion in the red after Hurricane Katrina. “Flood Re” as a model would avoid a situation in which the British taxpayer covers all losses the market will not insure—the Dutch Government have such a commitment. The “Flood Re” model is somewhere between the US and Dutch models.
Alternative models have been proposed but are not in the negotiating mix between the ABI and the Government at this stage. One alternative presented by Marsh, the insurance broker, would involve mutualisation of 50% of flood claims among all home owners. That would pass back to home owners or the Government the risk of paying the remaining 50% of flood claims. What view have Ministers taken on that alternative?
More broadly, the negotiations on flood insurance shed broader light on the UK’s wider environmental policy. The risks of flooding, which is effectively what we are debating, prompt a simple question: have we got our environmental priorities right? Met Office data show that four of the five wettest years on record have occurred since 2000. The Government’s chief scientist has warned that
“in quite a short time scale…we are going to have more floods, we are going to have more sea surges and we are going to have more storms”.
Strengthening flood defences should therefore be a top priority—both in its own right as a matter of sound policy, but also to contain the rising insurance premiums that have prompted today’s debate—and yet environmental resilience has been relatively low down the pecking order of UK environmental policy for more than a decade. By way of illustration, the cost to businesses and consumers of the inefficient green subsidies to solar and onshore wind through the renewables obligation will be £2.6 billion this financial year. That is almost as much as DEFRA will spend on flooding and coastal defences over the entire five-year period of this Parliament. Those are skewed priorities. The Government ought to place greater emphasis on adapting to the reality of climate change—the environmental here and now—and spend less time speculating on technological winners that hike energy bills, particularly for the squeezed middle, without substantially decarbonising the UK economy.
That points to a more systemic, bureaucratic problem, namely the lack of policy coherence between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and DEFRA since they were separated in 2008 by the previous Government. Too often, DEFRA feels like DECC’s more realistic but poorer cousin, and yet DEFRA is left to pick up the pieces when an environmental crisis strikes. Have Ministers considered re-merging the two Departments? That would integrate policy and realise at least £1 billion from cutting bureaucracy, which could be used to invest in flood defences as well as to pay off the deficit more quickly.
The state has a role to play in managing acute and severe risks such as flooding. We need the Government to provide the right framework to meet UK energy demands, especially through nuclear power and shale gas; to invest in flood and coastal defences; and to strike the right deal with industry, and soon, to protect small businesses and vulnerable homes from soaring insurance premiums. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Rosie Cooper and remind the House that there is a five-minute speech limit.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and agree with most of his comments.
On 7 November 2012 at Prime Minister’s questions, I asked when West Lancashire constituents could expect the Government to introduce plans for a new deal on flood insurance—they had already missed the self-imposed July deadline. The Deputy Prime Minister replied:
“We are devoting a lot of attention to it, and I hope we will be able to make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 859.]
Four months have passed, yet there is no deal and no sign of one.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
As I understand it, we will need primary legislation to introduce the new scheme. It is very late in the day—it is already nearly April—and I wonder whether the scheme will be ready in July and whether something will be in place this summer to replace the statement of principles.
Rosie Cooper
I hope the Minister can give us reassurances on that towards the end of the debate.
As 30 June fast approaches, the people of West Lancashire are less and less assured of the Government’s ability to protect their homes and businesses. From the insurance companies’ point of view, it is not surprising that a deal is yet to be reached. They are faced with an increasing incidence of extreme weather conditions, a greater frequency of flooding, and more homes and businesses being hit. Residents are looking to a future of potentially massively increased insurance premiums that many will be unable to afford, assuming they can get insurance policy cover in the first place. In any case, they will be left at the mercy of mother nature, waiting in fear of the next time devastation is wrought on their home.
Securing what will be a short-term deal on flood insurance is not a solution to all our problems. Fixing the insurance problem is inextricably linked to fixing the underlying flooding issue. For that to happen, we need to have a change in culture in tackling flooding issues.
At the local level, the flooding response co-ordination is shambolic. There is no single agency responsible for actually tackling flooding when it hits. There is no leadership. In my area, Lancashire county council does not even attend meetings when it is asked to attend, abdicating all responsibility for what is going on. When West Lancashire was hit by flooding on several occasions at the end of last year, I met people who had been forced out of their homes. They were angry and upset. Who do they call when the watercourse is overflowing on to the land, and the water is running off the land through their back garden and down on to the highway where the drains cannot cope with the volume? Many were passed from pillar to post, with the message from different agencies as they asked for help as the flood water headed towards their homes, “We can’t do anything until your home is flooded.” That is the very point at which it was too late to save their homes or give them meaningful help. Local farmers were forced to stand by and watch as the flood waters destroyed millions of pounds of food crops. They were ready, willing and able to take the necessary action to clear the ditches and watercourses to protect their land and to protect the crops, but inadequate land management because of budget cuts, a lack of communication and the need to undertake an environmental impact assessment before they could act all but tied their hands.
Across West Lancashire and Sefton, agriculture and horticulture provide employment for more than 2,500 people and generate more than £230 million in gross value added to the regional economy. We cannot afford for flooding not to be addressed. We cannot afford the prices of food in the shops going up because it has been destroyed in the fields.
We need to be more proactive than reactive. The people of West Lancashire do not want to hear from Ministers about the past. The people need to know that there is a real partnership and that money will not be taken from the Environment Agency’s coffers—from one budget to another—leaving depleted budgets. This is happening on Ministers’ watch, and they have responsibility. They have their ministerial jobs, and now homeowners and business owners are looking to them, calling on them to act and to act now.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this timely and important debate. I have 1,627 homes and businesses in my constituency that are at significant risk of flooding. I have visited streets in Abingdon, Kidlington and Oxford where ripped-out carpets, kitchen units and discarded furniture were all piled up and abandoned on pavements in 2007, and that sight is branded on my memory. I guarantee that not a single one of those home owners has forgotten that summer, and since then we have had any number of flood warnings that serve, like tremors after an earthquake, to reawaken the anxiety of that week of flooding and the reconstruction that followed. It cost the county £3 million and the country £3 billion.
For those who live at flood risk, there is no respite. Instead, they live in a constant state of uncertainty, never knowing what our delightful British climate will bring. Uncertainty driven by weather is one thing, but uncertainty that is driven by our response to flood risk is another. Other than by inventing a weather machine we are not going to eliminate flood risk, but we have three, interdependent levers to mitigate flood risk and limit the stress that it brings. Those are flood insurance, flood defences and individual property and community resilience.
Whether people are rampant climate sceptics or paid-up members of the Green party, most studies show clearly that changing weather patterns mean that flooding is on the increase, while population increases and poor planning have exacerbated the problem dramatically. We will have to get better at using those levers to mitigate that risk. In particular, overloaded infrastructure, such as drainage capacity, is leaving increasing numbers of constituents at the mercy of not only notoriously hard-to- respond-to surface water, but revolting episodes of effluent flooding. I am aghast that in this day and age I have constituents who have to cope with sewage coming into their homes simply because it is raining. We are supposed to be living in a highly developed country. The worst thing is that the insurance situation means that they feel gagged because they do not want to put their local property market at risk.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s description of seeing homes in her constituency flooded reminds me of the problems I saw in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on 10 and 11 June, when more than 300 homes were flooded. Does she share my view that in addition to the flood insurance issue, we need to spend sufficient capital to ensure that the surface drainage system is sufficient to mitigate such problems when heavy rainfall occurs?
Nicola Blackwood
I agree that infrastructure is vital. I believe deeply that many of the problems we face today stem from an inherited legacy of bad planning.
Nicola Blackwood
My right hon. Friend—ish—the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) knows how difficult it can be to get accountability and solutions for constituents when responsibility falls between the Environment Agency, local authorities and Thames Water, and he might want to comment on that point.
Mr Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend-ish for giving way.
Flood waters are no respecters of constituency boundaries and we work closely on these issues. On planning, does the hon. Lady agree that, given that successive Governments and councils of all complexions have allowed so much development on the floodplain, it is perfectly proper for the state to pick up some of the responsibility by participating in insurance schemes, such as “Flood Re”, which are the only way to protect our constituents from unaffordable premiums?
Nicola Blackwood
Clearly, it is vital that flood insurance continues to be widely available and affordable, a point I will come to in a moment. Although there is frustration about the responsibility of different agencies working together to respond to constituents, the emergency response to flood events locally since 2007 has improved dramatically, and there have been positive developments on flood defences in Kidlington and Oxford.
However, none of that addresses the long-term strategic challenges we face, and insurance has to be at the top of that list. That is why, with all the other urgent flooding priorities that we have heard about, we have to focus on the 30 June deadline. That date dominates the lives of far too many of my constituents. They fear that they will suddenly become uninsurable, breach their mortgage conditions and have unsellable properties. While I appreciate that negotiations with the Association of British Insurers have been complex and that there is no easy solution, especially with the current fiscal situation, it is not as if we did not see this coming—it has been coming since the statement of principles was agreed in 2002.
If we are not going to hit the deadline, we need to be clear and transparent with constituents about what will happen between then and any future deal. Until now, the line has been not to undermine negotiations by giving a running commentary on them. That is not unreasonable and had an agreement been reached in time, I think that all would have been forgiven, but people need to know now how to protect themselves. Ministers have been clear about their priorities, which are to ensure that flood insurance remains widely available, affordable and fiscally sustainable. Nobody is going to argue with any of those principles, but they will not help householders to work out how to plan for their financial future.
I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. On the stroke of midnight on 30 June, will we have a free market or will we have some kind of interim extension of the statement of principles? If it is the latter, have there been any discussions about what form it will take? If the Government are going to let the free market emerge in the interim, will Ministers let it be genuinely uncontrolled, with all the pricing risks that holds, or are they considering regulation? If so, what kind of regulation, and how and when? On “Flood Re”, the current cross-subsidy is £8. Yesterday the ABI told me that the proposed levy would also come to £8, but it would have to be formalised as a tax. However, the National Flood Forum brief estimates the levy at £13. What assessment have the Government made of the levy and what mechanism would they need to regulate it? Finally, what measures are being considered to incentivise flood defence investment on a personal, local and national level? That is the only responsible way to manage flood risk on an ongoing basis.
I accept that it takes two to tango. I met the ABI yesterday and I made those points, but I am afraid that today it is the Minister’s turn. My constituents deserve to know whether their homes will be insured in July and on what terms. They deserve at least that measure of certainty, even though they live in a flood-risk zone.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In 2007 my constituency in Hull was badly flooded. Ninety-five per cent. of the city is below sea level, so we have always been prone to flooding, but in 2007 we had surface water flooding, a phenomenon that is now becoming more widespread around the country.
Since 2007, I have on several occasions raised in the House the question of what will happen with flood insurance come the end of June. Last summer, when I asked the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was happening, I was told on the Floor of the House that an agreement was close, that it would be a much better deal, that premiums would be affordable and that there would be no unaffordable excesses either, so I was quite optimistic. That was last summer. Since then I have written to the new Secretary of State and asked him what is happening. I have to say that it is completely unacceptable that the Government have dragged their feet on this issue, which is so important to so many householders up and down the country.
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I know he works hard to ensure that flooding is on the Government’s agenda. My understanding is that the Treasury is now stopping any agreement being reached. I understand that the Treasury has to look carefully at whatever public money has to be set aside or underwritten for any scheme, but time is running out. This is about people’s lives. People in Hull who were flooded in 2007 feel upset that they could be left high and dry come this summer. They have found it difficult to get flood insurance over the last few years. Premiums have gone up considerably and excesses are now very high. I say to the Minister that action needs to be taken.
I was disappointed that there was nothing in the Budget last week to deal with this issue. There were measures to deal with house building and sort out the housing situation, but if the Minister cannot ensure that householders up and down this country can have flood insurance, that will be a considerable blight on the housing market. People will not be able to get mortgages or sell their homes. I feel strongly that the Minister now needs to express to the highest echelons of the Government the view that this has to be a priority. We are now just three months off the statement of principles ending. I do not want to have to tell my constituents that insurance will no longer be available in the city of Hull, so I ask the Government to get on and sort this out, please.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on bringing this motion before the House so that we can focus on the urgency of the situation before us, as we contemplate the ending of the statement of principles and the need to find a new way forward for flood insurance.
I cannot think of many things worse than coming home and finding one’s house inundated with water or being there when it happens. As hon. Members know who have experienced this issue from their constituents’ point of view, it is not just water; it is mud and sewage. It is devastating to have that in the house. However, one thing that is worse is for that to happen three years after the last time, as was the case in Stonehaven in my constituency. The safety net of insurance is one of the long-term securities to which people look to recover from the situation. Obviously we thank the emergency services for all they did and could do on the night to rescue people and mitigate the situation. Indeed, I want to place on record the resilience of the local community in Stonehaven, which rallied round. It was the weekend before Christmas and people were turning up with replacement food for Christmas lunches and replacement gifts for those that the children had lost in the floods. In that sense, it was great to see the community spirit, but the insurance response is the issue of long-term importance.
As hon. Members have mentioned, the issue is going to be of wider interest, as the traditional flood areas are going to grow and the randomness of flooding events is going to increase with climate change, the warming of the atmosphere and its ability to hold more moisture, making more rain-intensive events. It is thus in our collective interest to come up with a solution that deals with flooding, as it is going to be a wider risk, which needs to be shared. Planning and flood defences, which are devolved in Scotland, and individual property protection all make a difference and will help to reduce the risk in the long term. It is impressive to see how individual property flood protection can limit the damage on the night.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
Before entering politics, I spent a lot of time designing sewerage and drainage systems. One thing that needs to be looked at for long-term protection is the design standards that are used. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could collaborate with the civil engineering sector and look to how we could design our standards differently in order to respond to the changes in rainfall patterns that we are seeing?
Sir Robert Smith
It is important for the standards to reflect the reality of what is to come in the future rather than to cope with what was learned in the past. The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The maintenance and clearing of the drains is also important so that they can take the surge when it comes. We need to be able to deal with the debris that goes through the system and causes blockages, which often mean that the design specifications have not been met effectively.
Let me reinforce the point that insurance is a collective risk. As insurance companies have become more sophisticated with their computers and marketing, the risk base on which individual premiums are based becomes narrower and narrower. Coming up with the solution where we all as a society bear some of the risk of flooding because we do not know where it will strike next seems to provide an important way forward. June 2013 is not far away, so I hope the Minister will go away from this debate recognising the urgency of the situation: we must provide a solution and people must know how and when it is going to be taken forward. As has been said, if people want to continue to mortgage their houses, they must have insurance, and if new people are to move into a house, they need to able to insure it and to avoid any blight on the property.
Sir Robert Smith
Yes, and the much higher excesses are difficult for a lot of people to carry or cover. This is a problem for businesses as well as for domestic properties.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Last summer, some of my Calder Valley constituents were flooded three times over the course of a month, and they experienced exactly the same problem—that under the statement of priorities they are still struggling to get affordable insurance and sometimes to get any insurance at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in that case, the 30 June deadline is perhaps not the highest priority? The highest priority should be getting the right deal for constituents so that they can go forward into the future.
Sir Robert Smith
Both are important. The right deal for those not getting a good enough service out of the statement of principles is extremely important, as is knowing what it is going to happen after the deadline. That is important for everyone affected, as they are going to have to renew their insurance and will have to find an affordable way of doing that. I commend the motion as a way of keeping up the pressure and highlighting our constituents’ perspective that there has to be a serious solution to this problem.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on initiating this timely debate on the Floor of the House. By way of background, I remind Members that on 5 and 6 September 2008 Morpeth—a market town in my constituency—found itself at the centre of the most intensive rainfall in living memory. Some 950 properties in the town, including dozens of businesses, were directly affected. Surrounding villages were hit very hard, too, including Hepscott, which was affected by flash flooding. A number of other properties were badly flooded. The devastation suffered by individuals, families, businesses and the community at large cannot be overstated in any way, shape or form. It was an experience that will haunt their memories for many years.
As we debate the issue today, I am delighted that progress is finally being made in Morpeth. I thank and congratulate Northumberland county council, which has allocated £12 million towards the cost of new flood defences. That money is being delivered with the support and agreement of the three main political parties. It is important to recognise the role that the emergency services have played across the UK, but particularly in Morpeth in my constituency, and the way that they operated to help others during those difficult times. The local community in my constituency, the Morpeth Flood Action Group and many others pulled together, as has happened in the constituencies of many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, in the most difficult of circumstances. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Environment Agency and Ian Hodge, who works at the agency in Newcastle, who has played a huge role in Morpeth.
The problem has been described as immense, but the pooling system—an important component of insurance—will be an integral part of any agreement and, I hope, positive resolution that is reached. The pooling system has been proposed under the “Flood Re” model and the Morpeth model. That system formalises the existing cross-subsidy. It redistributes the risk to keep affordability in place for high-risk properties. It represents the only fair way forward in a changing situation where climate change is giving rise to an increasing number of extreme weather events. The ABI model, the “Flood Re” system and the Morpeth system combine availability with affordability. The “Flood Mu”, or Noah model, does not guarantee that because it does not put a cap on flood premiums.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the insurance industry take into account investment in new flood defence schemes, including the one that he has talked about and the new sea wall at Dymchurch in my constituency? Often insurers base their quotes on generic information that does not take into account investment in new defences.
Ian Lavery
That is a powerful comment, with which I totally agree.
As has been discussed, the ABI has been in discussion with the Government for several months, perhaps years, on the ending of the statement of principles in June 2013. The clock is ticking. The deadline is fast approaching. People want answers. People in Morpeth have been flooded time and again; hon. Members on both sides of the House have described the experiences of people in their constituencies who have suffered greatly time and again. They cannot get affordable insurance. The excesses are higher than what the properties are worth, so it is meaningless.
Time and again, Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the importance of ensuring that we have a statement that will ensure something affordable and accessible is in place when the statement of principles runs out. We have been told time and again that the discussions with the ABI are at a critical point, that the statement is nearly ready and that things are in place. However, The Times this morning said something completely different. It suggested that there are huge difficulties between the ABI and the Government. Perhaps the Minister, for whom I have a lot of time and who has been very helpful, can explain from the Dispatch Box this afternoon where we are with the ABI and what is likely to happen in the next three months. It is absolutely imperative that we get something in place for the people who have been suffering for some time.
I am sure that the Minister will have much more to say, and it is important that we deal with this issue and that measures are put in place. I hope that we will not hear, “We are still in discussions and we cannot really give any more details, because the matter is confidential and that wouldn’t be right.” We want an answer today for everyone who lives in a property on a floodplain. We do not want to hear, “Something will happen.” Give us the answers, so we can tell our constituents what the situation is and they can feel safe.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this very important debate on flood insurance, which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing.
As the Member of Parliament for a constituency that contains two major river courses and surrounds one of the most historic, flood-hit cities in the country, I naturally have constituents who express a great deal of concern about flooding, its impact on the local community and on the availability and affordability of flood insurance. Flood insurance is an issue not only for those who have sadly been flooded, but for those who have not and may never be but are deemed to be in a flood-risk area.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My constituent Sarah McKerlie told me just a few days ago that the sale of her property has fallen through three times because of the ambiguous risk. The current uncertainty is leading to irrational behaviour that does not necessarily relate to insurability. This uncertainty needs to end, so that people can sell their properties. It is a real blight and is causing major distress to many people.
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have a number of constituents in the same boat who bring the same concerns to me.
Given that the statement of principles comes to an end in June, the future looks very uncertain for many of my constituents and those of Members throughout the House, so I welcome the motion today. I want to focus on a village in my constituency situated to the south of York, on the banks of the River Ouse. Large parts of Naburn are at a significant risk of flooding. Late last year, I was contacted by a Naburn resident who informed me that, over the past 37 years, his property has been badly flooded on four separate occasions. In the six months since last autumn’s terrible wet weather, some homes in Naburn have been flooded numerous times. Thankfully, the people of Naburn have a strong sense of community spirit. They are Yorkshire folk, after all, and they are starting to pull together to do all they can to reduce their collective flood risk.
Following a public meeting in the village in November, the parish council and a group of interested residents set up a working group to investigate inexpensive and cost-effective measures that they can swiftly enact to help them deal with flooding before it affects their properties.
Nicola Blackwood
I suspect that my hon. Friend is about to describe a flood group like the Oxford Flood Alliance, which he and I are familiar with. It plays a huge role in reducing flood risk in Oxford by coming up with flood plans, mitigating flood risk in communities and developing flood resilience. Does he agree that this is a really important thing to encourage, and that any future flood insurance scheme must encourage such developments?
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Local flood groups are very important for our communities. I am sure that, like my community flood group, my hon. Friend’s is working hard with the Environment Agency, the local authority and the local water and drainage boards to improve flood resistance capabilities.
Some ideas that have been considered include allowing local residents to have control over mobile pumping units and sandbag storage and delivery and to use their local knowledge to protect the most vulnerable people. We must not forget that there are some severely vulnerable people in flood-risk areas, and we must make sure that they do not become isolated by flooding. Independently, many people are considering making flood resilience improvements to their own homes.
The hard work, positive action and sense of resolve that I have witnessed in Naburn is extraordinary, and the community should be commended for its collective approach to the problems that it faces. I am well aware that, as has been pointed out, there are similar stories across the country of communities coming together to battle the difficulties of flooding, and they should all be commended.
Mr Andrew Smith
I, too, praise the Oxford Flood Alliance. Insurance is one aspect being pursued there. The alliance has found that just because one person in one property gets a quote from an insurance company their neighbour may not be able to get anything like a similar quote from the same company, because the companies limit their exposure in these areas. That is driving up premiums and giving people intolerable uncertainty.
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have been told of similar circumstances in relation to the accessibility of local flood insurance.
What my constituents fear, as I do, is that their efforts, which I have just explained, could all be in vain if the statement of principles ends without a new agreement in place. Home insurance premiums would sky-rocket for all residents in communities such as Naburn, regardless of whether or not a property is susceptible to flooding. Some people would lose flood insurance altogether, and, as has been said, mortgage agreements could be at risk as a result. I understand the need for negotiations between the Government and the ABI to be private and confidential, but the lack of any specific details emerging from the negotiations is fuelling my constituents’ concerns about how they will cope in the future.
My constituents are prepared to come together to work as a community to face up to the flooding threat on their doorstep. They therefore need the same commitment from the Government and the insurance industry to do all that they can to protect people from the worst excesses of flooding and deliver an agreement that improves the availability and affordability of flooding insurance where flood resilience measures fail. It is time for action.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
First, I ask the House to join me in offering our heartfelt condolences to the family of Susan Norman, who suffered a tragic fatal accident during a landslip caused by heavy rainfall in Looe in my constituency on Friday. May I pay a special tribute to all the people from the emergency services who attended the scene and worked tirelessly throughout the day? I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing today’s important debate.
My constituency has been one of the places worst hit by flooding over the past couple of years. The BBC acknowledged that places such as Looe, Polperro and my own village of Millbrook were some of the worst affected in Britain by flooding in November and December 2012. The heavy rainfall resulted in a lot of damage to highways, infrastructure and homes across my constituency. Cornwall council has estimated the cost of repairing the damage across Cornwall to be about £2.5 million.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for visiting my constituency to see for himself the devastating effects of the floods. It meant a lot to my constituents and it also meant that he was also able to see for himself the damage and destruction caused by surface water run-off in both east and west Looe.
The most recent fatal landslip occurred just yards away from one that took place last December. So will the Minister join me in calling for the immediate publication of all road surveys and reports that have been undertaken over the past four years on the roads in the town of Looe and in the wider area of Cornwall? That would allow insurance companies and residents to be reassured, given the obvious and understandable concern that there is at the moment.
The House should be aware that the residents raised the possibility of the landslip that took place last week when they wrote to the council on 15 January. They asked:
“Is there a risk of subsidence or landslide on to the back of or even engulfing our properties?”
They also asked whether they and their homes would be safe. The council’s response was:
“The site has been inspected on a number of occasions and all areas giving rise to concern are included within the current works programme.”
That works programme was due to be completed and the road to be reopened at the end of this week.
The residents wrote again and presented a 60-page dossier to the chief executive of the council in February; they are waiting for a reply. I last wrote to the local councillor for an update in February, but again I am still waiting for a reply. A Looe town councillor, Councillor Brian Galipeau, formally proposed that the town council should take on the job of securing reassurance about the stability of Hannafore road and lane and sought a contingency plan in case of road failure to reassure the residents, and I am disappointed that the request has been met with what I understand to be accusations of scaremongering.
I am sure the Minister will agree that securing reassurance about road stability deserves to be treated in a responsible manner, because it can affect the availability of insurance for those residents. I hope that he will join me in calling for the immediate funding he announced yesterday to be used for physical flood prevention measures and not to employ yet another council officer.
Let me finish by highlighting the situation for two of my constituents. The first was being charged £200 to £300 for her flood insurance last year. Her home was flooded and in January, she was informed that it would cost £530 to renew her policy. The huge increase in her costs caused her to look elsewhere, but the majority of companies refuse to take her on at the moment. Another constituent has had major issues obtaining insurance since her property was flooded. She was informed by her insurance company that it needed a report from the Environment Agency, which has not given the necessary guarantees. I hope we will get some answers from the Minister today.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in expressing condolences to the family and friends of her constituent, who was so tragically killed. It shows the importance of this debate and the need, as all Members have said, for the Government to get on with the job and provide a solution for what will happen at the end of the statement of principles.
There has been tremendous unanimity across the Chamber. I agreed with every word of what the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) said and with most of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, although perhaps not the tone in which she said it. I recognise that the Government have worked hard behind the scenes with the Association of British Insurers to reach a solution, but the clock is ticking.
It gives me no pleasure to be standing in the Chamber talking about flooding again, as I think that this is the fourth or fifth time that I have raised the issue in the House. The key point is the continued availability and affordability of insurance. A second issue, which I shall touch on briefly, is the operation of the Bellwin scheme—that is, shall we say, the insurance policy for local authorities that are hit by the cost of cleaning up floods. Before I do that, I want to join hon. Members from all parties who have paid tribute to the volunteers in their constituencies who are helping to build community resilience. Whether they are in Mevagissey, St Austell, Pentewan or Polmassick—or, perhaps most notably, in St Blazey—I see a huge amount of voluntary work in my constituency, with people coming forward and developing strategies and contingency plans.
As we all know, flooding can be devastating, even when there is no loss of life. It can have a devastating impact on businesses and individuals as possessions and memories are washed away. In the clear-up, people need to know that insurance companies will pay out in a timely way and that they will be able to get insurance again for the future. Sadly, there remains a considerable danger that this simple aspiration for business and home owners will not be guaranteed and that affordable flood insurance will become unavailable in our country.
The scale of the challenge is getting worse, not better: one in every six homes are at risk of flooding; 2.4 million properties are at risk from the sea and rivers; 2.8 million homes are at risk from surface flooding; and 5 million people live or work in flood-risk areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) said, with the extent and nature of the threat we face changing, surely our response as a society should change, too. We are in an era of climate change and we all face unpredictable flooding risks and the potential for great costs. Therefore, I encourage the Government to recognise that this is not a problem that can be contained to specific areas; it is a national problem that requires a national response.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall made clear, Cornwall has suffered hugely with the costs of repairing flood damage over recent years. The latest estimate I have from Cornwall council is that the cost in November and December for last year’s floods alone is £7.4 million in revenue and capital expenditure. The Government have rightly activated the Bellwin scheme, the insurance policy for local authorities hit by flooding.
Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend agree that under the Bellwin scheme’s rules the fact that Cornwall was changed to a unitary authority from six districts and one county council has disadvantaged Cornwall considerably?
Stephen Gilbert
My hon. Friend pre-empts the point I was about to make, and which I have made before. We need to review the Bellwin scheme in order to take account of different types of local authority structure, whether single-tier, such as Cornwall’s unitary council, which I believe gives Cornwall a stronger voice overall, or two-tier, such as Devon, with its district council and county council, which has a lower threshold for activating Government support. In Cornwall’s case, the threshold is £1.4 million of expenditure, which needs to be defrayed before the Bellwin scheme provides any central Government support. If that threshold is not met, the whole bill must be picked up by the local authority. Even if it is met, the local authority will still have to pick up 15% of the additional total.
There are very strange rules relating to different types of expenditure. Although the immediate response to incidents—the £181,000 for the fire and rescue service and the cost of advice to residents and of housing support, for example—might fall within the Bellwin scheme if the threshold is crossed, the repairs to highways and other capital expenditure to put right what the flood damage put wrong are not covered. I say to the Minister that as well as ensuring that flood insurance for homes and businesses remains affordable and available, and recognising that we are all in it together, local authorities need to know that the Government stand behind them, too. With climate change happening, it is clear that flooding will continue, but we must not leave people, businesses and councils hung out to dry when the waters recede.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
I begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my chairmanship of the all-party group on insurance and financial services. It is in that context that I think it is helpful to share with the House some of the observations that have been made by the insurance press about the discussions with the Government over recent years, which Post magazine has described as “negotiations to nowhere”.
It is astounding that it was in 2008 that the insurance industry made it clear that it would be withdrawing from the statement of principles. May I make it absolutely clear that it is important that it should do so, because many of the individual cases that Members have drawn attention to here are not covered by the statement of principles? They are not in this jeopardy because of the expiry of the statement of principles; the statement of principles does not have an “all circumstances” provision. That is why it is necessary to address the matter.
In 2008 I was in the European Parliament, and I was surprised to see that no progress had been made by the time I came here in 2010. I am astounded, frankly, that here we are in 2013, barely weeks away from the statement of principles ending, and still there is no progress to announce. It is not as though we have not dealt with these issues before. The insurer of last resort is, in fact, the Government. They took on that role in relation to “Pool Re”, when we needed to create terrorism insurance, and it was done in a matter of weeks. The Lloyds-Equitas debacle, which I had ministerial responsibility for resolving, was resolved within 12 months. Following 9/11, no insurance was available to the aviation industry in this country, and that matter was resolved by Government within a matter of days. Yet here we are, years and years later, with no progress to announce.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing this debate and for his speech. He has called for good faith on the part of the insurance industry and for a Government contribution. That has also been said by other Members and in The Times leader to which reference has been made.
On good faith in the insurance industry, the all-party group on insurance and financial services has held three meetings since the election specifically on these issues. People have attended from the Association of British Insurers, on every occasion, from the British Insurance Brokers Association, on every occasion, and from the National Flood Forum. People from Aon, from Guy Carpenter and from Marsh have outlined the range of proposals that they have been making to Government. In an all-party group meeting on 12 October, Aon raised for the first time a variation on the “Flood Re” proposal, but we do not know what the Government’s response has been. In November, there was a bit of a spat when the ABI thought that the Government were not going to make any contribution. In response, it was claimed that it was nonsense to say that there was an impasse. Yet here we are, approaching the Easter break, and we still seem to have an impasse.
I do not blame the Minister. He attended a flood summit back in 2010, and he absolutely understands all the issues. However, I wonder to what extent his hands are tied elsewhere, perhaps not so much by the change in Secretary of State but by the involvement of the Cabinet Office in some aspects of these discussions. It is said that the Government may have been spooked by the original discussions, which had been going constructively, when they looked at the overall cost of flooding. However, that is not good enough. We have heard it suggested that there could be an extension of the statement of principles, but that is a voluntary agreement with the industry, and it is not going to happen; we can rule it out. The reality is that we will either see a return to the free market or the Government will have to get their act together, and soon.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate. I am grateful for the chance to speak, because many of my constituents, especially in Paulsgrove, Cosham, Drayton and Farlington, have been affected by these issues.
We have good sea defences in Portsmouth, but we have a very dilapidated sewerage and drainage system that has caused many of the problems on and around the Portsdown Hill area. A programme of works is now in place to rectify those problems, and so far we have been able to protect local people from the increases in their insurance premiums as they have had to submit repeated claims for repeated flooding and sewerage leaks.
I agree with many of the points that have been made, and I will not go over them again. I wish to touch on two additional issues that add insult to injury. The first of these is planning. Planning applications are approved even when the new build is on a serious floodplain. An applicant for a dementia care home in my constituency attempted to placate the planning committee by saying—I kid you not—that because the building was high-rise, if there were a flood the residents would be able to get to high ground. The application was approved. The advice of local planning committees and the Environment Agency is often ignored, or their decisions overturned.
I hope that there could be an incentive for a slightly more responsible stance on these issues. There is a gap in the market for an “Environment Agency Says No” website, so that whether it is a house or a care home place being purchased, the consumer would be able to check whether the agency has given the site and the development the thumbs up.
Nicola Blackwood
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about Environment Agency approval of floodplains. She began by talking about dilapidated sewerage systems. Does she agree that we need to include Thames Water more in decisions about planning, because a lot of our drainage systems are causing problems with surface water flooding?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is right. The Environment Agency has told me that it would like to be more involved with such planning decisions and there are many other organisations that we should take advice from.
The transparency that I have described would not deal with current cases, but it would head off future grief by providing an incentive for developers to behave more responsibly.
The final issue that I will touch on is compensation for deliberate flooding. There have been cases in my county, although not in my constituency, of landowners having their land flooded deliberately by the local authority to prevent greater damage elsewhere. That is quite understandable, but in such cases the landowner should be able to access some form of compensation. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on that.
Finally, I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton and all Members who have made possible this timely debate on an important issue.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing it and the Backbench Business Committee for holding it.
Flooding has been a particular problem in the past year throughout my constituency. Tiverton, Cullompton, Seaton, Axminster and Uplyme have all been affected by flooding and Feniton has been flooded several times. We need to ensure that my constituents and people across the country get flood insurance that they can afford.
I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), but he speaks, naturally enough, on behalf of the insurance industry. It is a wonderful industry, but it is not terribly charitable. It is there to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with profit, but we must not set up a system that puts a levy on all insurance payers in order to pay for those in flood-risk areas.
Jonathan Evans
I do not want my hon. Friend to miss the fact that the “Flood Re” scheme, about which everybody has spoken, is a not-for-profit scheme. It is important that everybody recognises that.
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend for correcting me about that being a not-for-profit scheme, but that was not the point I was making.
My point is that when we levy all insurance payers to build up a fund that takes the risk of properties in high-risk areas away from the insurance companies, we should not be too generous because insurance companies are all about taking risk. That is what they are in business for. They should therefore be able to take their fair share of risk. I want to ensure that the insurance companies step up to the plate, but also that the Government help those who, in their areas, cannot get flood insurance under a private scheme on the free market. That is the balance that must be struck.
Mr Andrew Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a precedent for the Government’s participating in the way that we are all advocating in the “Pool Re” arrangements that provide terrorism insurance cover?
Neil Parish
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government can step up to the plate and be the insurer of last resort. However, the point I am making is that the Government must be the insurer of last resort, not the insurer of first resort.
Because there has been so much flooding in the past year, the insurance companies have naturally been putting the maximum possible pressure on the Government. They are in business, so it is right for them to do so. However, given that everybody who pays insurance across the piece will pay for the scheme, the Government must ensure that everybody is dealt with fairly.
It is essential that people who genuinely cannot get insurance—those who have been flooded two or three times, such as my constituents in Feniton—can get insurance in the future. The current statement of principles does not cover them. I am therefore looking forward to the Government putting in place a much better system so that people can access insurance irrespective of whether they have been flooded several times. It is not their fault that they live in a property that is flooding; in many respects, it is planning decisions that generate floods.
In the village of Feniton, there have been appeal decisions allowing more houses to be built where the appeal inspector has actually recognised in his brief that the village will flood and might flood further as a result of the development, but has allowed the houses anyway because the district council has not got its five-year housing plan up to speed. That means that the poor people down the bottom of Feniton will get flooded even more. What is the logic of that? This must be not only about flood insurance but about a planning policy that says we do not build on floodplains or on hills above villages so that the water runs off and floods the people at the bottom end of the village even more. This is something I get quite excited about, because the people who get flooded should not have to put up with it.
Other hon. Members have talked about ensuring that the money for the Bellwin scheme is available when, for example, roads are washed away by floods. Very often, the Government claim that Bellwin is available to local authorities, but when the latter claim it, the Government and the bureaucracy decide that many of the proposed schemes to cover flood damage are not eligible. That has to be dealt with.
Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bellwin scheme is only for immediate and emergency repairs, which it is often not possible for local authorities to carry out?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a road or bridge is washed away, the local authority might not be able to put it right immediately, but it will still have an effect on local people and local authority spend.
I am keen for the Government to negotiate a system that gives people access to affordable flood insurance in high-risk areas; otherwise, we will end up putting a levy on all insurance payers, only to find that people cannot get genuinely affordable insurance. That is key. I will want to see in the proposal what the word “affordable” means, because what is affordable to one person is not affordable to another. I do not want the insurance companies gobbling up a great deal of money and then not offering affordable assurance to my constituents in villages and towns that have been flooded.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. It has been a good debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing it and the Backbench Business Committee on giving it the importance it deserves.
We have heard several fantastic speeches and many comments that were true for Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) made a strong argument about the link between flood defences and flood insurance, while the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) raised concerns on behalf of the 1,627 of her constituents who will be particularly affected if flood insurance is not available. To her point about drainage, I would add that there are six provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that have not yet been enacted and which I invite the Government to implement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is a dogged campaigner for her constituents, has made endless attempts to establish the true state of the negotiations and made a powerful argument, while the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) talked about the devastating effects of flooding in his community and made a strong point about how the increasing unpredictability of recent flood events are causing us to ask fundamental questions about the nature of risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a powerful speech about his constituency and his constituents in Morpeth, where nearly 1,000 properties were devastated in those terrible scenes. The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned the village of Leyburn and the problems faced by residents there. He rightly asked a question that I will go on to ask: would it not be terrible if those constituents came together to manage their flood risk but were let down by the Government and the insurance industry in getting a deal?
Hon. Members across the House will, I am sure, agree with comments made by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) about the tragic event in Looe last week, and our condolences go out to the families of those concerned. There are other issues elsewhere in Cornwall, and the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) spoke about the inevitable unwinding of the cross-subsidy in the system, should we move to a free market position.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) made a powerful speech about the lack of urgency and care from this Government, and he put it best when he said that they must get their act together, and soon—a point I will go on to make. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) drew on matters relating to planning and deliberate flooding, reminding us that we must view this issue in the round. Finally, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—a constituency that has seen more water than most in the past 12 months—drew on the key issue of affordability and reminded the House that we are discussing a not-for-profit scheme.
Ninety-six days are all that stand between today’s near-universal coverage for flood damage and an unfettered free market that will leave tens of thousands of people with homes that are uninsurable, unmortgageable and unsellable—96 days, and the clock is ticking.
I am disappointed that the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), is unable to be with us today as it is clear that he is leading on negotiations. I am sure that his services as a Government troubleshooter are needed elsewhere, but whatever measure of success the Government apply, so far the process leading to whatever deal we will get has been a failure—a failure of competence, ambition and ideology, and a failure of the Prime Minister.
Hon. Members might remember the Prime Minister’s comments during the extensive flooding of November last year:
“I’m sure we will do a deal…We are in negotiations at the moment…We need to take a tough approach frankly and it’s important insurance companies do what they are meant to, which is provide insurance to households and we are going to make sure that happens.”
Just to make it perfectly clear, he said: “I am personally involved.” That was last year, yet 200,000 high-risk homes could find themselves without insurance in 96 days.
In government we negotiated a wide-ranging agreement to ensure near universal access to flooding insurance. The limitations to that scheme have been made clear, which is why in 2008 we agreed, alongside the insurance industry, that a successor deal would be needed. This Government, however, have had three years but they have squandered them. They had an insurance industry willing to negotiate to find a solution, and I made it clear that the Opposition will take a responsible approach and support any deal to ensure affordable and available insurance. The Government had the resources of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Office, and even of No. 10 Downing street, yet with 96 days to go there is still no deal.
The consequences of that are stark. Nick Starling from the Association of British Insurers warned that the only alternative to a deal with the Government
“is a free market, meaning up to 200,000 people will find insurance unavailable or unaffordable.”.
Ian Crowder of AA Insurance has stated:
“We are concerned insurance premiums will spiral out of control if no agreement is reached between the ABI and the Government.”,
and Paul Broadhead of the Building Societies Association warned chillingly:
“Failure to reach agreement could also have an effect on mortgage lending in high risk areas”.
The National Flood Forum stated:
“Government needs to accept its responsibilities of protecting its citizens by making a decision. Failure to make a proposal will put thousands of people at risk”.
In short, if the Government fail to get a deal, nearly 200,000 households could find themselves without insurance, unable to sell, and with their properties revalued sharply downwards. That could place them in negative equity and create tranches of property blight across the constituencies we represent. In other words, the stakes could not be higher.
Given those consequences, it is even more worrying that the Government seem unable to admit that they are struggling. In a letter to me of 19 April 2012, the Minister stated:
“I cannot comment on the timing of any future announcements on this issue but have committed to providing a further update this spring”
For the sake of clarity, that was spring 2012. No response. In response to my written question of 18 June 2012, the Minister said that the Government were
“at an advanced stage in intensive negotiations with the industry on alternative arrangements for when the Statement of Principles expires.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 738W.]
In her written ministerial statement of 11 July 2012, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), said:
“Intensive discussions with the insurance industry are continuing and we will announce further details in due course.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 30WS.]
Last November, Lord De Mauley said in the other place:
“We are in intense but constructive negotiations with the industry and further announcements will be made in due course”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 644.]
When asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) in January, the Minister said:
“We want to protect those on low incomes in flood-risk areas, and we think we have a method of doing that. We are at an advanced stage in negotiations; I will come to the House shortly, I hope, with details.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 445.]
Come the next set of DEFRA questions in March, the Minister responded to another question asked by my hon. Friend by saying:
“Constructive negotiations continue with the insurance industry, at the highest levels of Government, on a range of approaches that could succeed the current statement of principles.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2013; Vol. 1109, c. 559.]
This situation would be comical if it were not so serious. This is the mañana Department of a mañana Government—always tomorrow and no help for today.
Even if an agreement could be reached, it would require primary legislation. The Minister should admit what we now know to be true—that this will not be in place for 30 June. The 570,000 properties to which this motion applies and the 570,000 families that could find their homes uninsurable, unmortgageable and unsellable are calling for certainty, but there is none.
What is the plan? To deny the risk and the social responsibility that any Government bear would deny one of the most basic laws of political gravity, which is that catastrophic risk resides with us all. When catastrophic floods devastate streets, towns and communities, we rightly expect the Government to be there to help us pick up the pieces. That is what is so short-sighted about the Government’s response to getting a deal done on flood insurance.
As the Minister has previously made clear, there is only one deal on the table. The alternative is a free market that will allow insurers to leave the market for high-risk properties and that will unwind a long-standing settlement that flood insurance should be available as part of every policy.
Climate change is making flooding more prevalent and less predictable, and the UK climate change risk assessment cites it as the No. 1 threat that we need to adapt to. I have made it clear that the Opposition seek to be helpful and constructive in securing a deal that protects home owners, businesses and communities vulnerable to the risk of flooding. Despite our constructive approach, Ministers have refused to brief this House or involve the Opposition in the discussions. As each week passes, it is becoming harder to defend a situation in which Ministers appear to be drifting without giving any indication of when a deal will be concluded.
This Government must get a grip. They have 96 days and the clock is ticking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I echo the plaudits given by Members on both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it.
I say from the start that, yes, the Government are in arduous and urgent negotiations with the insurance industry. We recognise that the Government’s first and primary role is to tackle risk by building flood defences. We are doing that, and I will talk about it later. We must get a good deal for the taxpayer and policyholders and, frankly, a better deal than the statement of principles. Therefore, insurance must be available and affordable, without adding to bills. We are not yet in a position to make an announcement that we have a value for money, deliverable solution and one that is legal within the constraints of state aid, but I can assure hon. Members that we are working extremely hard to achieve that.
Richard Benyon
I hope that we will be able to do so, and I will give more details on that later. I am looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend’s constituents and to understanding the daily threats that they live with.
Let us be clear: the availability and affordability of home insurance in flood-risk areas beyond the expiry of the statement of principles on 30 June are vital for hon. Members and the Government, and I firmly support the motion.
Flooding has a significant and long-lasting impact on local communities, which I have seen first hand in my constituency. The availability of home insurance in flood-risk areas provides important financial protection and peace of mind to such communities. The Government remain committed to ongoing negotiations with the insurance industry and others on what replaces the statement of principles agreement. We want to find a solution that ensures the availability and affordability of flood insurance and will endeavour to continue working with the industry towards that goal.
Richard Benyon
I am really short of time, but I will respond to the point that I believe the hon. Gentleman wants to make. If I have time to give way at the end, I will do so.
As Ministers have repeatedly made clear, the main aim of our work has always been to reach an agreement whereby insurance bills remain affordable, without placing unacceptable and unsustainable costs on wider policyholders. The Government have been doing a lot to support the continued availability of affordable insurance. Reducing flood risk will always be the best and most sustainable solution. Despite difficult times, we are on track to spend more than £2.3 billion to deliver better protection from flooding and coastal erosion to more than 165,000 homes over the four years to 2015. Our new system of partnership funding has brought in an additional £148 million on top of that from external partners. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), have benefited from that in their constituencies. I give full praise to him and his constituents for the leadership that they have shown.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked why there was nothing in the Budget, but £120 million of investment was announced in the autumn statement. Many of those schemes are shovel-ready and proceeding, and they are a great comfort to constituents.
Despite last year being the second wettest on record, more than 200,000 homes were protected from flooding because of defences already in place. The Environment Agency’s flood warning service provided additional support; evidence is emerging that many houses avoid flooding because of the better flood warning system. We have estimated that, for every property that suffered flooding last year and in January, more than 25 homes were protected because of flood defences and maintenance work and because of the work of the Environment Agency, local authorities and other front-line responders. More than 200,000 householders are therefore benefiting from the Government’s continued investment in managing flood risk.
Many hon. Members are impatient for information on the Government’s discussions. I am impatient to share the details, but it would be quite wrong to go into too much detail.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in offering commiserations to her constituent and her family for their loss. I entirely agree with her that all available information must be made publicly available, so that we can get to the bottom of what precisely happened.
Richard Benyon
If I can, I will try to give way in a moment.
We have recently announced a flood resilience community pathfinder scheme for Cornwall and a number of other parts of the country. In my hon. Friend’s case, £476,000 will be spent in Cornwall.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) said that the statement of principles was universal insurance.
Richard Benyon
Perhaps that is not what the hon. Gentleman said. The statement of principles is not universal —not by a long chalk—which is part of the problem. Everything he said in his quote from the Prime Minister is absolutely right, and I thank him for pointing it out.
When Conservatives were in opposition in 2008, it was agreed that a successor to the statement of principles would be required. The previous Government agreed that a market could emerge after the end of the agreement. The statement of principles says that there will be no need for specific agreements after June 2013. All hon. Members disagree with that and believe that we need a follow-up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, to whom I want to give time to make a winding-up speech, asked about the Government’s view of a flood mutual, which is an important question. We are looking very closely at the proposal, which is a possible alternative to “Flood Re”. We are working closely with those who are making that proposal.
Richard Benyon
I will come on to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) talked about flood insurance in the context of terrorism, but those are entirely different types of insurance. The pool model does work for some of them, but the “Flood Re” model would not work in this case, because it does not provide support for the cost of that cover. He made the point that “Flood Re” is a not-for-profit solution. Well, yes and no, in that the Government would pay through a levy—so householders are paying for it with an element of underwriting—but taking away risk from the most at risk is an advantage to the industry. So we must be very careful. The Minister’s job is to look after the taxpayer and householder. Yes, we need a solution, but not at any price. Whoever was standing at the Dispatch Box, they would not want to bring before the House a deal that was unworkable or that would cause the wrong sort of increases for some of the most at risk and hard up of our constituents. We need to get this right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) made a point about farmland and the wider risk. When farmland is flooded as part of a formal flood alleviation scheme, the landowner is compensated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton introduced the debate with a powerful speech. He made a point about the governance of any arrangements. He was right to do so, and it is important that we take forward his concerns and make those arrangements clear in the announcement. I can assure him that the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working closely.
I was concerned that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) talked about shambolic local flood administration in her constituency. We have implemented the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which arose from Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations after 2007. I note that she said that that is not happening in her constituency, and I am happy to take that up.
Many hon. Members made good points, which I could probably summarise as, “We want a decision and an announcement soon, because our constituents are worried.” I can understand that. We are doing other things to help those who might be struggling to find affordable insurance. We have published a guide to obtaining flood insurance in high flood risk areas in collaboration with the National Flood Forum, Which? and insurance industry representatives. The guide helps people navigate through the insurance market and acts as a signpost to actions that individuals can take to reduce their flood risk.
Insurance can be found for reasonable prices if people talk to their insurer about their specific circumstances. The Environment Agency can provide supporting evidence on the local flood risk, for free, which people can use in discussions, and I want to hear from hon. Members if that is not happening. Different companies take different approaches to flood risk and it almost always pays to shop around.
I recognise the great concern on both sides of the House on this matter. I want to give hon. Members and their constituents the assurance that they want, but I will not do it at any price. Yes, it has taken longer than any of us would have wished, but I hope that the deal we bring to the House will be better than what we have now, especially for those of our constituents who are on low incomes.
Mr Raab
I thank the Backbench Committee for this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed for their excellent speeches. Some of them talked about the local dimension and some mentioned the national implications of these issues. Given the lack of time, I will not go into detail on all of the contributions, but the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) talked about the lack of a joined-up approach locally. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) talked about the human dimension to local flood damage and the importance of planning in the mitigation of flood risk.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about the local aspects of flood insurance.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) made an important point about what local community initiatives can do to reduce flood risk, and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) highlighted the human toll across Cornwall. I am sure the whole House joins her in expressing our condolences to the bereaved family of her constituent.
There were other powerful contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) made a powerful speech on his work with the all-party group. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) talked about the problem of planning approvals in the floodplain. Other hon. Members were unable to attend the debate—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—but have expressed support for the motion, and I welcome that.
The shadow Minister gave an important speech. He tracked the recent negotiations with a fine-toothed comb, if, at points, rather selectively. He had rather less to say on the previous Government’s progress, but none the less made some important points.
The Minister described the arduous and urgent negotiations with the ABI and the importance of delivering a legal, workable deal that delivers value for money. I am sure the whole House joins him in wanting to achieve that result. We do not expect him to negotiate in public, but we do need urgently to deliver a new deal on flood insurance. We need to strengthen flood defences, address the planning failures of the past and ensure that UK environmental policies place a greater emphasis on resilience and adaptation in the future. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the Environment Agency’s estimate that 570,000 properties in England and Wales are at significant risk of flooding; recognises the efforts of the insurance industry and past and present governments to reach agreement to ensure flood insurance will be made available to all homes and small businesses beyond June 2013; calls on the insurance industry to negotiate in good faith to conclude those arrangements; and further calls on the Government to acknowledge the need to provide some support for those arrangements and ensure that resilience and adaptation to flood risks and other natural hazards are amongst its highest environmental priorities.
Easter Adjournment
Department for Communities and Local Government
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to ventilate the important issue of housing. A number of my colleagues applied, successfully, to speak on this subject as it is of intense importance to us. Although I and many of my colleagues are London MPs, we do not claim for a second that the housing crisis is unique to our capital city. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has a housing waiting list of nearly 3,000 in his idyllic constituency. This problem affects all of us.
The housing situation in London has gone beyond inconvenience, awkwardness or even embarrassment to something that it is now in a profound state of crisis. In Ealing, the borough in which I have spent virtually all my life, we have 23,416 people on the housing waiting list and there is no chance whatever of them finally finding accommodation. One reason for that is that in London the average house price is £421,395, and the average London income is £26,962. Even in dear, dear Ealing, the average house price is £374,707, whereas median earnings are £25,392.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend think that the Government’s recent proposals in the Budget to provide cheap mortgages to anyone will help the situation?
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend makes a telling point. In doing so she has rather stolen my thunder, but I forgive her in that as I do in all things. The Government may well have a policy, but it is retrogressive. The idea that the solution to the housing problem in London is to sell off the last few remaining properties at vast, eye-watering discounts and somehow assume that, in extremis, property can be sold as cheaply as £10,000, and that that money will then go forth, multiply and create a new property, is absolutely absurd. The other strand of that—somehow to blame the whole housing crisis in London on the immigrant community—proves once and for all that it is a lot easier to find a scapegoat than to find a solution. The scapegoat is being identified; the solution is not.
Boroughs such as mine in Ealing are having to take incredibly exhaustive steps to build houses. We have a commitment to 500 new build houses over the next five years, but we also have an estate regeneration programme. We are using existing land to increase the estates that already exist, so that with hard work—exhaustive work—and a great deal of extremely fine officer time, we can create 5,044 units from a total of 3,653. I pay tribute to my colleague Councillor Hitesh Tailor in the London borough of Ealing, who has somehow managed to square the circle in the case of Copley close, an absolutely typical old Greater London council estate. Allegedly—I have never heard anyone disprove this, but I am told it is true—the architect who designed the estate never set foot in the borough of Ealing, let alone on Copley close. She took the scheme down from a shelf somewhere, ran it along the side of the railway line at Castle Bar Halt and left the people to get on with it. That is the scale of the problem we face.
What is the solution? On the figures I gave earlier for median house prices, the solution is not to unleash some great entrepreneurial surge or for everyone somehow to manage to do 15 jobs and buy their own property. One of the solutions is to do as my children, aged 24 and 22, have done and start sending away for loft extension catalogues anonymously. They pour through the door at an extraordinary rate—and I have finally accepted the hint. However, one thing we really can do—I want the Minister to give particular attention to this—is to consider raising the housing revenue account cap, which was discussed in the other place on 12 March in a debate on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. Three amendments were tabled by three distinguished Members of the upper House, all with considerable local authority experience.
The idea at present is that there are streams against which local authorities can borrow, and not just the traditional ones, such as the Public Works Loan Board or the general fund. Some people have rather imaginatively —and in a way that is almost suggestive of Robert Maxwell in his prime—talked about borrowing against pension funds. That slightly worries me, but the housing revenue account, which has traditionally been massively in surplus, despite what some would have us believe, is a good thing to borrow against. The recent relaxations in this area are to the Government’s credit. Let us be honest: the Government have done the right thing on that. However, the present cap limits local authorities massively. They include not just boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, and Hammersmith and Fulham, which have a property portfolio worth well over £2 billion, but even small, modest boroughs such as Ealing, which could borrow more and build more.
Ultimately, let us never lose sight of first principles. A person who has no home has no hope, no job, usually no family and certainly no future. If someone loses their home, they lose everything. A person can lose their job and get another job; they can lose their health and get healthy again. Without a home, a person has nothing. Every single one of us in this House has a bounden duty to try to provide that simple, most basic of needs: accommodation. Raising the HRA cap to a more realistic level would give local authorities the power to do much, much more.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Carbon monoxide poisoning can be fatal or lead to permanent health damage. Carbon monoxide is tasteless, odourless and colourless. It is very much a silent killer. It makes no distinction among its victims—however, the young and the elderly are more vulnerable, as in many other cases—and it creates risks for pregnant women and their unborn children. The symptoms include headaches, tiredness, dizziness and nausea. These are common symptoms, often associated with other things; therefore, carbon monoxide poisoning can go unnoticed for many years.
The recent “Carbon Monoxide Incident Report”, published by the Gas Safety Trust, shows a welcome reduction in the incidence of carbon monoxide poisoning. However, the report deals only with the gas industry and gas-related incidents. Carbon monoxide poisoning is not solely a gas appliance issue. Carbon monoxide can emanate from many sources. It is caused when carbon fuels do not burn properly, so although there is a perception that the problem is restricted to gas fires in the home, it can go much wider than that. Any fuel-burning appliance that is not properly maintained has the potential to be a source of carbon monoxide. Cookers, AGAs and hot water heaters can all emit carbon monoxide.
At this stage I would like to refer to my constituents Dave and Mary Jane Worswick. Their daughter Mary Ann was 15 years old. She was in her last year of school and dreamt of going on to study law. Owing to bad weather, she was studying at her friend’s house, in which there was a boiler that subsequently proved to be faulty. This fault was to cost Mary Ann and her friend their lives. I do not want to dwell on the subsequent legal processes that followed Mary Ann’s death, but I do want to pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Worswick who, having tragically lost their daughter, have continued their fight to raise the awareness of the dangers of carbon monoxide. As the Worswicks say to me, everyone is aware of the dangers of tobacco and alcohol, but awareness of carbon monoxide remains low and way behind. The opportunity to raise the matter today will, I hope, help raise the awareness of this killer among us.
I want to highlight a further particular area where carbon monoxide can be fatal. My High Peak constituency is under about 12 feet of snow at the moment; it may seem odd, but I would like to raise the issue of camping, caravanning and barbecues. In a short while when the snow goes, I hope people will turn their thoughts to the summertime pursuits I have listed. As we sit outside a tent, caravan or motor home watching the sun go down in the summer, there is naturally a feeling of contentment, and possibly a barbecue shimmering in front of us, but we should be aware that this smouldering barbecue could be putting out carbon monoxide. Portable barbecues and portable heaters can and have been responsible for tragic deaths in campervans, caravans and mobile homes across the country. In Cornwall, Shropshire and other areas, tragedies have resulted from carbon monoxide emissions from this sort of appliance.
Carbon monoxide poisoning is widely thought of as an issue caused by appliances in the home and in the winter. That is not true, as it has claimed victims in the summer months, too. As summer approaches, I want to highlight the dangers of this gas—not just in the home, not just in the winter, but all year round and seemingly in some innocuous conditions.
Returning to the issue of carbon monoxide in the home, the Minister may well ask me what he can do. Over the years, numerous measures such as the removal of open-flued heaters from bathrooms and bedrooms and some landlord legislation have reduced the risks. The number of incidents is falling, but that is no reason for complacency.
We heard last week that the Chancellor has announced some excellent measures to help people to buy new build homes. The Minister himself has advocated the building of more homes that are needed across the country. May I ask him today to consider making mandatory the inclusion of carbon monoxide detectors in all new build homes? I understand that there are concerns about increasing burdens on house builders in these difficult times, but I am sure that at a cost of a little over £10, carbon monoxide detectors could easily be fitted in conjunction with smoke detectors into new homes. This small step would ensure the safety of many people and spare many families the heartache suffered by my constituents, the Worswicks.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak about the Government’s proposal to free up planning to allow offices not in use to be converted into homes. I want to talk about the overall policy, its impact on my constituency and, if there is time, the more general issues of housing need.
In short, the Government believe that if all empty office space in the UK were converted into residential property, it would create 250,000 new homes, saving nearly £140 million in planning system costs. The Government tell us that, following the recession, between 7% and 9% of commercial space in the UK is empty, but that many developers have been put off converting buildings into homes because of the costs and time required to secure planning approval. That may be true in some parts of the world, but in my Hackney South constituency and particularly in Shoreditch, many developers have land banked old offices and warehouses to cash in on rising housing prices as housing demand increases. They have been sitting on this for investment reasons rather than because they have been put off by the conversion costs. The conversion costs could soon be recouped, but every day that the developers sit and wait, the price of housing goes up.
In Hackney, the legislation will have a major impact on our business and creative communities and on the local economy. We sit right on the edge or fringe of the City. In fact, Broadgate used to be in Hackney until a boundary change some years ago, and many of our business locations will be adversely affected by this policy. The area is coveted as a residential location, but not for local people. It has fancy loft apartments for those with very deep pockets. This will put business at risk, potentially leading to forced relocation and loss of jobs for local people in an area where unemployment is already high. Of course, all of us speaking in this debate are keen to see more homes built, but this policy will encourage landlords and freeholders to dash for the short-term gain of changing offices to residential homes, at a big long-term cost to our area and to one of the engine rooms of our current economy.
Hackney South and Shoreditch, as business development hot spots, have often been visited by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I cannot seriously believe that No. 10 Downing street is enthusiastic about the policy as it applies to Shoreditch. Business growth is under threat from the proposal. Without an exemption, existing businesses will be under threat, too, so I strongly support full exemption for Hackney, which Hackney council has bid for. I urge the Minister to give us some comfort today to ensure that the area remains a thriving business location making an important contribution to the economic prosperity of London and the UK.
To date, more than 1,000 businesses locally have signed a petition supporting exclusion. None of the active housing campaigners—whether they live in digs, are Hackney Homes tenants or members of tenants associations—have objected to the council’s stance on the policy because they see that the sort of housing we need is very different.
Even the British Property Federation does not necessarily support the policy. Ian Fletcher, its policy director, talked about the acute shortage of houses but, in welcoming the step, said it
“won’t work for all buildings, or in every area”.
I say to the Minister that it will not work in Shoreditch and it should be stopped now.
On general issues to do with housing, what we need in Hackney is not more high-price right-to-buy sales but more affordable family-sized homes. About a quarter of my constituents are under 16. We have families who need housing who cannot find it. Instead many of those families are being hit by this invidious—
Stephen Pound
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that one of the great flagships of Government policy, the spare room tax, will not have anything like the effect that they anticipate because most of the people with extra rooms are pensioners, who are exempt from the bedroom tax anyway? Does she share my despair that that is the mast to which the Government are nailing the flag of housing hope?
Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right. This invidious little tax is having a disastrous impact on many of my constituents. For example, if a family who occupy a three-bedroom property have two children of the same gender between the ages of 10 and 16, or two children of opposite gender under 10, they will be counted as under-occupying and be forced either to find the extra money to pay for the bedroom, until their children reach the age at which they qualify for the extra bedroom, or to give up their home and try to find, magically out of nowhere, a two-bedroom property. There is heavy demand for all types of social housing, while pensioners remain exempt.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
When it comes to the under-occupancy subsidy, is the hon. Lady not also concerned about the 250,000 people who are living in overcrowded housing and the 2 million people on the housing waiting list who are desperate to get into some of the 1 million excess rooms held in the social housing sector?
Meg Hillier
Of course, and as I mentioned earlier, this is a big issue, but that is to do mostly with the supply of housing and there are other ways to incentivise people to move out of their homes, rather than taxing them. Over the years, there have been schemes to provide money to help, for example, pensioner households with their removal costs and the costs of new furnishings for their new home to encourage them to move at a small price to free up the larger properties that are desperately needed. In my constituency, where about a quarter of residents are under 16, we need affordable family homes to be supplied. We also need reform of the private rented sector, which in this short speech I do not have time to go into, but the Government abolished the register of private landlords and are doing nothing to tackle the issue. “Generation rent” in my constituency is among the biggest in the country.
The bedroom tax is an invidious policy. It will not free up rooms in the way the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) expects. Up and down the country, people are being forced to move from their larger homes, although smaller homes are not available in their area, and they are being penalised if they cannot move. It is illogical. The policy provides a good cheap headline for the Government, but it will not deliver and it is having a negative impact on families’ lives. There are better ways to tackle the housing issue. Cross-party, we should look at supporting an increase in supply and ensuring that there are no loopholes in any schemes. In the Budget, the Chancellor talked about the mortgage guarantee, which will enable people to buy second homes. The Government have still not come up with a comprehensive rejection of that approach, so we can only take that as an assurance that people can buy a second home with a mortgage guarantee from the Government, while many of my constituents will continue to struggle to get on the housing ladder, or into a form of tenure that provides them and their families with security and the strong base in the community that we all want to see.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I begin by making my usual declaration of indirect interests.
I am raising an issue brought to me by a constituent who has serious concerns about the way in which gas safety certificates are dispensed. She recently bought a bungalow, and was supplied by the previous owner with building regulation compliance certificates, including gas and electricity safety check certificates. Having got those certificates, she trusted, as anyone would, that all the work and inspections had been carried out to the required standard, as did her conveyancing solicitor and surveyor.
It later emerged that all the traders and engineers who had issued those certificates were personal friends of the previous owner, and it appears that the certificates were issued without them either checking that the work had been carried out or that it was up to the correct standard. Electrical and gas appliance installations such as the underfloor heating, boiler and heating system had been blindly certified by Gas Safe and ELECSA-registered engineers as a favour to a mate. There have been some consequences, such as de-registering the ELECSA trader, but the main concerns remain. The Electrical Contractors Association has accepted that its engineer was very wrong to issue a certificate for work he had neither carried out nor inspected for safety. However, it appears Gas Safe has been reluctant to take the same approach.
I by no means pretend to be an expert in the field of building regulations and appliance safety, but I do find it incredibly odd that although gas and electrical engineers can be struck off the register if they negligently leave an appliance unsafe, the same does not apply to those who issue certificates without doing or inspecting the work. There really does appear to be not simply a loophole but a gap in the legislation that endangers lives. My constituent sustained an injury as a result of the faulty appliances, and informed me that it was pure luck that the later inspecting engineer, who condemned the appliance, was not electrocuted.
Clause 57(1) of the Building Act 1984 states:
“If a person…recklessly gives a notice or certificate that…purports to comply with those requirements, and contains a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular, he is guilty of an offence.”
Should the same rules not apply to those issuing gas and electricity safety certificates? My constituent has had to re-check one appliance after another after they failed to operate. The inspecting engineer found that the consumer unit was faulty and the sockets were not earthed. The boiler had parts missing, such as the mini-expansion vessel and the pressure-reducing valve. The underfloor heating system had parts missing: the pump, balancing valves and the heat-reducing valve. Also, the boiler was not earthed and the isolation switch had not been wired in. It appears that another blind certificate was issued, falsely to certify the safety of the boiler.
These are not just small mishaps or omissions, but fundamental issues that could have had very serious consequences. There is an urgent need for both Government and the industry to take this matter very seriously indeed. There has also been a considerable financial cost for my constituent. We need to establish who has the power of enforcement in such cases. Trading standards said that my constituent had misunderstood the issue, and she was repeatedly told that the engineer was certified to carry out the work. He might have been, but he still did not do the job properly. Trading standards also apparently said to my constituent that these things happen all the time—all the time!—but there is very little scope for pursuing the issue owing to the lack of relevant legislation.
It is my understanding that Gas Safe decided to investigate the engineer after persistent communication from my constituent. At present, the engineer is still on the register, even though the appliance certified by him failed to meet even the most basic safety checks. Yet Gas Safe, while seemingly not acting in this instance, took space in my local paper in January advising DIY-ers not to take risks with gas.
Legally, my constituent is also in a tricky situation: as she does not have a direct contract with the engineers in question, she cannot bring a case against either of them. Her conveyancing solicitor advised her that it was a matter of “buyer beware”. My constituent is frustrated because she was aware—she had done everything by the book and had accepted, as had her surveyor, that the certificates were valid and had been issued by a “trusted” professional. This practice of false or blind certification has to stop. Plymouth’s director for place has said that
“in essence the fact of the matter is that we are used to the presence of consumer protection legislation when we buy goods from a high street trader but those protections are considerably lacking when we buy our largest purchase, a house”.
What can the Minister do, through his Department, to liaise with those involved in consumer protection to put an end to this deceit?
Meg Hillier
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I regret that when I spoke earlier I neglected to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I seek to rectify that now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That has now been noted and rectified.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), I wish to discuss the housing crisis in London, although five minutes is a very short time in which to try to describe a truly appalling situation. Some 360,000 families are on the housing waiting list in London—that excludes the large number of single people who usually cannot even get on the waiting list—and 750,000 Londoners are living in grossly overcrowded accommodation. The housing solutions for them are non-existent, and will be unless there is an enormous change in Government policy and in the policy of the Mayor of London towards this crisis.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is an inner-London MP for an area that has a particularly severe overcrowding problem, but does he agree that this issue affects the outer-London suburbs as much as inner London? Does he acknowledge that a huge number of people in Harrow in my constituency are also waiting, without a great deal of hope, for a new home?
Jeremy Corbyn
This is indeed a time for inner and outer London solidarity, and I am happy to declare that act of solidarity with my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North, for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and with many other outer-London boroughs. To be homeless in London is to be homeless in London, to be overcrowded is to be overcrowded, and to be on the waiting list is clearly to be on the waiting list.
The solutions to this situation have to be sought. Sadly, what was offered in the Budget is not a solution; I suspect that it will result in those with deep pockets being able to buy yet more properties, which they will then keep empty, as part of the disgrace of private sector land banking that is going on in London. I will discuss the other solutions concerning owner-occupation, social rented housing and private rented housing in a moment. First, I wish to deal with the issue of the large number of empty properties, often at the high end of the market, deliberately kept empty by people who have large amounts of money that comes from dubious sources. They have bought these properties in order to make a great deal of money out of them at a later date when their value increases. Given the current housing crisis, we should be giving powers to local authorities to take over properties that are deliberately kept empty, so that the people in desperate housing need can get somewhere to live in London.
Alison Seabeck
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the spare homes subsidy could be misused by exactly the people he is talking about, and that Government and taxpayers’ money could be misused?
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. There is no clear definition of how this subsidy being offered by the Chancellor will be used, so it seems to be an opportunity for those with deep pockets to make a great deal of money for themselves. The people in desperate housing need, such as those represented by me or by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West or for Ealing North, will not have that same opportunity.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jeremy Corbyn
I will not give way any more, because I would lose my time.
The second area I wish to discuss is the social rented sector in London—council housing. The problems of housing in London are not new; they were acute in the 19th century and in the early 20th century. It was the inspiration and idealism of the Labour-controlled London county council in the inter-war years that did a great deal to build decent homes for people who were living in appalling slums. Indeed, in my constituency and others one can see the products of the inspirational work done by Herbert Morrison and others. The post-second world war council house building did an incredible amount to give people decent places to live.
I had the great honour of being a member of Haringey borough council from 1974 to 1983 and I remember complaining in 1979 that we had built only 1,000 council houses that year. I was complaining that we could have done more, but 1,000 is more than have been built in the whole of London in most of the past few years. I am critical of my party in government and of the current Government for not doing enough to build new council housing.
The Government’s solution is to suggest to local authorities that they should raise rents to 80% of the market rent to raise some funds to develop new housing. In my borough and those of most colleagues in London, council house rents would more than double. Islington borough council, to its credit, has refused to do that and has managed to develop a substantial building programme on its own land from its own resources. But obviously, there are limits to that programme, imaginative though it is.
We need central Government involvement in the building of new council homes as a matter of enormous urgency. The Mayor of London does not seem fully to grasp all that. In fact, there are quite a lot of things the Mayor of London does not fully grasp, but one of them is the essential need for the building of new council houses. The number of social rented properties—that is, council or housing association properties—built under his watch and by his means has reduced from 11,000 in 2010-11 to only 983 in the current year. Goodness knows how much lower than that the numbers will go in future years. We must kindly ask central Government to get a grip of the situation and do their best to intervene with the Mayor and with borough councils to ensure that there is a rapid increase in the supply of council housing in London. That is the best and most efficient way of solving the housing crisis. It provides jobs, provides homes and helps people to have a secure place to live.
The final area I want to mention was covered in a ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced and it is the private rented sector. In London, 800,000 families live in that sector—it is the fastest growing housing sector by a long way. In my constituency, a third of all households are in the private rented sector and that number is rising fast. Generally speaking, people who live in the private rented sector pay the most to live in the least efficient, worst repaired and worst maintained properties and in the least regulated sector. Not all landlords are bad—some are very good—but the lack of regulation means that those who are bad can get away with it. We need regulation of the letting agencies, registration and regulation of all private rented accommodation and, in my view, rent controls.
The housing benefit cap is acting as an agent for the social cleansing of the poorest people on housing benefit all over central London. They are being driven out of their areas and driven out of London. For that reason, we need not just to control housing benefit expenditure but to control it by controlling the rent levels instead, rather than forcing tenants out of their homes—
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want to speak about the protection of the green belt in Hillingdon. I have lived in my constituency and represented it in various guises for nearly 40 years. From the earliest days I shared a dream that we would surround our largely industrial and urban area, which is encircled with factory sites, offices, major motorways and airports to north and south, with country parks and open spaces. Decades on, we have succeeded, with new country parks to the south, west and east and the regeneration of our traditional parks and green-belt open spaces. That has been a tremendous community achievement. I have set up friends groups for each park and worked with organisations such as the London wildlife trust, A Rocha and Hillingdon natural history society to improve and open up our open spaces.
One of our greatest achievements is the creation of the award-winning Lake Farm country park. That land next to Hayes town centre was owned by EMI, which in the early 1990s sought to dig gravel from it and turn it into a rubbish tip. I set up a friends group, mobilised the local community and persuaded the council on a cross-party basis not only to reject the planning application but to buy the land to create a country park.
Ironically, it is the council that is now planning to build on our country park. It proposes to build a three- form entry primary school on the park, putting at risk the natural habitats of the skylarks and other abundant birdlife and wildlife on the site as well as taking away a considerable portion of the park from public enjoyment. That has caused uproar in our community.
The council argues that although the development is contrary to local and national policies, and those of the Mayor of London, on protecting the green belt, there are exceptional circumstances because of the need for additional school places and because there is no other site for the new school in the area. The planning process by which Hillingdon council reached that decision has plumbed the depths of disgraceful, mendacious and, at times, farcical local government incompetence.
Stephen Pound
I urge my hon. Friend to resist this even more strongly that he is already inclined to. Were he to enter London along the broad, majestic A40, he would see the three mounds of Northarla fields, which were achieved by Ealing council and the Northolt and Greenford countryside park, influenced by, in admiration of and in tribute to the work of his borough of Hillingdon.
John McDonnell
If this goes ahead, all green-belt open space in west London will be vulnerable to attack.
On the demand for pupil places, it is only three years since the council proposed closing and selling off a local school because it was surplus to requirement. Then, 12 months ago, we were told that the projections for pupil numbers had rocketed and new schools were desperately needed. In particular, a three-form entry school had to be built.
Bizarrely, the council has failed properly to take into account a new four-form entry school being built, with the enthusiastic support of the Secretary of State for Education, at Guru Nanak college, which is in the same ward. The overwhelming number of pupils applying for places at the college have come from the local area, thus freeing up places in local schools. The council has also refused to take into account the request by a new two-form entry school in the same wards to expand to at least three, if not four, forms of entry. That would obviate the need to build on our local park.
The council failed to search adequately for alternative sites for the new school. Initially, it refused to release its search site report to the general public, or to me, on grounds of commercial confidentiality. When the report was finally released, we discovered that the council was rushing to sell off the most obvious alternative site to a developer for housing. The council’s planning meeting, where the council gave itself planning permission, descended into farce, as petitioners were ignored, new figures were presented to councillors on the night and it was revealed by a Labour councillor and committee representatives that the land in question is subject to a section 106 agreement from the 1990s, which the planning chair and the officer seemed oblivious to.
Nevertheless, the planning application was sent off to the Mayor, who we hope will adhere to his election pledges to protect the green belt. I know that he has stated his concern about school places being used as an excuse to make incursions into the green belt in London.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is telling a familiar story. My local Conservative-led council is in the process of selling off a third of a public park in the most deprived part of my constituency to a private owner, who will then charge £90 an hour for people to play football there.
John McDonnell
I hope that the Minister and the Department will monitor this in London. The Mayor has raised his concerns. A pattern is emerging of excuses relating to the number of pupil places needed. Alternative sites that have been discussed, particularly brownfield sites, are not being examined properly, and then the issue is used as an excuse for incursions into the green belt, sometimes for profiteering, as my hon. Friend suggests.
My concern is that if the council gets permission for a primary school, it will then roll out to a secondary school, and then it will argue for housing on the site. We will then lose the whole park, which is award-winning, and which we achieved on a cross-party basis. The planning application has gone to the Mayor, who we hope will reject it or refer it back. However, this morning I discovered that the council has withdrawn the application from the Mayor and rushed off to a barrister for counsel’s opinion on how to get over the section 106 problem, to which it has now clearly been alerted.
Hillingdon council—I raised this point before Christmas —is in chaos. That is not a party political point, because I would say the same whoever was in control. I was in local government for nearly 30 years. I think that the council is degenerating into incompetent farce. At the moment, planning is left in the hands of consultants, who have no knowledge of the area or its planning history. Indeed, they often ask for directions to sites during visits because they are unaware of the sites’ existence. Councillors have too much interest in development or housing, and many of them have associations with developers and as landlords.
Before Christmas, I appealed to the Secretary of State to intervene on Hillingdon council, and, if necessary, to take the drastic action of sending commissioners in, because I was worried about how contracts were being awarded. I understand that there is now an internal investigation into a number of those contracts. However, I have had enough. This planning issue has now gone beyond anything that is acceptable. I appeal again to the Secretary of State, and I am willing to see him take direct control over Hillingdon council and restore some semblance of good governance within the area.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate following my Select Committee meeting and in advance of the planning Minister’s response.
Earlier this month, Natural England declared Ministry of Defence land at Lodge Hill in my constituency to be a site of special scientific interest. In numerous plans over 18 years, the site has been clearly designated for 5,000 homes and for employment opportunities for 5,000 people. A total of £35.5 million has been spent to get to the point of planning consent being granted. After all this time and money, the council is concerned, to put it mildly, to be thwarted at the last hurdle by Natural England, which does not consider the economic impacts. The council leader, Rodney Chambers, responded as follows:
“This is very disappointing news to receive from unelected quangocrats at Natural England. As a local authority we are eager for this scheme, which is on government owned land, to progress and deliver the houses and jobs we badly need.
The government is constantly telling us that we should be going for growth, kick starting the economy and fighting the recession and yet here we are with a shovel ready project that would deliver 5,000 much needed homes being delayed by a government agency.”
The reason for this, we are told by Natural England, is that a study of some description has discovered that 84 nightingales might use the site. The comparison to be drawn is between those 84 nightingales and homes for 12,000 people and jobs for a further 5,000 people. We are told by the Prime Minister that we are in a global race, but it is not clear that that message has yet filtered through to bodies such as Natural England.
There have been similar instances locally. On the Isle of Grain, a proposal for the generation of 6,000 jobs on a site owned by the National Grid Company has been delayed for some three years because it is possibly the habitat of a certain type of bug. Near Medway, in the Swanscombe area, a proposal that would deliver 27,000 jobs has been delayed because of concerns about a breed of spider. At Dungeness, there are concerns about vegetated shingle that has to be considered in the context of the development of power generation.
It is not surprising that council leaders in the area say that we need to end the absurd situation of a non-elected Government agency dictating to national and local government on how to run things. Medway is an example of a council that is pro-development, that wants to support the Minister and that wants to show that it is open for business. Will the Minister assure me that our local council will be able to decide where it is best for development to go, not Ministers or their inspectors, and still less these quangos? We have heard of the bonfire of the quangos; in the case of Natural England, it appears to have fizzled out.
I understand that the executive board of the body has taken this decision, that it is going to be reviewed and that there is, as ever, some consultation process, but I am not sure whether that is a mere formality or a genuine process. We are told that in July the decision will be reviewed by the full board of Natural England, but we do not know if that will be anything more than a rubber-stamping exercise. I would appreciate the Minister’s views on whether it will be a genuine exercise and whether the board will really consider the wider representations or the Government’s policy. If it is not able to consider Government policy, how can democratic Ministers have their way when competing in what they call the global race? When councils such as Medway have planned to develop land for many years and have spent millions of pounds, will they be able to make the decisions that are required?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
Having heard the range and quality of the contributions from Members from all around the House, I feel like an unwitting contestant on “Just a Minute”. I fear that after I address the subjects that have been raised, on which I am so profoundly inexpert, Members may conclude that I am actually a contestant on “I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue”.
First, I will address the hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituencies in London on a range of issues. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) spoke about the cap on borrowing against the housing revenue account. I am glad that he welcomed the flexibility that the Government have provided to authorities to undertake prudential borrowing. I reassure him that within the cap for the 29 stock-holding authorities in London, there is £1.4 billion of borrowing headroom. I would encourage local authorities to take advantage of that. He will be aware, although his party often professes not to be, that unfortunately we have to maintain strict controls on the deficit and to limit increases in our national debt. That is why the Government are not considering relief of the cap.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) made an eloquent argument for the exemption application against the new permitted development right for change of use from commercial to residential. She will be aware that we are considering a great number of exemption applications from authorities across the country and will understand that we need to apply the criteria that have been set out fairly and objectively to all authorities. I therefore hope that she will understand that I cannot give her any specific reassurances about the result of the application from her local authority. I can reassure her that the process is happening as quickly and fairly as possible, with outside expert help to assess whether the criteria apply.
The hon. Lady also raised the removal of the spare room subsidy from people in her constituency who are in receipt of housing benefit. I remind her, as she will have heard many times from this Dispatch Box from people who are much more senior than I am, that the housing benefit bill has doubled to £22 billion a year. The removal of the spare room subsidy will save half a billion pounds a year. When she or her colleagues come up with another way to save that money, the Government will be delighted to hear it.
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised similar issues about the housing crisis in London and spoke of the need to build new council housing. He will be aware that councils can build new council housing. Many councils of all stripes are seeking to do so. I disagree with his idea that rent control would be nirvana for his constituents and for those who have to manage the housing benefit bill. The last time that we had rent control, there was a collapse in the private rented sector because investors were unwilling to invest in it. Our approach is very different. We are investing in the private rented sector through a generous scheme of guarantees that has been over-subscribed and to which the Chancellor committed more money in his Budget last week.
Jeremy Corbyn
What would the Minister say to my constituents who are faced with a gap, in some cases of more than £100 a week, between their housing benefit and their new private rent and who will be forced out of the community where their children go to school and their families live, leading to community disruption? What would he say to them when they are sitting across the table in an advice bureau?
Nick Boles
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have spoken to a number of people in my constituency who face the same situation and not a great deal more housing is available. I accept that it will be very difficult for certain people, and I, as I am sure that he is, am doing everything that I can to work with councils on their local housing solutions and with Citizens Advice to put people in touch with alternative options and to encourage them to explore the possibility where appropriate—often, with families, it will not be, but for single people, it might be—of renting out spare rooms to offset the reduction. We have to save money from the housing benefit bill, however, and we have not yet heard any better or fairer suggestions from the Opposition on how to do that. When we have heard that, perhaps we will be able to discuss it.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a different but important issue about protecting the green belt and how that is assessed against the importance of providing new school places. He will understand that because he has asked that the proposal about which he is concerned be called in by the Secretary of State, I cannot comment on it. I can reassure him, however, that the national planning policy framework is clear about the protections for the green belt: there can only be development on the green belt in very special circumstances, so planning authorities would have to meet quite a tough test in law, if they wished to approve such a proposal. That has to be balanced, however, against the equally explicit commitment that great weight be given to the need to create and expand schools. I cannot prejudge how that will be arrived at in that case, but he has made an eloquent and passionate argument. Officials in my Department and I, as planning Minister, have heard it and will take it into account when we consider the proposal.
I think that I can now move away from London to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), who spoke movingly and effectively on behalf of the constituents of his who faced the unbearable tragedy of losing their daughter, Mary Ann. He will be aware that the Government constantly consider ways to raise awareness of the risks of carbon monoxide, and I can tell him that there will now be a label on barbecues to warn people of the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. He will also be aware that building regulations require a carbon monoxide alarm when a solid fuel appliance is installed in a home. It is not currently proposed to make it mandatory to install those alarms in new homes, as he suggests doing, but he has made a strong argument, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), will be keen to listen to his concerns and consider them as he reviews building regulations.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) told a tale of woe on behalf of her constituents about what appeared to be the fraudulent issuance of a safety certificate. I cannot comment in detail, because it is not my area of expertise; I can only reassure her that we will write to the Health and Safety Executive and Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions, who oversee the HSE, to ensure that she receives an adequate answer on how her constituents’ interests can be properly protected.
I turn, finally I think—no doubt, someone will holler if I have missed them out—to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). I can well understand the dismay of Medway council, which is seeking to do what all hon. Members across the House understand is necessary: to make provision to build more houses. I can well understand their dismay that such a major scheme should be put at risk by a declaration that the site is to be viewed as a site of special scientific interest. I cannot comment on the merits of the decision or the scheme, but I can reassure him of two things. First, notification of a site as an SSSI does not necessarily mean that it cannot be developed, but it does mean that the developer must make advanced efforts to mitigate, or, if they cannot do that entirely, to compensate for any impact on the site. Only last week, I met the chairman of Natural England, and I would be happy to explore with him the status of such a notification, how it came about and whether it can be managed to ensure that the houses needed for people in my hon. Friend’s constituency are built. I hope that has answered all the questions raised by hon. Members.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you for keeping your remarks short so that we can have as many speakers as possible in the next general debate. If everybody turns up, there are 28 Members who would like to contribute to the David Amess debate—[Laughter.] I mean the general debate. We will start with a five-minute limit on speeches, but if we need to we will reduce it to four minutes so that everybody can at least get in and get something on the record before the Easter recess.
General Matters
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am rather tired of all the mitherers and doom-mongers. We know the types: those quick to criticise, quick to talk down, and quick to jump on any passing hashtag bandwagon. However, as Lord Mandelson said recently, those without a plan of their own should not be criticising those with plans. Many knowledgeable business folk have told me that the only thing holding back big levels of growth in our country is confidence, and we can get that only by recognising and celebrating success. Therefore, in the next few minutes as we head into the Easter recess I want to celebrate some of the many wonderful things going on in my Colne Valley constituency.
In Colne Valley, 1,220 apprenticeships started in the last academic year, and another 360 in first quarter of this academic year—a 74% increase on the last year of the previous Labour Government. Right at the forefront of that increase in apprenticeships is Kirklees college, under the leadership of the inspirational Peter McCann. A couple of weeks ago during national apprenticeship week, I went to meet one local apprentice who has a dream job. Helen is working up at Holmfirth vineyard—what a great place to work!—which not only hosted thousands of wine tours last year, but also offers quality homemade food and drink. Ironically, it is in Holme valley, which hosted many visitors on the back of the famous long-running BBC TV series “Last of the Summer Wine”. It is therefore fitting that a vineyard is now proving to be the big, new honey pot for tourism in my part of the world.
As we know, apprentices need full-time jobs to go to, and I am particularly proud that manufacturing is going great guns in my part of Yorkshire. I am proudly wearing a lapel badge that says “Huddersfield—the Place to Make It”, which is a manufacturing campaign in my part of the world. Even in London I see great examples of that manufacturing. The glass pods on the London Eye are made in my constituency at Novaglaze in Lockwood, and the textiles for the suit that David Beckham wore at the royal wedding a couple of years ago were manufactured in my constituency. On the way home tonight, those who go on a London bus should look at the flecked upholstery, which has probably been manufactured by Camira Fabrics in Meltham—we are very proud of that.
Down the road from Meltham is a wonderful engineering company, CNC Mill Turn Solutions, which is taking on apprenticeships and winning new contracts. Many of those are defence contracts, including for the new Ocelot Snatch Land Rover. Those are companies that I have visited recently, and the facts back up my remarks. Statistics from an independent consultancy firm show that 1,187 new companies started in Huddersfield and Colne Valley last year—an 8% increase year on year, and a record for any year.
On food and drink, I have already mentioned the vineyard, while local breweries on my patch—including the Linfit, Mallinsons, Magic Rock, Empire, Golcar, Milltown, Nook Brewhouse and Riverhead micro-breweries —were very pleased with the Chancellor’s news that he was cancelling the beer duty escalator. They are pleased with some of the Government’s moves. Pure North Cider also makes cider in my constituency, so it is not just wine and beer that we make.
We are very lucky with regard to education. Huddersfield university will welcome 5,000 new students this year. On the sporting front, Huddersfield Town are holding their own in the championship and have a big game against Hull City at the weekend, and the Huddersfield Giants rugby league club are currently proudly top of the super league. On Sunday 6 July 2014 the Tour de France will come to Huddersfield and the Holme valley, and even to my village in Honley.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I am pleased that the Tour de France will go through my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I am sure he realises that that will only be the warm-up for when it goes through my High Peak constituency and the hills the cyclists will encounter.
Jason McCartney
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but the cyclists will be very tired by the time they get to his constituency because they will have taken the long climb up Holme Moss to the top of the Pennines, where it is very picturesque.
I will leave Members with all those positive things going on in my constituency. It is really important, given all the doom-mongers, to celebrate things and back business, enterprise and entrepreneurs. Let us also back apprentices and Yorkshire.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We all now know what we will be doing on 6 July 2014.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who did not say whether he was made in Colne Valley. I apologise to Members and the Official Reporters for the speed at which I am going to speak, but it is because this Back-Bench day has been hijacked by various other issues.
I want to raise two issues, one local and the other national. The first relates to a constituent of mine, Mrs Brenda Pressdee, a senior citizen who faces the prospect of having the home she has lived in for 38 years sold, but she cannot remember why. It is important to highlight this case because it could happen to any one of us, our family or our constituents.
It is unclear how Mrs Pressdee came into contact with Dream Money Ltd. It brokered an agreement and she had to pay £3,000 in fees because she signed a loan agreement for a second charge on her property of £36,000. Once the brokerage fee and all the fees for lawyers, solicitors and title insurance had been paid, the total charges and interest came to £32,995, which is 99.9% of the £33,000 Mrs Pressdee had initially requested. By December 2012, with interest and charges and charges associated with arrears, Mrs Pressdee’s total debt was £51,713.74. She is unable to keep up her payments and now has to sell her home under the mortgage rescue scheme while living there and renting it out. As a result, Blemain Finance will receive a £55,000 redemption from the sale of her home.
The situation is heartbreaking. Mrs Pressdee signed a piece of paper saying:
“I can confirm that I intend to repay my loan at the end of the term by the sale of my property.”
The note is dated 19 December 2007 and she clearly did not understand what was going on. I do not think that she received legal advice on the loan agreement.
Who can protect Mrs Pressdee? The Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on irresponsible lending only came into force in March 2010, so she was not covered with regard to the finance company’s actions. I do not think that she had the capacity to enter into the agreement. She was continually charged for every letter written. On two separate occasions she was charged £230 in legal costs, so the bills went up.
The OFT cannot help Mrs Pressdee, but what about the Consumer Credit Act 1974? Section 140A centres on the unfair relationships between creditors and debtors. Thanks to the Library, we have managed to find two cases against the company concerned. Under section 140A, Peter Bentley challenged the right to repossession of his property. The High Court judge in Cardiff asked both parties to rewrite the loan agreement, and they have done so.
In the second case Blemain Finance took repossession proceedings against Mrs Thomas from Penzance. Three loan agreements had to be rewritten. The judge held that they were unenforceable, because the amount of credit on them was incorrectly stated, so those repossession proceedings were dismissed.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who passed it on the Office of Fair Trading. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), wrote to me yesterday to say that she had nothing further to add, but the Department can do something—it can consider winding the company up in the public interest. The Minister could also meet me and the Pressdee family to see what we can do to help Mrs Pressdee, a vulnerable pensioner who has been driven out of her home. We should be protecting her.
I raised the issue of marine conservation zones with the Leader of the House, who suggested I should have an Adjournment debate, and here we are. What is the problem? Some £8.8 million has been spent on a consultation. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidance states that the lack of scientific certainty should not postpone the decision. For two and a half years, we have had a steering committee of 44 industry representatives and 12 conservation non-governmental organisations, and the announcement of the 21 designated zones, and 28 species of mammals and fish are under threat. I am a member of the National Trust. It is important to protect not only the seas, but the coastline, because it is a finely balanced eco-system.
I therefore have some questions for the Minister. What is the timetable? Can he state whether there will be a re-consultation on redefining the guidance on an ecological coherence network? Parliament needs to know before any more public money is wasted on a further consultation. If not now, when?
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I should like to talk about the Maldives. People often ask why the Member of Parliament for Salisbury is so concerned about the smallest Asian country. I am concerned because the ousted President of the Maldives has a strong association with my constituency. He was educated just outside it and has spent a lot of time in exile there. Since I came to the House, I have taken a great interest in the Maldives. The situation there is dire and appalling, and it deeply concerns me. I am also very worried by the reaction of the international community.
After many years fighting for free elections, in 2008 Anni Nasheed was elected as President of that small country. Last year, a few weeks after I went out there to help his party prepare for the upcoming elections, he was ousted in an appalling coup. The country is now in a critical state. The free and fair elections that should happen later this year are in the balance. It is difficult to get clarity from the international community, and even from the British Government, on how assertive it is prepared to be to deal with the country.
There is systematic corruption among the judiciary, and almost every week new stories of human rights violations reach the press. Although the ousted Nasheed is expected to run in the forthcoming elections, it is difficult to say that he will have a clear pathway to the elections, given the legal machinations put up against him almost every week.
As I have mentioned, there are the most vile human rights abuses in the Maldives. A 15-year-old girl has been sentenced to 100 lashes in public when she turns 18, and to eight months of house arrest. It is appalling that the international community can apparently do nothing about the situation. I stand today to generate some publicity, I hope, so that people are aware of the direness of the situation in the country.
The prosecutor-general stated that the 15-year-old was charged with the crime of pre-marital sex, which emerged from a police investigation. That followed a completely ludicrous allegation. It was alleged that the 15-year-old had given birth and that her step-father had murdered the baby and buried her. The step-father was accused of molesting the 15-year-old, and the victim’s mother has been accused of concealing a crime and failing to report the molestation. We will only get changes in the Maldives if there is public awareness of what is going on. Similar things are happening in many countries across the globe, but I am not prepared to just stand back and let these things happen.
The Maldives need free elections later this year, so that Anni Nasheed, that honourable and decent man, who was educated in this country, can stand as a candidate, unimpeded. The illegitimate president must ensure that those elections take place. Recently, Anni Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic party organised a mass rally with 7,000 or 8,000 people participating, but when the rally reached Dr Waheed’s residence—that is the person who grabbed control last year—riot police aggressively charged the crowd. Many people reported that the police used excessive force in breaking up the rally, and many injured women remain in hospital. Video footage shows the police attempting to arrest bystanders and using excessive force.
I urge the British Government to acknowledge what is really happening and to stand firm later this year.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I rise to bring to the House’s attention the resolution passed in the European Parliament on January 2009 to commemorate the anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. My interest in Bosnia and Yugoslavia arises from having worked for the United Nations mission in Kosovo between 2000 and 2002.
The background to the massacre began after the break-up of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s which led to conflict within Bosnia. That war sparked numerous atrocities, including the “mass rape” of women, as defined by the United Nations war crimes tribunal. Studies estimate that as many as 20,000 to 50,000 Bosniak Muslim women were raped by Serb forces and many were abused for months.
One of the most prominent and gravest incidents took place in July 1995. The Bosnian town of Srebrenica, which was, at the time, an isolated enclave stated to be a protected zone by a United Nations Security Council resolution of 16 April 1993, fell into the hands of the Serbian militias. During several days of carnage, more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys, who had sought safety in this area under the protection of the United Nations forces, were executed by Serb forces which had entered Bosnian territory from Serbia. Nearly 25,000 women, children and elderly people were forcibly deported, making this event the biggest war crime to take place in Europe since the end of the second world war.
This tragedy was declared an act of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In January 2009, the European Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution to proclaim 11 July a day of commemoration of Srebrenica throughout the European Union. It is a day on which we should express condolence and solidarity with the families of the victims, many of whom are living without final confirmation of the fate of their relatives and a day on which our thoughts should be with those who were killed and those who lost loved ones.
The European Parliament resolution called the Srebrenica genocide
“the biggest war crime in Europe since the end of WWII.”
The Assembly called it
“a symbol of the international community’s impotence to intervene and protect civilians.”
I call on the Government to commemorate appropriately the anniversary of the Srebrenica act of genocide by supporting the European Parliament’s recognition of 11 July as the day of commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide. I also urge the Government to make further efforts to bring the many remaining fugitives to justice. We should be doing more to support the valuable work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of reconciliation in the European integration process, particularly with regard to the role of religious communities, the media and education, so that people of all ethnicities can overcome the tensions of the past, move forward, and begin a peaceful and sincere co-existence in the interests of enduring peace, stability and economic growth. In working to move forward, we must not forget the lessons of the past. It is therefore vital that this genocide, which has been described by the United Nations and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as the worst since the end of the second world war, is appropriately commemorated in the United Kingdom and in all European countries.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). They have shown that Backbench Business Adjournment debates can provide a real insight into different issues, and they have put them on the record. Both hon. Members were sombre in their tone, but I was pleased to note that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have something in common: we have both been members of Haringey council. I was slightly surprised to find out—because I know him reasonably well—that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) describes himself as an optimist.
The policy of incineration is being pursued across the country. Specifically, an incinerator is planned in St Dennis in my constituency. Since before I was a parliamentary candidate, I have said consistently that Cornwall should not go down the route of incinerating its municipal waste. I have said consistently that St Dennis is the wrong place for an incinerator and that incineration is the wrong solution and technology. I have argued for several years that cheaper, cleaner and greener alternatives are available to local authorities, yet in Cornwall and in other local authorities across the country we see a determination to continue to pursue this one-size-fits-all solution and off-the-shelf easy win to deal with municipal waste when alternatives are available. Yes, they might require a little extra effort, but in the long run they can deliver huge savings in carbon emissions and money. Road movements would be reduced as less waste is ferried around, and that would be better for our country and our planet.
I was delighted that the respected environmental waste management consultancy, Eunomia, which has previously advised Cornwall council, looked recently at the council’s plans and decided that savings could be made. Those savings are not insignificant. It suggests that potentially £320 million of savings can be delivered to taxpayers in Cornwall if the council revisits its waste strategy. It makes the point that the contract is outdated and not fit for purpose, that it no longer fits the overall policy context of either the UK Government or our European counterparts, that the PFI credits are poor value for money, and that with some simple changes Cornwall can find a different solution that better meets its needs.
Cornwall currently recycles just 37% of its waste and has no real plans to improve that rate. Recycling rates cannot be improved while trying to feed an incinerator that is ever-hungry for material to burn. The best local authorities now recycle more than 60%, and recycling alone could deliver £12 million-worth of savings a year to the council. Indeed, if we went as far as Surrey county council, which is hitting a 70% target, there is potential for still more significant savings. Eunomia reports that the PFI contract that Cornwall council agreed with the previous Government is outdated and not fit for purpose, and that savings can be made there too.
None of this comes at a time of plenty. We know only too well in this House that local authorities face a difficult financial environment. We know from the representations that we all receive from our constituents that the money that could be saved—the £320 million that Cornwall council is throwing away—could be better used to help to meet people’s needs in their day-to-day existence.
Perhaps I can put it best by leaving it to the director of Eunomia, who said:
“Cornwall used to lead the recycling league, but now languishes in the bottom 25% of local authorities. In the 15 years since the PFI plan was hatched, the world of waste has moved on and far better alternatives now exist. Our analysis shows that the PFI contract is a very expensive way to ensure that Cornwall continues its poor environmental performance on waste for decades to come.”
I urge the Minister to get our right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to look at this issue on a value-for-money basis. We are in the last-chance saloon, but it is not too late.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish to raise two very different issues.
First, Marlborough and Vaughan schools—both excellent schools in my constituency—are in urgent need of rebuilding. They were built in the 1960s as temporary schools. They have problems with asbestos and other serious defects. Given Harrow’s growing population of young families, both schools also need to expand to become three-form entry schools. The council wrote to the chief executive of the Education Funding Agency last July to propose a financial agreement involving funding provided through the priority school building programme and Harrow’s share of the basic needs allocation. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will use his influence, at the very least to speed up a response to Harrow council’s letter to the EFA—one containing, I trust, positive news.
Secondly, I hope that the Competition Commission will investigate the funding of premiership rugby teams. Together with the Rugby Football Union, Premiership Rugby is the body that distributes funding to England’s top rugby clubs. It does so on an uneven and unfair basis. I understand that London Welsh rugby club received some £1.4 million from Premiership Rugby to help to fund players’ salaries, while other premiership clubs—notably the so-called founder clubs, such as Sale, Bath, Leicester and Gloucester—receive some £3.5 million a season. Indeed, figures I have seen for January suggest that Worcester, London Irish and Sale all received about three times the funding that London Welsh received. Given that they are London Welsh’s rivals for the relegation place, this hardly suggests that a fair contest is being played out. Indeed, bizarrely, recently relegated Newcastle also appears to have received three times more funding in January than London Welsh, while Bristol and Leeds, which were relegated some time ago, received almost double the funding that London Welsh received in January.
In short, there is a clear bias in how funding is distributed against teams promoted to the premiership. The funding arrangements have all the appearance of a cartel. They make it extremely difficult for newly promoted teams to survive or thrive. To their credit, Exeter and Worcester have done so, but the vast majority of promoted clubs struggle to survive beyond a season or two. I have therefore written to the Office of Fair Trading today asking it to request an investigation by the Competition Commission into the funding of rugby clubs. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will speak to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and encourage them to use their influence to support such an investigation.
There is, too, the fiasco of the five points deducted for messing up the registration paperwork of the London Welsh scrum half, Tyson Keats, even though no one disputes his entitlement to seek employment in the UK, his eligibility to seek work as a professional rugby player or indeed—should the call come—his eligibility to play for England. I very much regret today’s decision to turn down London Welsh’s appeal against this grim five-point deduction. Quite why the crime is so severe that it should merit such a huge penalty, when other clubs making similar mistakes have not been hit so hard, is frankly difficult to fathom. Exeter fielded an extra overseas player in one of its matches last season and was hit with only a two-point fine. Leicester fielded Manu Tuilagi some seasons ago, despite his effectively being an illegal immigrant. The club was not penalised any points at all. One would think there would be some expectation by the RFU that Leicester would have checked his status; instead, the RFU rallied round to help him to get his status resolved.
The premiership should surely be a genuine competition in which clubs battle it out on a level playing field. At the moment, sadly, a newly promoted team first has to climb a mountain to get to the playing field and is then expected to play with one hand tied behind its back. It is time that the funding of premiership rugby clubs became much more transparent and that newly promoted teams received appropriate funding.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Following last week’s Budget debate, I welcome today’s opportunity to highlight some key business-related issues affecting my constituency and my constituents.
The House will be well aware that Essex is a county of entrepreneurs, as there are many successful small businesses. That is why the first item on my list is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which continues to act as a barrier to businesses and many small firms in my constituency. To put this into some kind of context, HMRC has spent over 10 years relentlessly pursuing and seeking to punish my constituent, Mr Philip Wright. His case relates to a complex issue surrounding tax paid in the construction industry. Despite Mr Wright losing his business, being unwell and being of very limited means and having previously won an initial court hearing, HMRC continues to drag this case on, persecuting my constituent. HMRC has made many errors, yet it seems to be determined to secure a precedent-setting victory over Mr Wright at a further court hearing later this year.
This case shows how HMRC has targeted its efforts on the defenceless and on easy targets, while letting larger firms off the hook. It also shows once again how inept HMRC has been. My constituent had built up his own business and spent years doing the right thing. It is about time that HMRC did the right thing. I urge the Government, and particularly the Treasury Minister responsible for HMRC, to leave Mr Wright in peace. Today is quite a significant day, as we have to ask ourselves whether the official who presided over so many failures at the UK Border Agency is the right person to fix HMRC, with all its backlog of cases and problems.
The next business example from my constituency highlights problems with the Valuation Office Agency. The VOA, as it is fondly known, is an executive agency of HMRC, and it has spent the past three years sitting on a firm’s business rate re-evaluation appeal. In June 2010, the business requested a reduction on the basis that the rateable value applied was
“incorrect, excessive, contrary to law and a disproportionate reflection on the change in rental values in the locality”.
The VOA has sat on its hands for three years and done nothing. This is yet another example of bureaucracy not understanding how businesses operate in the real world, as a result of which I understand about 250,000 further appeals in similar instances are outstanding. I urge Ministers to take action to end this bureaucratic shambles and to press the VOA to get its act together.
Last week’s Budget has been positively welcomed by business, which is why I urge Ministers and the Government to press local councils to unleash local businesses from business rates and to tell local authorities to use their new powers to reduce rates and take a more flexible approach to local business taxation. My constituent, Duncan Clark, is an outstanding local entrepreneur who converted a redundant out-house building into a cookery school, creating two full-time jobs. He has taken a risk to set up that business and has a great “can do” attitude—the type of attitude that this country needs to grow into a more prosperous future. He should be congratulated on what he is doing; instead, of course, he faces a £6,000 bill for his rates. I hope that the Government will urge local councils to use their powers over business rates to foster a competitive spirit of business enterprise in this environment. That would help start-ups and help business men such as Mr Clark.
Many of the problems that I have highlighted demonstrate that the public sector needs to have a greater understanding and appreciation of the private sector. If those public bodies engaged more constructively with the private sector, they would enhance their own understanding. A great example of that happened in Witham town, when Essex county council listened to a body called Witham Industrial Watch, whose business members monitor criminal activity on our industrial sites. The county council was on the verge of taking away the street lighting on the industrial estate, but Witham Industrial Watch made a persuasive case to the council. I pay tribute to the council and to the cabinet member for highways for realising that it made business sense to work with Witham Industrial Watch to get the right outcome.
I look forward to hearing the Government’s response. Let me take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the House a very pleasant Easter recess.
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
The world is still divided, as we know. The plight of poor children in that divided world preoccupies tens of thousands of the finest of our citizens. The proximate cause of my applying to speak in this debate, for which I am grateful, was a visit that I had from campaigners from religious organisations and others from Bradford university. The campaign is based around the organisation Enough Food For Everyone If, which will have lobbied most hon. Members in the run-up to the Budget, seeking an important relief for poor children in poor countries. Sadly, the Government, on that occasion at least, failed to rise to that challenge. It is my hope that that campaign can continue and that the Government will take on board its demand to introduce some requirement on British companies operating in poor countries.
In parenthesis, every 45 seconds—the length of time I have been speaking—a child in Africa dies of malaria, let alone all the other ailments that kill so many children in poor countries. In the world as a whole, 110 million children under 10 go to work instead of school. For those children, there is no Easter, Christmas or holiday. There are none of the basic comforts that we wish for our own children. Yet in the midst of that, we discover, contemporaneously, that many British corporations and companies, some of them well known, are not only operating in those poor countries to take advantage of the very low wages that workers labour for, but doing their best in those poor countries to avoid, even evade, the minimal rates of taxation that those countries require from them. Therefore, that campaign is asking for something like the disclosure of tax-avoidance scheme that will be applied to British companies under the Finance Bill to force them to disclose the tax-avoidance schemes in which they are involved in poor countries.
Of course, child poverty is on the march in our own country, too. Yesterday, I had a brief moment with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allude to some of the child poverty in my constituency, which has the second highest child poverty and the second highest child mortality in the entire country. I know that I will not melt the hearts of the Government on that point, so I want to raise a practical point with them that, even in their own terms, is an anomaly. More than 10,000 children in Bradford are not receiving free school meals but are officially under the poverty line. The reason is that their parents are working and receiving working families tax credit. They are officially poor, officially below the poverty line, but cannot get free school meals. However, if their parents gave up their jobs, they would immediately be eligible for free school meals.
How can that conceivably fit with the Government’s oft-claimed intention to try to encourage the unemployed into work and to help the working poor? According to the Children’s Society, in one city alone—Bradford—more than 10,000 children are living under the poverty line but are not receiving free school meals. Therefore, they are likely to go an entire day without proper nutrition.
I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to explain to me, in writing, at least, how this anomaly can be tolerated. Why not give the working poor at least the same break that we give the unemployed, by giving their poor children something to eat at lunchtime?
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Easter is one of the most important Christian festivals and as we speak, across the world, particularly in the Punjab in Pakistan, Christians are being systematically traduced, attacked, tortured, imprisoned and even killed. The Centre for Legal Aid Assistance & Settlement said in a recent letter to me:
“The ongoing abuse of blasphemy laws against Christians in Pakistan is a violation of their human rights and the laws themselves are in direct contravention of various human rights charters. Pakistani Christians are accused of blasphemy to settle personal scores and without being given the chance to prove their innocence are locked up in jails.”
If the UK’s soft power means anything, it means exercising influence and withdrawing funds if necessary, to make sure the Pakistani Government know that this is completely unacceptable.
The House will know that in October 2011, I led a debate in Westminster Hall on Tourette’s syndrome, an inherited neurological condition that affects children from the age of six or seven. Many of those children are not well educated because they struggle to keep their tics under control and end up being excluded and in the criminal justice system. I remain unconvinced that the new NHS and education reforms take account of children who desperately need to have their issues addressed. I hope the NHS Commissioning Board looks at that.
The House will also remember that during a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time, I raised the issue of the fortification of basic foodstuffs with folic acid, particularly for women of child-bearing age. Many countries across the world have done so, and although they have not eliminated the dreadful, tragic conditions of hydrocephalus and spina bifida, they have reduced their incidence. It is my great good fortune to represent the city of Peterborough, in which the Shine charity, formerly the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, is based. It gives help, support and guidance to children affected by spina bifida and their parents. I remain hopeful that the Government will work with the Food Standards Agency—the Department of Health will work with others—to do the right thing and fortify foodstuffs such as bread and flour with folic acid to prevent these terrible conditions.
Turning to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), I will not dwell too much on the Budget, other than to say that I was disappointed that, although we could find time for something was not in the manifesto and the coalition agreement, such as same-sex marriage, we could not do so for something that was, such as a marriage tax break. Senior members of my party, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have said that that will happen under this Government, and I sincerely hope they are as good as their word.
Representing as I do the city of Peterborough, in which the headquarters of Thomas Cook is located, I was disappointed that the Chancellor also avoided the issue of air passenger duty, but I remain ever hopeful that that will change.
On a more positive note, philanthropy and the voluntary and community sector in my wonderful constituency, which I have had the good fortune to represent for eight years, is thriving. The Peterborough cathedral “900” appeal, which is seeking to raise millions of pounds from business and others for a heritage and education centre and a centre of excellence for English choral music to celebrate 900 years of a Christian settlement on the banks of the River Nene—an abbey, and then a cathedral—is doing well. Of course, something very dear to my heart is the Sue Ryder hospice at Thorpe Hall. A grade I listed building which was the home of Oliver St John—Oliver Cromwell’s money man—it is no longer fit for purpose as a hospice. The fundraising committee, of which I was a member for five years, is raising money for a purpose-built £6 million 22-bedroom hospice on the site. We desperately need the funds for that and good work is being done. So my city is generous and it is raising money for good causes.
May I end by wishing all hon. Members, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and all staff a happy, peaceful and restful Easter recess?
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
May I begin by apologising to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the House and the Deputy Leader of the House for that fact that I will not be able to stay for the duration of the debate? I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on his contribution, as he took the opportunity to raise a kaleidoscope of issues. I also congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Backbench Business Committee on this excellent initiative that I am taking advantage of for the first time. Although I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on tax breaks for married couples, I hope that he would extend them to same-sex couples who choose to marry.
Such great issues of human rights have been raised by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), who discussed child poverty, a shameful and deepening scar on this country. However, I wish to be a little more parochial and concentrate on issues closer to home. This may feel like groundhog day to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I spoke about the future of Cockenzie power station in yesterday’s Budget debate, but it is an issue of real importance to my constituency.
Cockenzie’s coal-fired power station closed on Friday 15 March, after 45 years of electricity generation which powered approximately 1 million homes every year during the station’s lifetime. Some 10,000 people have been employed there during its lifetime, through construction and generation. In some cases, three generations of families have been involved in the plant. It was a sad and emotional day when we saw those grown men in their hard hats having soft hearts about the closure of such an important part of East Lothian’s history, which has made such a great contribution to its economy. For many, including me, as I frequently fly into Edinburgh airport, its twin chimney stacks are the place that marks home.
I wish to praise ScottishPower, which has a good record in managing such closures. I praise the way in which it has worked with the trade unions in the workplace and with individual employees to ensure that there have been no compulsory redundancies. Many employees are moving to other stations, while others have opted for retirement or severance voluntarily. Having said that, this was still a tough day for East Lothian, as Cockenzie now lies like a sleeping giant, waiting for a decision from this Government.
There has been uncertainty about the future of Cockenzie for some time, and I do not lay this all at the door of this Government; the previous administration in East Lothian council, a Scottish National party-Lib Dem coalition, opposed planning permission for the plant’s conversion to gas. Fortunately, that decision was overturned by Scottish Ministers, who are also from the SNP—indecision is not limited to those on the Government Benches. Thankfully, we have a new administration in East Lothian council, a Labour-Conservative coalition—that is how democracy can be at times. It results from the single transferable vote, and I do not think it is a coalition we will ever see replicated in this place.
ScottishPower is calling for clarity on a capacity mechanism for thermal generation in the Energy Bill. Speaking at the annual meeting of the shareholders of Iberdrola—the Spanish owner of ScottishPower—its chief executive officer, Mr Galan, said that ScottishPower would increase its planned UK spend of £10 billion by £3 billion to build new gas-fired power stations, but uncertainty caused by market conditions and a lack of clarity from the UK Government was holding back that further investment. Some of that money could be used to refurbish the station at Cockenzie, creating 1,000 construction jobs in my constituency in the process and with further knock-on benefits to the local economy. When completed, it would be a welcome source of skilled jobs and apprenticeships for young people in my constituency. I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to take that message back to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. This is an opportunity for investment in the UK and in my constituency to create jobs and to keep the lights on.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Not long ago, a Slovak national, Mr Peter Pavlisin, badly beat up his pregnant Gloucester girlfriend, Natasha Motala, threatened her with death and had to be subdued by several policemen. He was sentenced to four years in prison in the Gloucester Crown court and the judge revealed during sentencing that during Mr Pavlisin’s four years in the UK he had been convicted of 14 offences from 21 charges. When I read that in our local paper, The Citizen, my immediate reaction was relief for my constituent Natasha, who had given birth safely, and for my other constituents, as the criminal would be off the streets of Gloucester. There was something missing, however. Where was the instruction to the courts to deport the prisoner at the end of his sentence?
I rang the judge and he explained that judges have the authority to deport non-EU nationals but not EU nationals. That can only be decided by the Home Secretary. I did more research, and I discovered that if an EU national is sentenced to more than two years, or 12 months for certain crimes, the National Offender Management Service is supposed to make recommendations to the Home Secretary on deportation some months before that sentence is over. That system is unsatisfactory in several ways. First, the victims, the court, the media and the community are unaware of it. No one in Gloucester knows that Mr Pavlisin should be deported in due course. As the judge is silent on the issue—indeed, judges have to be—the implication is that he will not be deported and will emerge with a strong likelihood of extending his frequent appearances in our courts.
Secondly, there is no clear responsibility for action, no audit trail and no measurement of the Ministry of Justice’s ability to ensure that dangerous EU nationals are deported at the end of their sentences. Thirdly, as the law allows for deportation but the process does not highlight it, my constituents and everyone else’s are unlikely to have confidence in the system.
That gap in the process could, I believe, be fixed relatively simply through an amendment to the UK Borders Act 2007 and a memorandum of conviction that would require judges to say when the sentence for any EU national is of a length or severity that obliges NOMS to consider recommending deportation to the Home Secretary well ahead of the completion of the sentence. That would spell out to everyone, including EU nationals, an important likely consequence of serious crime in our country. It would remind everyone that we decide who is deported and who is not, wherever they come from, and give us all more confidence in the process of law.
Let me be clear: this is not about bashing the EU or stoking xenophobic paranoia. Immigrants to Gloucester, from Roman legionaries to Norman monks, Jamaican nurses, Asian engineers, Polish makers of shirts and many others besides, including some great European rugby players, have contributed hugely to our city. We have thrived on immigration but not on foreign criminals. This is about the safety of my constituents and justice for all our constituents and it is a plea for more certainty and rigour in the process of justice. I am sure that Ministers in both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Department share my concerns and I hope that they will act to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done and that all foreign criminals will be deported when they deserve to be.
Let me take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone in this House a happy Easter.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
On her birthday, I call Barbara Keeley.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I want to take this opportunity to talk about sport and fitness for women and girls. I spoke about it during the debate on international women’s day last year and from that debate we managed to get cross-party agreement to support the development of a new all-party group on women’s sport and fitness. We launched it, it is supported by the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation and we have had some great meetings. Our first meeting was with the presenter and sports commentator Clare Balding and the Olympic rowing gold medallist Kath Grainger, and most recently we have had a meeting with the Paralympian Martine Wright, who survived the 7/7 bombings and went on to compete in the Paralympics, and Claire Lomas, who was the first paraplegic to complete the London marathon, doing so in 17 days walking in a robotic suit.
It was great to listen to those inspirational women from those different sports. It is needed, because women’s sport faces a crisis in media coverage and lack of sponsorship. Outside Olympic years, women’s sport receives less than 5% of the total sport print coverage, and even then, unsurprisingly, women’s sport receives only 0.5% of the total sponsorship income. There was the recent case of the England women’s football team being offered a salary increase from £16,000 to £18,000 a year. They eventually settled on a contract of £20,000 a year. In the same week, the Arsenal football player Theo Walcott signed for £100,000 a week. I know that we have some talented girls and young women playing football now, and the difference in reward levels for women’s football must be offputting for those talented enough to seek a professional career.
Appropriately enough for a debate at this time of year, it is a case of the chicken and the egg. More media coverage is needed to provide girls and young women with positive role models in sport, and that would encourage participation and future achievement, but media coverage is elusive and without it we do not get the sponsorship and salaries remain low.
Let me turn quickly to school sport, because we currently have a crisis of activity levels among children, especially girls, with just 16% of girls and young women reaching the recommended levels of activity by the time they leave primary school, compared with 29% of boys, and only 12% of 14-year-olds are active enough to benefit their health. In fact, girls leave school only half as likely to meet the recommended activity levels of boys, and nearly a third of 16-year-olds do no physical activity at all.
In that context, the Government’s announcement of £150 million for primary school sport is welcome, but I have some questions about the funding. How will Ministers ensure that the investment helps to close the gender gap in activity levels in primary schools? Do they have any plans to provide similar, much needed support in secondary schools, where sport among girls really drops away? How do Ministers plan to measure the success of the investment, given that there is no comprehensive annual measurement of children’s activity levels in sport? The status quo is that 51% of girls say that school sport and physical education actually puts them off being active, and they are only half as likely as boys to meet the recommended activity levels.
I commend the Rugby Football Union for its All Schools programme. At a recent event in the House, I met three young women who had taken up playing rugby at school and at a local club. The RFU has done a great job in enthusing teachers and coaches, who in turn enthuse and inspire young women, such as the three I met. I also congratulate FC United of Manchester on commemorating international women’s day by holding events to celebrate women in football, including an event called “A woman’s place is at the match”. Its women’s team was awarded Manchester Football Association’s “Team of the Month” award. They also won a recent semi-final to win through to the league cup final against Manchester City’s women’s team. I commend them and all women and girls working to break down barriers in women’s sport.
Finally, I would like to give the customary thanks to all staff of the House. I particularly want to thank Noeleen and the staff of the Tea Room, who I think do a wonderful job, the Hansard reporters, to whom I think we should all be very grateful, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish all a happy Easter. I will end by wishing a happy birthday to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I do not know whether any Government Members have birthdays today, but if they do I wish then a happy birthday, too.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
In fact, today is also my birthday. I am grateful for the opportunity, on this jolly occasion, to draw the House’s attention to proposals for a Congleton link road that would run from Sandbach road to the west of the town, past the north of the town centre and on to Macclesfield road to the east. The potential benefits have been excellently summed up in an appropriately titled document, “The key to unlocking Cheshire East: Securing jobs and a future for the local economy”, which has been compiled by a forward thinking partnership of Congleton business people and the East Cheshire chamber of commerce, collectively called the Link2Prosperity group—L2P.
The road would improve connectivity right across east Cheshire by improving links to Manchester airport, the M60 and the M6, the latter being just 10 minutes away at Sandbach, junction 17, in my constituency. It would also improve connectivity to the rail network, particularly the inter-city connection at Crewe, and would help alleviate heavy traffic problems that the people of Holmes Chapel have endured for 40 years.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
On my hon. Friend’s birthday, she is making a characteristically powerful speech. I agree wholeheartedly that the Congleton link road will be vital in improving connectivity in east Cheshire and to stimulate economic growth. Does she agree that it is also important to have a similar road—the Poynton-Woodford relief road—to help to improve connectivity in the north of our borough?
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely do agree. It is interesting to note that both these roads are priorities in Cheshire East council’s draft development strategy.
The Congleton link road would reduce the daily traffic congestion in the centre of Congleton that impedes businesses, residents and school pupils and has been described by Siemens, the town’s biggest employer, as “chronic”. It would also reduce the consequential high levels of nitrous oxide at pollution hot spots in the town.
The benefits of this road involve far more than traffic improvements alone. Its route north of the town would open up much-improved access to industrial and business park sites that are small, land-locked, in poor condition and under-occupied, which means that existing businesses looking to expand are being forced to relocate. Moreover, the sites offer minimal opportunities for inward investment by new businesses. All this could radically change with the investment in these sites that improved connectivity both locally and regionally would justify. The benefits of opening them up are cited not only in the L2P document but in Cheshire East council’s draft development strategy, which states in its foreword that the council has
“a jobs-led development strategy, supported by improved connectivity through sustainable infrastructure such as the…Congleton Link Road”.
It goes on to say that the strategy
“seeks to promote the right conditions for jobs growth—by boosting the delivery of existing major employment sites, improving connectivity and identifying new areas for future investment and expansion.”
The Congleton link road will do just that.
Let me give a case study. The L2P document talks about Senior Aerospace Bird Bellows, which is based at Radnor Park estate, one of the business sites to the north of Congleton. SABB manufactures key aircraft components, and it is Congleton’s second largest employer. Key visitors to SABB include Boeing, Airbus and Rolls-Royce. Sadly, as the L2P document states, the condition of Radnor Park estate does not reflect its status as the home of a high-tech, world-class manufacturer. SABB is set to grow; indeed, 100 jobs are about to be attracted to the company very soon. However, if it is to remain in Congleton, it is crucial that Radnor Park estate is improved. Improvements to the Radnor Park site, and indeed to other business sites in the area, could provide knock-on benefits in terms of attracting additional new businesses and much-needed employment opportunities, particularly for young people, that cannot be overestimated. That is why over 60 local companies listed in the L2P document support the link road proposal, including the town’s biggest employer, Siemens, which says that
“this new artery has the potential to pump new levels of economic activity into this town.”
The proposals are also supported by Congleton town council, Congleton Partnership and the retail arm of Congleton Business Association, which say that there is a need to focus on contemporaneous support for the town centre’s public realm and retail sector to ensure that that part of the town flourishes, in conjunction with this redevelopment, just as much as the business parks. I believe that with appropriate creative thinking and investment, the town centre will indeed benefit, not only as a result of the improved traffic flow and access to the town centre, but because it will provide a more pleasant shopping and leisure experience, and, one hopes, increased footfall as a result. Other key supporters include Congleton high school, Eaton Bank school and Congleton Town football club, all of which have ambitious aspirations to develop their facilities—something that could be facilitated by the link road development, with its improved connectivity and release of land.
In association with the link road, there would be additional housing developments. These must be sensitively planned, taking into account the existing communities’ views. That is a very important consideration that we must continually be aware of.
I ask the Minister to raise this important local proposal with his colleagues in the Department for Transport in the hope that I, and others, will be able to meet Ministers there in the near future to discuss this project in greater detail.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
May I join the House in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) a very happy birthday? I will keep my remarks brief because I know that other Members are seeking to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I am sure that the House has seen the sad news today that Dunfermline Athletic has gone into administration after owing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about £130,000. I hope that the Minister can say whether the Government, through HMRC and the Treasury, will be sympathetic to that problem.
My remarks will concentrate on the Royal Navy’s presence in Scotland. At this time of year, when we are all thinking about spending time with our families, loved ones and friends, we should remember the armed forces personnel of all services who are serving overseas and are apart from their families.
There have been recent announcements about the British Army lay-down in Scotland and there was a written statement yesterday about the RAF lay-down. Obviously, the Royal Navy plays an important role as well. Not only is Faslane the home of the deterrent; over the coming decade, it will become the home of the Astute class submarines. The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and I were up at Faslane just two weeks ago to see the fantastic work that goes on there. About 8,500 personnel will be based there and bring their experience to it. That base is an important source of employment. The Royal Marine base outside Arbroath at Condor is also an important presence in Scotland and it, too, provides jobs.
The other major site for the Royal Navy is Rosyth dockyard in my constituency, where the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are being assembled. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will recognise what fantastic pieces of engineering those carriers are. They are 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers that will form the centrepiece of the Royal Navy.
As the construction of the carriers progresses, the Royal Navy will have to increase its presence at Rosyth. Although there was understandable disappointment in west Fife that the Army would not be coming to Caledonia, I hope that the Minister will confirm that there was an important reason for that, which was that the Royal Navy has an important requirement for Caledonia and the wider west Fife area. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on the number of personnel who may be based there. I understand that at its peak, there may be somewhere north of 500 extra personnel.
I hope that the Ministry of Defence will meet me and others over the coming weeks to discuss how best we can accommodate those personnel and whether they should all be based inside Caledonia or whether work needs to be done with the council. Fife council has said that it is happy to talk to the MOD about what support it can offer to make them feel welcome.
I am sure that the Minister will want to confirm that were Scotland to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, not only would 8,500 jobs be lost at Faslane and the Royal Marines leave Condor, but there would be no future for the Rosyth dockyard. Not only would hundreds of jobs be lost at Caledonia, but the next 50 years of work that are coming to the dockyard would be lost. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the view of the Royal Navy on the future requirements.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and the whole House a happy Easter? You are a benevolent boss and have no doubt bought your staff an Easter egg. I am quite sure that the Deputy Leader of the House has bought an Easter egg for Mr Mike Winter, the head of office, Ben Sneddon and everybody else who works for him in his office. I am sure that every colleague will ensure that all their staff are looked after at this important time of year.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, there are a number of points that I wish to raise.
A constituent of mine, Katrine Kuzminas, recently sent me a DVD called “Earthlings”. I share her concern about the proposed badger cull.
Planet Leasing is a car leasing firm in my constituency that does a wonderful job in taking on school leavers to serve internships. In October 2012, it won the employer of the year award and celebrated its sixth birthday on 14 March. I am proud to have it in my constituency.
Honeywell, which makes switches and lights, is a Fortune 100 company that created many of the sockets that we use, including those at the Olympic games. During my visit to its factory, the topic of carbon monoxide detectors came up. Its particular concern is that, when a house is draught-proofed, the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning increases. Under the green deal, we have been promised that carbon monoxide detectors will be fitted as a legal requirement. I hope that that will happen.
Hospitals do a marvellous job, but do not seem to work at the weekends. Recently, my 92-year-old aunt was in hospital for a day. She returned home, but no one was there to look after her. She was standing on the side of the road, fell down and broke her hip. It was a disaster.
Jill Allen-King, a blind constituent of mine, has raised an important issue—the eligibility criteria for the higher rate of the mobility component part of disability allowance. Those who reach 65 lose that benefit, which seems extraordinary.
Essex county bowling club is currently £26,000 worse off, because it has been refused re-admittance to the community amateur sports club. As a result, it has not received the tax relief that it was previously given. I think the Inland Revenue needs to be more helpful.
The East of England ambulance service is struggling with several difficulties. I have heard first-hand accounts of how one addict called an ambulance nine times in one day. As of 2010, ambulance calls have been increasing at a rate of 6.5% each year. Considering that each call costs £200, it is an absolute disgrace that the service is being abused.
Gas prices are far too high. I was proud to introduce the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. I hope that the Energy Bill will deal with current high gas prices.
Small claims courts give our constituents a wonderful opportunity of getting redress relatively cheaply, but we need to consider carefully how they are financed and how they operate.
Whistleblowers seem to be the flavour of the month. In 1998, I publicly defended in the House a lady called Sharon Tattoo, but the NHS establishment of the day won, and the chairman of the health trust who defended her was forced to resign. It was an absolute disgrace. I hope that Health Ministers will look at that case again.
Spinnaker, led by Phil Parry, is a wonderful company in my constituency specialising in shipping, maritime and marine world recruitment. It has an exemplary customer relations record and should be congratulated on all the work that it does at home and abroad.
A constituent of mine has written to me. He is 38 and his wife has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Unbelievably, bereavement allowance only operates from the age of 45. That needs to be changed. Another constituent of mine has a brother, Abid, who is a British national sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in Pakistan for supposedly murdering his father. The case details are an absolute disgrace, and I call on the Foreign Secretary to do something very quickly.
I end with Southend. It is clear to me that everyone is getting behind Southend’s bid to be city of culture in 2017. Southend United are playing in the cup final on 7 April. I hope they win. I wish everyone a very happy Easter, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and particularly José and Fedel, who work in the gift shop down below and who are retiring after a combined period of 60 years’ service. If anyone wants a destination this year, I can only say that the only way is Essex.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to make a few comments about Ulster Scots culture, on which I am very keen. Last week, I took some of my staff round the House. It was a privilege to show them the history of the place. It reminded me of the pride that we all take in the Chamber. We are a small part of this great place and of the great nation that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am proud to hail from the unparalleled shores of Strangford. I am proud of our rich history and culture. I am proud to be an Ulster Scot.
I want to highlight the rich cultural links between Northern Ireland and the nations that make up the United Kingdom. Some Members might be unsure about what I mean by “Ulster Scots”. For nearly 400 years, the term has referred to a people, not a place—to the people who migrated from the lowlands of Scotland to Ulster and to the Ulster Scots communities they established across the nine counties.
The first large wave of permanent migrants were not soldiers or mercenaries but ordinary Scottish families seeking a new life. They were mainly Presbyterian in faith and outlook, and overwhelmingly spoke the Scots language. I understand that they were descended from the Stewarts of the lowlands of Scotland, and there are many people down the Ards peninsula, where I make my home, who can—and have—traced their ancestry back to Scotland and who hold their history very dear.
Ulster Scots refers not only to those people and their descendents, but also to their heritage and cultural traditions. The lowland Scots brought industry, language, music, sport, religion and myriad traditions to Ulster. Many of those have now become mainstream—not narrow cultural markers, but broad themes in our society. The Ulster Scots folk and the Scots alike have much to gain by strengthening our deep historic ties and understanding the Ulster Scots story.
Throughout schools in Northern Ireland, the Ulster-Scots Agency is working to instil in our children a pride in their heritage, safe in the knowledge that when we have a good foundation, we can build a sturdy home. One school in my constituency, Derryboy primary school, has an Ulster Scots dance in its PE class—that is something to behold—as well as having after-school clubs in Ulster Scots. We have children who can recite poetry and dance a jig and who understand that to enjoy their history and heritage is not being offensive or bigoted but simply being who they are.
In Strangford, we have strong links with Ulster Scots. We run programmes in the summer with the Lougheries Historical Society in Newtownards, with individuals reciting poetry at events and children being taught Ulster Scots in schools down the Ards peninsula, at Castle Gardens primary school and Movilla high school in Newtownards. The interest shown by those young people is second to none, and poetry is one of the things that they enjoy.
I am going to recite one verse—I have spoken to Mr Deputy Speaker about this—from one of those poems: Leevin in Drumlister:
“I’m leevin in Drumlister
An’ I’m gettin very oul
I hae tae wear an Indian bag
To save mae frae the coul
Theires naw a man in this toonlan
Wus claner raired than me,
But I’m leevin in Drumlister
In clabber tae the knee.”
I would love to read all three verses, but I was told I could not, so I will not.
Hon. Members who may be questioning what links they have with the Ulster Scots all enjoy the benefits of Ulster Scots ingenuity. Hans Sloane from Killyleagh in my Strangford constituency invented milk chocolate. Ladies love chocolate; men love chocolate. I used to love chocolate before I became a diabetic and I can no longer have it. Nevertheless, we have chocolate in our society because of Hans Sloane and Killyleagh.
More than 7,000 lives have been saved by the Martin-Baker ejection seat, which is now used by more than 90 air forces and navies. The number of lives saved increases by an average of more than three a week—again, ingenuity of the Ulster Scots. James Martin was a famous Ulster Scot who invented that ejection seat, and Frank Pantridge—also an Ulster Scot—developed the world’s mobile defibrillator and became known as the father of emergency medicine. We are doing our bit for society when it comes to inventions.
Perhaps some hon. Members have a Massey-Ferguson tractor, but if they do not, it was the first tractor and was perfected and built by an Ulster Scot. Twelve American Presidents have been of Ulster Scots heritage. We are a small nation, but we punch well above our weight producing 12 Ulster Scots Presidents with our heritage, history and our nation as best ally.
Some of the greatest inventions in the world and the funniest poetry is by Ulster Scots, as well as the most beautiful turns of phrase and dance. It is little wonder that I am proud to be an Ulster Scot. I cannot wait to see more people from the Chamber today and from outside the House travelling to my constituency to enjoy a rich culture and beautiful scenery.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s contribution, but on a serious note, the 100th anniversary of the first world war will soon be coming up. Will he acknowledge that, during the great war, Ulster Scots played a role with great heroism as part of the wider British Army? One thinks particularly of the battle of the Somme.
Jim Shannon
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, our heritage is not just cultural but historical. We fought alongside and within the British Army at the battle of the Somme, and we commemorate that contribution of our soldiers every 1 July. The history stories that I was taught as a boy are so important to me and to us as a nation because of our contribution and our heroism and courage. Young boys of 16 and 17 told lies about their age to join the Army and contribute at the battle of the Somme—I was going to say the battle of the Boyne, but that would be going too far back.
We Ulster Scots are very proud to have beautiful scenery, a rich culture and the warmest of people, who are anxious to welcome others to our heart and heritage. I invite all Members to Strangford to discover our Ulster Scots heritage, and I look forward to seeing them.
business of the house
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I want to address the issue of the mis-selling of interest rate swaps by commercial banks and to ask in particular why tailored business loans—or fixed-rate loans with embedded or hidden swaps—are not included in the Financial Services Authority’s review. This issue took up a whole Back-Bench debate last June and I know that we will return to it.
The pilots of the FSA’s review into interest rate swaps revealed evidence that up to 90% of products had been mis-sold by commercial banks, but the question is: why is the review not looking at TBLs? Many businesses in my constituency and, I would hazard a guess, across the whole country are affected by them. We need a review of those products if our constituents and business people are to have any chance of redress.
TBLs are remarkably similar to other interest rate swap products: they involve exorbitant exit fees for the businesses concerned, profits are booked immediately to the banks and there are huge incentives to sell them to customers. When the all-party group on interest rate swap mis-selling, ably chaired by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), met last December, Clive Adamson of the FSA told us:
“If there is no understanding of break costs given to the customer and if there was a poor disclosure of exit cost, then it was highly likely that there was a mis-sale”.
Yet on the grounds of a mere technicality, TBLs, which are fixed-rate loans, will not be included in the FSA review. That is unjust nonsense.
I can best illustrate that point by referring to two businesses in Aberystwyth in my Ceredigion constituency. First, Huw and Jackie Roberts of Minhafan Estates Property Development took out a £750,000 quaintly named vanilla swap over 10 years, which Barclays bank referred to as a “simple swap”. The breakage clause to get out of that agreement is £155,000 and their business is included in the FSA review. Secondly, the Beechey family who run the Black Lion pub in Aberystwyth took out a £750,000 fixed-rate loan—a TBL with embedded swap—over 15 years with Clydesdale and Yorkshire bank. Their breakage fees are £200,000, but the business is not included in the review. Both of those businesses are in the same constituency and suffering severe financial distress, yet one is in the review and the other is not. Both were involved in a trade call with an FSA-regulated derivatives expert when the hedging product was sold.
For 12 years the FSA has worked on the assumption of a principle-based system of regulation. The results of January’s pilots found that poor disclosure of break costs was one of the most significant issues in assessing compliance. However, banks such as Clydesdale and Yorkshire are telling customers that they have no legal or regulatory obligation to inform customers who have been sold a fixed-rate and that they have no redress whatsoever. If a feature is worthy of regulation when it is contained in one product, why is it not worthy of regulation when contained and concealed in another?
In Ceredigion there are well over 30 types of the Clydesdale and Yorkshire fixed-rate loan with hidden swap, and that is in one community alone. Hotels, pubs, lucrative shops and farms are being targeted by the banks. The stories are heartbreaking. These toxic loans mean that hitherto successful businesses are burdened with unmanageable interest rates. Owners are unable to exit the arrangements because of extortionate breakage penalties of between 20% and 40%.
What about the consequences? Job losses resulting from trading for four years in a severe economic situation while locked into an inappropriate product—a product that has sucked out every surplus the business has generated, preventing development and the engagement of staff and precipitating redundancies—are forcing people in my constituency on to benefits.
The challenge for the Government is to put all pressure imaginable on the FSA and the successor organisation to ensure that such embedded products are considered part of the review, so that the growing number of businesses affected have the redress and justice I believe they deserve. I hope my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House answers favourably.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), with whom I shared a trip to Nigeria last year, and to participate in the David Amess Adjournment debate. We heard my hon. Friend’s tour de force earlier, but I will concentrate on one subject.
I am always pleased to reassure my constituents that Harrow has one of the lowest crime rates in London. In fact, we are the second-safest borough in London for crime. For the past three years, crime has come down overall. However, I first got involved in dealing with knife crime when two savage incidents occurred in my constituency. To my horror, knife crime in Harrow has increased by 16% in the past two years. The overall crime figures show a reduction, and we see ourselves as a low-level borough for crime, including knife crime, but that increase prompted me to look at the wider figures in the country as well as in London.
Nationally, the knife crime figures are going in the right direction—they show that knife crime fell by 15% in the past three years, with the number of crimes coming down to around 30,000. However, in London in the comparable period, knife crime has increased by 15%. London accounts for nearly half of all knife crime committed in England and Wales, which is a serious concern.
The Government have seen fit to address that trend in the new tougher sentencing regime introduced as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which created the offence of aggravated knife possession—it is now an offence to threaten or endanger others with a knife or offensive weapon. The offence carries an automatic custodial sentence of six months for over 18s. I was one of a number of MPs who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who tabled an amendment to insist on an automatic custodial sentence of four months for 16 and 17-year-olds.
The offence came into operation only on 3 December 2012, so we are unable fully to judge its effectiveness yet. However, we can say that this is not the end of the fight against knife crime, but only the beginning. We need to look at the recently released figures to know the trend, particularly the figures on knife possession—if people do not carry knives in the first place, they will not commit knife crime. In 2012, nearly a quarter of the offensive weapon possession offences were committed by repeat offenders—I would add that they repeated the same offence. Of 4,000 individuals, 43% escaped a custodial sentence. Forty-four per cent. of those offenders had three or more previous convictions, but also escaped a custodial sentence. Even more gallingly, 5% of repeat offenders escaped with nothing more than a caution. Both the rates of reoffending and the sentences show that something is going wrong.
Across London, 62% of knife crime is accounted for by personal robberies involving a knife. Knives are used primarily as a weapon of threat, and in only a small number of cases is someone injured, but 40% of homicides in England and Wales involve a knife. That leads to the utterly wrong view that possession is the least dangerous aspect of knife crime, and therefore unimportant. We must address that. An attitude needs to be introduced in this country by which knife possession is completely and utterly unacceptable. If we allow repeat offenders to escape with nothing but a caution, that attitude will not come about. If we had such an attitude, we would not allow nearly half of all repeat offenders to escape prison.
I believe that possession of a knife or offensive weapon needs to be taken much more seriously, which is why I call on Ministers to assess whether it would be appropriate to introduce a two-strikes policy, by which anyone found in possession of a knife who has a previous conviction for a knife-related offence should receive an automatic custodial sentence. That would make it clear, in the strongest terms, that the Government stand against knife crime and are prepared to challenge its root causes.
This is holy week, when Christians celebrate Easter, Jews commemorate the Passover and the deliverance from Egypt, and Hindus celebrate Holi. I wish people of all religions a very happy holy week.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Sir Bob Russell, on his birthday.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
My birthday is on Sunday.
I draw the House’s attention to what I said in the pre-Christmas recess debate on 20 December at columns 1082 to 1085, with reference to the scandalous financial transactions made by the then leader of Essex county council, courtesy of the public purse. It is estimated that, from 2002 to January 2010, he spent nearly £450,000, an average of £1,000 a week, through credit card payments. It is ludicrous for anyone to say that those payments were for the benefit of the council taxpayers of Essex, who were paying for his life of Riley, including 62 overseas visits in five years.
Official documents detail every item of his expenditure, totalling £287,000, from March 2005 to January 2010. Records for the previous three years, according to Essex county council, are not available. I would be surprised if the council did not have bank statements which would reveal the total expenditure claimed by the leader of the council via the credit card the council issued to him even if the details are not on file. I ended my speech by saying:
“Only a full independent inquiry into the stewardship of the council from 2002 to 2010 will serve to draw a line under this most disgraceful period since Essex county council was established in 1889.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 1085.]
I regret to inform the House that Essex county council has refused to implement an independent public inquiry.
The Tory leadership is in denial. No amount of whitewash of county hall will prevent the stains of financial chicanery from remaining visible for all to see. Sadly, the situation can now be revealed to be even worse than I told the House three months ago. Last week it was revealed that council employees working directly to the leader of the council were also milking the system. County council staff, working in what it is now obvious was a party political manner for the leader of the council, had their own council-issued credit card and ran up bills of their own totalling £70,000, which would appear in every respect to have been for the benefit of the political career and aspirations of the council leader rather than for the people of Essex. Let me give one example.
The leader of the council was accompanied to the 2009 Conservative party conference by council staff. That in itself is in breach of the local government code of conduct: council staff should not be engaged in party political activities. They certainly should not be attending party conferences, and they should most certainly not expect the council taxpayers of Essex to pick up the bill. In this case, it came to £5,080.98. A breakdown includes not just accommodation and meals but £248 for wine at a reception. This has so outraged the distinguished political commentator Mr Simon Heffer that in his column in the Daily Mail last Saturday he wrote:
“Tory-controlled Essex County Council let its former Leader off the hook by failing to pursue him over a £286,000 credit card bill he racked up while flying around the world with cronies and dining in style.”
That was outrageous enough, considering that the former council leader was jailed for fiddling his expenses, but it turns out that the council also paid this crook’s £4,600 Westminster bar bills, and its audit committee has learnt that his staff claimed £70,000 for trips abroad, hotels, restaurants and hiring clothes to attend Ascot. I am an Essex ratepayer and I want to know who sanctioned this wicked waste of money and what steps will be taken to reclaim it.
Mr Heffer concluded his article by saying:
“Meanwhile, no-one in Essex should vote Conservative in the Council elections on May 2.”
As Essex county council refuses to hand over this financial scandal to an independent investigation, I call on the Government to do so; otherwise, trust in Essex county council will remain at a very low level. To my mind, it is inconceivable that the leader of the council acted in the way he did—and for so long—without it being known at the highest level of the council: chief officers and those councillors closest to the leader must, surely, have suspected something was not right. Was he really the only rotten apple in the barrel?
What of the financial line management? Were suspicions not aroused when details of the credit card were listed? Where was the council’s internal audit? Did they not notice, or were they too afraid to raise concerns? I gather that there was a culture of bullying and intimidation at county hall, but that, surely, would not have applied to the external auditors.
The total sum involved tops £500,000. The Government must step in and order a full independent inquiry into the financial scandal at Essex county council.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The excellent statement this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on the Government’s response to the Francis report on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust shows just how important that inquiry has been and how the findings will help to change the NHS for the better for patients. I particularly welcome the emphasis on zero harm and quality of care, including the proposals for the training of nurses and for a chief inspector of hospitals.
The recent Care Quality Commission report on Stafford hospital was encouraging too—a hospital that failed so badly has now met the standards expected—and I thank the retiring chief executive Lynn Hill-Tout, staff, governors and board for all that they have done. Yet, just at the moment when the people of Stafford should be emerging from a decade or more of pain and uncertainty, we are faced with another huge challenge. The report to Monitor by the contingency planning team, published at the beginning of this month, recommended the removal of most emergency, acute, maternity and possibly even elective services from the Mid Staffordshire Trust which runs Stafford and Cannock hospitals.
This puzzles me. Emergency and acute admissions to hospitals in the west midlands are rising sharply and departments are at full stretch. Just last month—February—West Midlands ambulance service reported delays to its vehicles of more than 30 minutes on more than 1,000 occasions at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire. That is not a criticism of that hospital, just a reflection of demand. The proposal, however, is to remove a substantial amount of that capacity, which is already stretched: 300 acute beds at Stafford, in addition to the 250 that have already been lost at UHNS as a result of the new, smaller PFI hospital. In fact, at least 60 have had to be reopened at the old site, as demand is so great.
The reason given for this is, as always, that if we move care out of hospitals and into the community, the demand for emergency and acute admissions will fall. That is only half the truth. It will fall, but only from the much higher levels it would have reached. Moving care into the community will stop the need to provide much more extra emergency and acute capacity, but it will not allow for substantial reductions in that capacity. This is the flawed assumption under which NHS leaders seem to be working.
There is a squeeze on emergency and acute tariffs that started under the previous Government. I have raised this issue before and I will continue to do so, because unless it is addressed it will eventually result in dangerously low levels of emergency and acute cover in parts of the UK. It cannot be sensible for trusts that deal in elective work to pile up surpluses while many acute trusts, on which we all depend, struggle to cope with mounting deficits.
It would be nice to believe that all hospital admissions could be elective—that all work could be programmed to fit into an ordered day—but life is not like that, especially when we have large numbers of people living longer, which I welcome, and then becoming ill suddenly with acute, complex conditions. That is why I firmly believe, as do most of my constituents, that acute district general hospitals have an important role to play. Indeed, if they did not exist, we would probably decide to create them, precisely because they are the best place for the initial treatment of the elderly with complex, acute conditions, who could be close to home and to their loved ones.
We do of course need to learn the lesson of Mid Staffordshire and other places. Such district general hospitals are usually too small to sustain many of the specialist rotas that are needed, but the solution is not, as is proposed for Stafford, to cram all serious emergency and acute cases into already overstretched neighbours; it is to work closely with those neighbouring trusts—even become part of them—and thus enable clinicians to work across neighbouring sites. This solution has the merit of combining the benefits of scale with providing care close to patients.
I met Monitor two weeks ago, and I welcome the assurance I was given by the chief executive, Dr David Bennett, that the trust special administrator, shortly to be appointed, will consider options other than those recommended, which are wholly inadequate. Monitor has the chance to show how smaller, acute general hospitals can not only survive but prosper under the wing of a larger trust. If it does that, it will have done the NHS and our country a great service.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who speaks with such authority on health matters in his constituency.
Having set up and run a business for 25 years before entering this place, I am always keen to meet businesses in my constituency. Some 18 months ago I arranged to meet a retailer with a new business called Smoke No Smoke, run by the very entrepreneurial Jim Lacey. The business sells e-cigarettes. On my visit I learnt about the product. Its customers are often people seeking to give up smoking, who have come to include a member of my staff. It was through his contacts and visits to the shop that I became aware of a potential EU directive that is a particular concern to the sector. The directive could bring the business to an end and affect many people who are trying to stop smoking.
Most smokers know that smoking is bad for their health. Many have wanted to quit, but quit rates are extremely low, with only 3% to 5% of people trying to quit managing to do so. Many have turned to e-cigarettes as a substitute. E-cigarettes consist of an electronic inhaler that vaporises a liquid into an aerosol mist, simulating the act of tobacco smoking. E-cigarettes are the same size and shape as cigarettes. They are held in the same way and treated as cigarettes. The difference is that while cigarette smokers smoke for the nicotine but die from the tars and gases released by the burning of tobacco, e-cigarettes deliver nicotine in an aerosol form but, crucially, without the hazards that accompany tobacco smoking. There are, of course, other ways of getting nicotine, such as patches, gum and lozenges, and nicotine is not harmless. However, Action on Smoking and Health states that there is little real-world evidence of harm from e-cigarettes. There are some trace toxicants present, but at a much lower level than in cigarettes.
A recent article in The Economist sums up the position very well:
“People smoke because they value the pleasure they get from nicotine in tobacco over the long-term certainty that their health will be damaged. So it seems rational to welcome a device that separates the dangerous part of smoking (the tar, carbon monoxide and smoke…) from the nicotine. And that is what an e-cigarette does.”
The article finishes by asking rhetorically, “Who could object?” It seems the EU can object, because it is introducing a draft tobacco products directive, which proposes to regulate non-tobacco nicotine-containing products, including e-cigarettes, by classifying the vast majority of these products as medicines. Every product with more than 4 mg of nicotine per millilitre would have to be reclassified. E-cigarettes come in a range of concentrations, from zero—that is, nicotine-free—up to 48 mg per ml, with the average user choosing about 18 mg per ml. Choosing 4 mg per ml would mean a de facto ban on such products. E-cigarettes are not medicines; they are recreational nicotine products.
However, I do not want Members present or the Government to take my word for it about the benefits of this product. Let us take my constituent, Mr Preston. He and his wife started using e-cigarettes 12 months ago. Previously he smoked 30 a day and his wife smoked 20 a day. They had tried all cessation methods available on the market, none of which worked. Since starting to use e-cigarettes, neither has smoked a conventional cigarette. Mr Preston estimates they have saved up to £400 a month alone. He is 65 years old and tells me that he now wakes up each morning without a heavy chest and an immediate cough. He describes it as
“no longer waking up with that ‘bottom of the birdcage’ feeling”.
Another user said:
“After 32 years of being a smoker I love my e-cigarette and never want to try having a cigarette again! Am on day 50 now, the longest I’ve ever managed”.
Although I am not proclaiming that e-cigarettes are a positively healthy alternative to conventional smoking, I believe that the removal of the hazardous tar from cigarettes, while still providing the nicotine that smokers look for, means the product should be studied closely and be saved from the forthcoming EU directive.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I refer the House to my declaration of interest as the chairman of the Justice for Families campaign.
I remain concerned about cases in all the secret courts in the UK. The more secret the court, the more the system acts against the rule of law. Narrow freedoms of speech are at least as important as broad access to publicity—reporting wrongdoing to regulators and asking for advice are important narrow freedoms. Without academic scrutiny, nonsense can be spouted and experts can lie for money with impunity.
Care proceedings are an area of difficulty. I remain of the view that around 1,000 children a year are wrongly forcibly adopted in the UK. Gradually, I am getting more Government support in this area—sadly, still not from the UK Government. Last week I spoke at the Polish embassy, at a conference about care proceedings. Concerns have now also been raised by Nigeria, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Latvia, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Spain and Turkey.
For the avoidance of doubt, my concern is that a material proportion of care proceedings go way beyond being plainly wrong and hit the threshold of “totally nuts”. I must stress, however, that I see the appointment of Sir James Mumby as president of the family division as a positive step. I also welcome judgments such as [2013] EWHC 521 (Fam) of Mostyn J.
When the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) apologised to the children who were forcibly sent to the Commonwealth, I asked what confidence he had that such an apology would not be issued in the future for what we are doing today. His response was to ask me to send details of individual cases. I have, of course, sent many individual cases to UK Ministers. The standard response is, “It’s nothing to do with us, guv.” The fact is that, according to our constitution, the UK Government must publicly accept judicial decisions, although in practice they often criticise them—except in the family division.
More recently, Australia has apologised for forced adoption. The question was put by Florence Bellone to Professor Eileen Munro about whether in the future we may see an apology in the UK. Her response was:
“I would not be surprised if a future generation looks back and thinks how horrific the quality of our work was and the damage that we did to families.”
What we have developed—this is mainly through a mathematical error in the use of the number of children in care for the denominator of the adoption target—is a care system that is obsessed with adoption. It is so obsessed with adoption that it does things that objectively have to be seen to be irrational. I will not go into the details of Angela Wileman’s case, as I have referred to it before and I do not have time. I was pleased to hear that the arrest warrant was removed from Susan McCabe, the daughter of Councillor Janet Mockridge, who has been living in France with her two children for over five years. The attempts to remove her son for adoption in England, while leaving her daughter, gave the message of a system more concerned about winning than about the best interests of the child.
In another recent case, I read a note about the effect of the proposal for a child to be adopted out of her family. The report said:
“Since being told about the adoption, A’s mood has changed, she is clearly concerned and upset by this move, which perhaps is to be expected. However, she has nightmares most nights and is not getting adequate sleep, two weekends ago she vomited 5 times in one night.”
This case is not unique. There are even international cases where the system has taken children from people visiting the UK and refused to give them back, even though the system clearly does not have jurisdiction. That is damaging to the children, and I am prevented by the sub judice rule from giving more information here.
The international cases are particularly interesting as the assessments in England can be compared against assessments from professionals in other countries. Professionals in other countries wonder why such strange things are done—things that cause serious psychological damage to children in the UK. Working with Slovak politicians, I have managed to establish an inquiry by the Human Rights Commissioner in the Council of Europe. However, it remains the case that a problem that arises basically in secret courts is constitutionally difficult to fix, because it needs scrutiny to fix it. There is an additional challenge in that the people affected who are UK citizens are generally poorer people and less articulate. Hence, although stories about people who are foreign citizens maltreated in the UK get substantial coverage in the foreign media, there are only a few journalists such as Sue Reid, Christopher Booker and Ted Jeory who are willing to report on these cases. The speech of Denise Robertson, “This Morning’s” agony aunt, at the justice for families conference in Birmingham last December should be broadcast on TV to explain the truth.
What we actually have is a failure of democracy. In the same way as we had the cover-up over Hillsborough and the failures at the Mid Staffordshire hospital, we have a system that is going wrong in a large number of cases and maltreating families. In maltreating families, it is maltreating the children and the adults. It is reasonably well known that this is going on. However, the Government deny it. The inquiries that occur in Parliament do not look at the individual cases. Without looking at the individual cases, we cannot see the things that are going wrong. Inquiries such as the family justice review are dominated by the people who run the system, and hence are unlikely to recognise the failures of the system.
I put forward proposals in my private Member’s Bill, but it was squeezed out by the Government, who have still not explained why in detail. I have had a conversation with the Minister with responsibility for children, but I have no hopes from that. I have very little time left. I would like to give a much fuller speech, as a lot more needs to be said, but I will end by saying Happy Easter.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I rise to talk about the work I have been doing to try to encourage more people to take up being young entrepreneurs. When I went to university, I was one of 350 students at Oxford Brookes university studying business, but I was the only one who went on to set up my own business. With entrepreneurial flair, risk-taking and perhaps a touch of madness being drummed out of everybody else as they went on to their very successful corporate careers, I went off to set up my own business.
When I visit local schools and colleges and talk predominantly to business students asking whether they would consider setting up their own business, all their hands go up, probably inspired by TV programmes such as “The Apprentice” and “Dragons’ Den”, which generate lots of excitement. I then ask, “How many of you will actually set up your own business?” Suddenly the hands go down and tumbleweed floats past. I ask them why. I would normally expect them to say that the reason is access to finance, but it is not that—it is simply that they do not know how to do it. They are looking for mentors, opportunities and a set career path. If someone is applying to go to university, they fill in the UCAS forms and secure their grades. If they are applying for an apprenticeship or a job in the local economy, they send in their CV, yet there is not such clear guidance on setting up one’s own business.
To deal with that issue, I, one of the chief fundraisers at Prospect hospice, Amy Falconer, and Andrew Paterson, a lecturer at one of my local colleges, Swindon college, allocated £10 to seven teams and set them the task of trading at Blunsdon market. It is a challenging trading environment; an indoor market that is not at capacity and has limited footfall. I secured mentors from Smiths News, Nouble Furniture, Asda and Barclays to come along to support those teams to formulate ideas and to choose the products and services that they would offer.
We made sure that the teams understood that their stall would be simply a wooden trestle table that would need dressing up, but that, if they spent too much money dressing it up, they would not make any money. They needed to promote themselves. They competed against existing traders and the other teams. They also looked at promotion to ensure that they did not rely just on the footfall, on what turned out to be an exceptionally cold and wet Wednesday in the market, and got friends and family along. They also were told that they would have to stand on their feet all day, that being in retail is a real challenge, that customers would haggle and that they would have to do mental arithmetic and ensure that they had sufficient change.
When we got to the market, the seven teams set up. All seven managed to trade extremely well and to make a profit. In fact, the teams managed to raise £838.70 for the hospice. On a very quiet and cold day, that was an incredibly impressive performance. At last Friday’s presentation event, I saw how much they had changed from when they first decided to take up the challenge.
I want to highlight two of the teams. Art Creations focused on providing henna tattoos. My mother, who is a 72-year-old councillor, and my wife were covered with henna tattoos after visiting that stand. Art Creations managed to make over £100. The Double Trouble team was run by Jessica and Kay, who set up a 1950s cake stall. They were dressed in 1950s clothing. They sold hand-made bags and all the cakes were home-made. There was 1950s music playing. They gave incredible customer service. That team got over £100 as well.
The key point for those two teams is that they have been invited to return to Blunsdon market in the summer holidays. Those students are all sixth formers considering their career options. They can come back for six weeks to see whether their ideas can work beyond a day and whether they can work for themselves. They will be working with Forward Swindon and In Swindon, two of the organisations charged with re-energising our town centre using Government money to boost the high street. Those teams have both been offered opportunities to take advantage of the provision for pop-up shops; they will probably be the first teams to benefit from that. All things being equal and working in the real commercial world, they will have the opportunity to consider that as a career. That career path has been laid out for them.
With all these students, if they step up, volunteer and succeed, I will do all I can to get the mentors in place to support them. We all have the opportunity to support keen, young and enthusiastic people. They will be the next generation of wealth creators providing employment. We MPs will, I am sure, be queuing up to cut the ribbon and taste the fantastic cakes that they will have at their opening ceremony.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of accident and emergency provision at Milton Keynes hospital, which serves my constituents and indeed some of your constituents, Mr Speaker. The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), and I have joined forces with one of our excellent local newspapers, the Milton Keynes Citizen, to campaign for a new A and E centre.
The issue is simply one of space. Our hospital was built in the early 1980s and the A and E department was designed for approximately 20,000 patients a year. With population growth and other increases in A and E usage, it is now dealing with well over three times that number each year, and very soon it will reach four times that number.
At this point, I would like to put on the record my deep appreciation of and admiration for the many dedicated staff at the hospital. Although there are certainly long-standing problems in parts of the NHS that have rightly been highlighted and addressed, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), it is too easy to overlook the fact that the vast majority of NHS staff do an excellent job and deeply care for their patients. That is certainly what I have found on visiting Milton Keynes hospital.
However, given an existing population of some 250,000, the accident and emergency centre is already too small. With more than 20,000 housing permissions in place locally over the next 10 years or so and in the light of demographic changes, we will have a larger elderly population and there will be a constant upward demand on A and E services.
It is also pertinent to mention that the hospital site includes an urgent care centre, opened as part of the Darzi plans a few years ago. Although it was set up with the very best of intentions, far from reducing demand on the A and E department, it has led to an increase because, understandably, people can become confused about where best to go for treatment.
The emergency care intensive support team recently reviewed the A and E centre and recommended that the NHS trust should seek capital support for what it calls a “common front door” provision. I am happy to report that all the relevant local stakeholders have developed plans for a single-point-of-access system in which those who need the full A and E treatment get it and those with less serious ailments get proper and timely treatment without being pushed from pillar to post.
The campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North and I have launched has received strong local backing. Milton Keynes council recently unanimously backed it, and there is a large and growing number of signatories to the petition that has been launched.
I fully appreciate that it is not within the gift of the Deputy Leader of the House to write out a cheque for the new centre, but I hope he will relay the points that I have made to his colleagues in the Department of Health and that my contribution today has underlined the importance of this bid. It is now for the hospital to submit its detailed bid in the usual way, and I hope it receives a favourable and timely response.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Thirty years ago this month, I made my maiden speech. I want to make two brief introductory points, and then spend a couple of minutes on the subject on the Order Paper.
First, I want to say thank you to all the people who, for all the time that we have all been here, have looked after us so well in this place: not only the staff employed by the Palace, but the staff who work for us, without whom we could not do our job. If that is not enough and if Members have nothing better to do when the debate finishes, we are celebrating my having been here 30 years, and everyone is very welcome to come to the Attlee Suite for a drink. We are there until 9 o’clock. I want to couple with that a thanks to my head of office, George Turner, who is retiring and going to other things, having seen through the last general election and the first half of this Parliament. I am very grateful to him for his work.
Secondly, I was prompted to say something on a subject that has nothing to do with the main one: the Revenue and Customs consultation on whether tax offices should be closed or a face-to-face service should continue. I just want to make a very simple point. Many of us can use the internet and e-mail, but many constituents—not just the elderly—sometimes need to talk to somebody. I make a plea that the Government understand that, whether with careers, benefits or tax advice, doing it on the phone or via the internet is not always the answer. We must make sure that we keep face-to-face provision.
The substantive issue I want to address is the Thames tunnel proposed by Thames Water to deal with London’s sewage. I have been campaigning to clean up the Thames all my political life. Our sewers are overflowing. The wonderful Victorian sewer system cannot cope with the vast size of London and the now increasingly intermittent and heavy rain. As colleagues will know, every time it rains, water pours through the drains and gutters and floods the sewers, which overflow into the Thames. Some 83 million cubic metres of storm water, mixed with raw sewage—a horrible figure—went into the Thames last year. That hardly bears thinking about. The European Community has taken action. It is prosecuting the UK for failing to meet the terms of our waste water directive. I, like all other colleagues with riverside constituencies or in the Thames Water catchment area, have therefore questioned what the solution is.
The current solution is to pour millions of tonnes of concrete into building a super-sewer through the Thames to intercept the outflows from the sewerage system. That will be very expensive, costing an average of £80 a year for all of Thames Water’s household customers, and it will be hugely disruptive. In my constituency, for example, one site might be worked on for up to seven years. In addition, this solution deals with only one problem. It will efficiently keep sewage out of the Thames, but it will do nothing else.
Other countries across the world are doing things differently now. Places such as Detroit and Philadelphia and places in Europe started to think about building tunnels but have realised that greener alternatives may be better. Instead of building a big tunnel, Philadelphia now has small interventions: much more porous surfaces on roads, drives and car parks; and smaller sewage collection tanks across the city, rather than in a central place. People in those places believe that what they call a blue-green solution is a better solution and it allows parks to flourish, with the transformation of the city into a wholly greener environment. Such a solution also produces many more jobs at the lower skill levels more quickly than one big tunnel project does. Philadelphia and London may not be the same, but Greater Philadelphia has a huge population, just as London does.
I have had helpful engagement with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury and with the Minister for Government Policy. My plea to the Government is that we look at the blue-green experiences elsewhere. We should look at what has happened in Philadelphia and other cities. It is not too late to have an alternative to a super-sewer down the middle of the Thames. I hope that we can pursue an alternative. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will relay back to Ministers that that is very much supported by the community and that the Thames tunnel can be replaced by a greener, more sustainable and more cost-effective solution. Happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker, and do not forget the drink later, if you are thirsty.
Mr Speaker
We will not, and your good wishes are reciprocated, Mr Hughes. Thank you.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
This year we have an early Easter, though not so early, perhaps, that we needed to provision ourselves with chocolate eggs as soon as the Christmas decorations were down at Epiphany. As some supermarkets seem to have substituted Easter eggs, fluffy chicks and chocolate bunnies for tinsel and crackers at cock crow on 7 January, the animals of spring have been a common sight in our supermarkets for some time. But even though the weather continues to be distinctly wintery, there is no reason to give the real egg layers the cold shoulder.
The cause of hen and cock welfare is one raised with me by many constituents, particularly with regard to beak trimming and battery cages. Although inhumane battery cages were banned at the start of last year, and even though we are assured by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers that beak trimming will be banned in 2016, hen welfare is not a done deal, and we on the green Benches should take a keen interest, both for the sake of animal welfare and because our constituents increasingly expect to eat food that either was or is from an animal that was treated well.
At one time, consumers would not deign to notice what, if anything, was said about welfare on food packaging. Now, thanks in no small part to the efforts of well-known TV chefs, we want to know from where our food has come. Indeed, the term “higher welfare” has even found its way into the ingredients list of the king of school dinners, Jamie Oliver, and there is undoubtedly a culture in which it is considered poor form to offer for sale food that is lower welfare. In a January 2010 survey, twice as many people as in 2006 said that animal welfare informed their shopping choices—that made 19%, and I am sure that the figure would be higher today.
The previous Prime Minister’s GOAT—his Government of all the talents—might have been a tur laid to rest by the British people, but that was either the exception that proves the rule on our love of animals or an act of mercy that confirms it. It should be the proud boast of British farmers that no land does more to ensure the welfare of its animals, and the success of the ban on inhumane cages in this country is a case in point. There was concern that increased prices would lead to a drop in demand for eggs, but the reverse was true and the British consumer bought 5% more eggs in 2012 than in 2011.
Concern for welfare does not stop at the good treatment of hens during their working lives, and the British Hen Welfare Trust should be cock-a-hoop about its successful record since 2005 of re-homing 360,000 laying hens of pensionable age that were otherwise destined for slaughter. The British public should be applauded for their adoption of so many of those creatures, and those acts of mercy will, I am sure, continue.
Keeping hens is somewhat in vogue at the moment, despite the prospect of heartache. Many a hen keeper will be prepared for the early morning discovery of scattered feathers and an empty coup, but how many are ready for the emotional business of dispatching unwanted chicks? In “The Good Life” idyll one imagines several hens and a single proud cockerel, but one strutting coxcomb will lead to many chicks and what is to become of the male contingent with not a layer among them? I encourage people to consider homes for hens, but to think carefully about a coop for a cockerel.
Despite the positive step of banning battery cages, many British consumers might be surprised that 17 million hens are still housed in cages, albeit of an enriched variety. These birds provide the eggs that are sold as a constituent part of another product and then, despite the efforts of the British Hen Welfare Trust, sold for the table. The Government should consider the value of labels that would show the origins of eggs when used as an ingredient and when a chicken is an end-of-lay bird as a means of promoting high welfare standards. I also entreat the Government to stick to their plan to hold a thorough investigation into beak trimming in 2015. When we eventually head into spring, let us have no cock-ups on hen welfare.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
Given the time I have left, I shall have to set out some rules at the beginning of my speech. One will be that I will not take any interventions and the other will be that I will have to do my delivery in the style of the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) if I am to refer to all the contributions made this evening.
I congratulate those Members who are still in the Chamber on their dedication and commitment to today’s penultimate debate and I hope that they will not be punished by not being able to get home again if the weather is inclement. I also understand that some Members, for obvious reasons, have had to depart early and I shall still try to refer to their speeches. I am particularly grateful for the attendance of the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on their birthdays.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) rightly laid into the doom-mongers with some relish. Times are tough, but he set out some of the success stories in his constituency, particularly on apprenticeships, where there has been dramatic growth. I am pleased to say that in the past couple of weeks I have hired my own first apprentice in my office and he is already making a very positive contribution.
The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) referred to the case of a constituent, Mrs Brenda Pressdee, and I commend the hon. Lady for her assiduous research on that case. I am sure that the relevant Ministers will have heard her request for a meeting on the matter and that they will want to respond positively. She also referred to a national issue, marine conservation zones. She expressed concerns about the cost of a further consultation and I am sure that the Government will want to manage those costs effectively.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) underlined one of the strengths of such debates and this Parliament, which is our ability to raise issues of an international nature. He wanted to generate publicity about the trial of former President Nasheed and I can confirm for his benefit—although I am sure that he is aware of it—that our Government have been consistent in saying that the international community will not find it tenable if the former president is excluded from the elections in the Maldives.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) mentioned the Srebrenica genocide, which all Members will remember. It was the biggest war crime in Europe since the second world war. The Government recognise that genocide through events such as Holocaust memorial day and we are working with the Srebrenica genocide memorial and educational project to see other ways in which we can mark that anniversary.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) referred to the controversy surrounding an incinerator or energy recovery facility. I can confirm that I am aware of the controversies surrounding such plants, because there is a proposal for one in Beddington in my constituency. He stressed the importance of ensuring that it provides decent value for money, which is the last issue he wants to pursue, because all the planning processes have been completed.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) talked about his desire to see work proceed on rebuilding Marlborough and Vaughan primary schools. He will be pleased to hear that there is no delay. He asked me to ensure that Ministers chase up the Education Funding Agency, and I am happy to pass that on so that he gets a prompt response. He also referred to problems relating to London Welsh, and I am sure that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will have listened carefully to what he said. He highlighted some inconsistencies in the penalties issued by the Rugby Football Union, but I do not think that is something I can pursue as Deputy Leader of the House. I am sure that is something he will want to do, and he has put that on the record.
We then heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who stated that Essex is the county of entrepreneurs—I am sure that is also true of many other counties—and made a couple of specific points about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customers and a constituent, Mr Wright. I am sure that HMRC has public relations people who follow these debates closely and that they will want to pick up on that point and, I hope, respond positively to her concerns. She also referred to some unhappiness about the way in which the Valuation Office Agency works and the need for more flexibility on business rates, particularly how high levels of business rates affect strong and emerging businesses in her constituency.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) talked about the If campaign, which I am sure many Members on both sides of the House will want to support. That gives me an opportunity to underline the fact that the Government are delivering on the commitment to devoting 0.7% of gross national income on aid, which I think we should all be proud of. It was started by the previous Government and finished by this one. He also expressed concern about the difference in the way children from families with parents who are in work and those from families with parents who are not in work are dealt with in respect of free school meals. I am sure that is something the Department for Education, which has responsibility for free school meals, might want to respond to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) raised a variety of issues—another Member referred to it as a “kaleidoscope of issues”—and it would be difficult to respond to them all. He referred to the plight of Christians, particularly in countries such as Pakistan; the importance of recognising the need to support Tourette’s sufferers, through the Department for Education, and in schools and in health care; and the importance of fortifying foods with folic acid, and the charity in his constituency, Shine, which works on that issue. I have noted his concerns about equal marriage, but I am pleased that the Government are pursuing it. He talked about the important role the voluntary sector is playing in relation to the Peterborough cathedral appeal. He also mentioned the Sue Ryder hospice and the generosity of his city. I am sure that his city and its people are very generous and that we all want to recognise that.
We then heard a contribution from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) on the Cockenzie power station. She said that today might feel like groundhog dog. She will no doubt know that the groundhog is being sued at the moment. In fact, they are seeking the death penalty for the groundhog in America because he has failed to predict the beginning of spring accurately. She focused on the need for investment. Clearly, the decision on whether to invest in a new combined cycle gas turbine at Cockenzie is very much a commercial matter for ScottishPower, but I am sure that the Government would welcome that investment and the jobs and energy that would be created if and when the development goes ahead.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said that the UK has thrived on immigration but not on foreign criminals, and I certainly agree with that sentiment. He made a concrete suggestion—I am sure that the Ministry of Justice will want to respond to it—about an amendment to the UK Borders Act 2007 that he thinks could address the issue of the deportation of foreign nationals who have served a prison sentence. I am sure that he will secure a response as a result of his speech.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), whose birthday I mentioned earlier, talked about sport and fitness for women and girls. She is right to raise that issue, and I commend her for doing so. We need more women and girls in sport, and the well-being that can be derived from that is considerable. She asked for responses to some specific questions, and I will follow those up. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about her local bypass and its importance in bringing industrial regeneration, particularly around Radnor Park business park in Congleton, and the possibility of investment in the aerospace industry.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I am sorry to hear about Dunfermline Athletic football club. I am sure that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Her Majesty’s Treasury will want to look on that situation favourably and assist as much as they can. He also talked about Royal Navy personnel in Scotland. I can confirm that there will be a rise in the number of Navy personnel in Fife supporting the Queen Elizabeth-class build, peaking at about 750 personnel. I hope that he welcomes that.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) raised a very large number of issues, which are all noted. I am sure that the 20 Departments he mentioned will want to respond promptly.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) discussed Ulster Scots culture. I am pleased that he did, because one always learns something in these debates, and that was something new. I think he claimed that no fewer than 12 US Presidents had Ulster Scots heritage, and I am sure that that is entirely accurate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) spoke about interest rate swaps, which I am sure many Members are concerned about. He made a specific request about tailored business loans that I will follow up. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised the issue of knife crime, which the Government are clearly committed to addressing. He made a specific proposal on a two-strikes policy that the MOJ may want to follow up.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) was again a bit like groundhog day as regards Essex county council. He raised the expenses scandal, which he likes to mention in this place and I know he will pursue again and again.
We then heard about Mid Staffs, and I am pleased that we had had a detailed statement on that earlier. I have much sympathy with the concerns expressed about the future of the specialist accident and emergency services. That issue affects my local hospital, St Helier hospital, which is at risk in the same way.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about electronic cigarettes. He will be pleased to know that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has conducted research into this that will feed into the Government’s position on the European Commission’s proposals, to which he referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) pursued, as he does—I am sure that he will do so relentlessly—the issue of secret courts in relation to family justice.
The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke about the apprentice scheme in his constituency. I commend him for that and hope that the young people he is working with will go on to make very successful business people in future. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred to concerns about his local A and E department.
I am afraid that I am running out of time and will not be able to complete my speech, but I commend the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who managed to talk seriously about hen welfare, but managed to make many references to eggs.
I conclude by wishing a happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker, and the staff of the House, including the Serjeant at Arms and his officers, Hansard, and José and Fedel in the gift shop. It is not eggs that I will be sharing this evening with staff in the Office of the Leader of the House, but liquid refreshment—
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance in your role as custodian of good debate. Is there a way in which the House could congratulate Richard and Jane Quirk, who are leaving the House service after approaching 30 years of public service?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman does not really need my guidance. He is too self-effacing. He has found his own salvation and a very proper means by which to pay tribute to two long-serving, distinguished and greatly appreciated servants of the House, who are indeed retiring today. That retirement has already been marked by a reception in Speaker’s House and has now been marked by the hon. Gentleman’s pithy and apposite point of order. I think that the whole House will thank them and wish them long and happy retirements.
Business without Debate
Cemetery at Aldridge Road, Walsall
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition is from Residents Against Cemetery. A petition in similar terms has been signed by 943 people. The petition states:
The Petition of Residents Against Cemetery,
Declares that the Petitioners are against the granting of planning for a cemetery at Aldridge Road, Walsall.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to consider the objections of local residents.
And the Petitioners remain, etc. [P001171]
Energy Infrastructure (UK Supply Chain)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this debate. Its purpose is to highlight the job-creating opportunities associated with renewing the UK’s energy infrastructure, the considerable potential that that offers to generate economic growth, the concern that we may not be making the most of the opportunity, and what can be done to ensure that we do.
At the outset, I should draw attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because I have an interest in family farms where renewable energy projects are being pursued. However, this evening I shall largely concentrate not on land but on the offshore oil and gas and wind sectors, with some references to nuclear.
At times during this debate, I might be accused of being parochial and focusing on the opportunities in East Anglia and my Waveney constituency. However, I should emphasise that there are opportunities not only for areas that adjoin the North sea but for areas across the UK. That is because the energy supply chain stretches right across the country and is not confined to Lowestoft and Yarmouth, Humberside or Tyneside. If we get the supply chain working to its full potential, the whole of Britain will benefit. That will have a significant positive impact on GDP, help to rebalance the economy, and provide significant exporting opportunities.
Not only has Lady Luck looked favourably on me in securing this debate, but the timing is particularly opportune, coming just before the Energy Bill returns to this House on Report after the Easter recess and just before the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills publishes its industrial strategy for oil and gas and offshore wind. At present, there is much focus on the energy sector.
The country faces a significant challenge: to replace its ageing capacity, provide power to the nation’s homes and businesses and ensure that the nation’s lights do not go out. In rising to that challenge, three criteria need to be addressed: energy must be affordable, secure in supply and low carbon in content. There is a fourth goal, however, that we should strive to achieve. I refer to the opportunity to create economic growth, to rebalance the economy towards the regions and in favour of engineering and manufacturing and to attract inward investment. Nowhere is there a greater opportunity to do that than in East Anglia, which is already a significant player in the energy sector, with 35% to 45% of the nation’s gas supply coming through the Bacton terminal, where the Sizewell C nuclear power station will be built and with Lowestoft, in my constituency, lying closest to the East Anglia Array, potentially the world’s largest wind farm.
The region will see significant investment in the energy sector over the next 20 years, with an estimated £80 billion to £85 billion in the oil and gas, decommissioning, gas storage, nuclear and offshore wind sectors. The challenge is to ensure that this investment provides the maximum benefit, not only to East Anglians but to people and businesses across the UK
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me permission before the debate to intervene and for bringing this important subject to the Floor of the House. He referred to the benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He will be aware that the Belfast shipyard builds wind turbines for land and sea. Will that shipyard be able to get some of this work?
Peter Aldous
Although I am concentrating on the North sea, the supply chain for the offshore work extends right the way around the country, both in the oil and gas sector and the offshore wind sector. I am also extremely conscious of the work that DONG Energy and ScottishPower have done and the investment they have made in Belfast.
In short, we need to strive to maximise the British content of UK energy infrastructure projects. At present, there are concerns that we are not meeting this challenge. Some two years ago, the Thanet wind farm was completed, with less than 20% of the £900 million of investment going to UK firms. Although companies such as ScottishPower and DONG Energy are aware of the need to maximise the UK content of contracts, we are some distance from achieving the Offshore Wind Developers Forum’s target of 50% UK content for UK offshore wind farms.
The problem is more serious in the oil and gas sector. In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced significant incentives for opening up marginal North sea fields and decommissioning. These initiatives are to be applauded, and North sea investment this year is now at its highest and most extensive for 30 years, but the problem is that contracts worth more than £10 billion are being placed overseas, while in the past two years only 7% of North sea platforms have been made in the UK. In other words, British taxpayers’ money is being used to create jobs in other countries.
The Nexen Golden Eagle project was awarded to Lamprell of Dubai, the BP Clair Ridge project to Hyundai Heavy Industries of Korea, and Statoil’s Mariner project to Daewoo of Korea and Dragados of Spain. I name just three contracts, but there are more. If some of these contracts had been awarded to British yards, they would have helped secure thousands of jobs and strengthened the UK’s supply chain, which as I have said extends across much of the UK. In the past two years, contracts for a total of 200,000 tonnes of fabrication structures have been awarded outside the UK, representing a loss to the country of 18,600 direct man years of jobs.
Some people may say, “Tough luck. Why should we pursue protectionist policies propping up uncompetitive UK firms?” But that is not the case: these businesses are competitive and innovative and have highly skilled and dedicated work forces. If we do not allow them to compete on a level playing field with companies from other countries, there is a danger that the yards will simply disappear. That will not only hit hard those areas of the country with above average levels of unemployment, but it will have a serious knock-on effect on the offshore wind sector, as those businesses are well placed to help build offshore wind farms.
There is, therefore, a need for the UK to have a local content policy when granting such contracts. The reason given for not having such a policy is that it would contravene EU competition regulations, but if that is the case, why is the UK the only oil and gas province in the world that does not have a local content policy? Why should licences granted on the UK continental shelf not contain a clause requiring free and fair provision for British companies in the procurement process?
The UK Government should apply pressure at national and EU level to ensure that UK companies are not disadvantaged when competing for overseas contracts. Sembmarine SLP, based in Lowestoft in my constituency, advises that in its experience, when it competes for projects in Norwegian, Dutch, German and French waters it has practically no chance of winning owing to blatant protectionism. In the offshore wind sector, Seajacks, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), points out that the French Government have explicitly stated that they intend to award licences for offshore wind sites to bidders favouring the French supply chain. British companies are not looking for favouritism or trade barriers; they are seeking a level playing field. I urge the Minister, together with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury, to do all he can to help achieve that.
The Government could take other long-term measures to strengthen the UK supply chain. Indeed, they have put in place a number of initiatives, for which I thank and commend them. In the time left I shall briefly run through what else needs to be done to ensure that UK-based businesses are in the best possible place to secure contracts.
First is electricity market reform. At present, the Energy Bill is the most important game in town, and if we get it right it will provide the stable long-term policy environment that is required to attract supply chain investment. I believe that we are moving in the right direction. A £7.6 billion package has been provided for investment in renewable energy, and although the Bill’s provisions are complicated, it should provide the certainty, confidence and credibility that investors are looking for in UK energy policy. Timeliness is vital. It is important to investors that draft strike prices are published in the second quarter of this year and that the Bill receives Royal Assent by the end of the year.
I commend the Minister on being receptive to amendments to improve the Bill, and I am grateful to him for considering my proposals, which are designed to strengthen the supply chain. The elephant in the room is, of course, the 2030 decarbonisation target. I shall not dwell on that as I know it will be debated in the Chamber in much detail and with much passion in the coming weeks; indeed, it could be the subject of an Adjournment debate. I will say, however, that it is unfortunate that the issue has become a bit of a political football, and when the matter is considered I ask the Government to look behind any political positioning and decide what is best for Britain, and particularly the development of the UK energy supply chain. My views on the matter are determined by what industry and investors tell me, and it is important that we listen to them.
Secondly, the Government have put in place a number of measures to strengthen the supply chain. In Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth there is an enterprise zone, and the two ports have centre of renewable engineering—CORE—status. Those measures are proving helpful in promoting the area, but as the Minister heard from the Norfolk and Suffolk delegation he met last month, more could be done to ensure that we fully realise the potential of the great opportunity in front of us.
The problem that Yarmouth and Lowestoft face as a CORE is that of six COREs in England, only it and Sheerness do not have assisted area status. I believe that if all six COREs enjoyed the benefit of assisted area status, it would be particularly advantageous, both nationally and internationally, in seeking to promote the UK. It would help Lowestoft and Yarmouth to compete against our fiercest competitors from the low countries on the other side of the North sea.
I am also mindful that the UK ports fund, which is designed to help the establishment of offshore wind manufacturing, is only available in assisted areas. I am advised that at present this fund is largely unspent. If Lowestoft and Yarmouth were given assisted area status, the two ports could access the fund to carry out work that would stimulate jobs and investment in renewable offshore engineering.
The advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative is proving beneficial in stimulating investment in manufacturing-related jobs and growth. However, the current minimum threshold of £1 million for investment from the fund appears to be holding businesses back from making applications. It would thus be helpful if the Department of Energy and Climate Change could liaise with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether the threshold could be lowered either for individual businesses or for smaller scale projects. This would be helpful to businesses from across the manufacturing sector and to those looking to support energy projects.
I apologise if it appears that I have a shopping list, as I am mindful that the Minister may tell me that the shelves are bare. I would emphasise, however, that a thriving supply chain can be a key driver in reducing costs in the offshore wind sector, which is vital to establishing the industry on a sustainable, long-term footing.
Thirdly, investing in skills and people is of paramount importance. The UK needs to improve its skills base to serve the large demand that will come from the North sea in the next few years with regard to the oil and gas and wind sectors. If we do not do that, businesses will source that expertise from other countries.
I commend the Government for promoting apprenticeships. Indeed, the Minister himself played an important role in that work in a previous life. I also pay special tribute to Lowestoft college which, although not a large further education college, has realised the huge potential in the energy sector and invested a considerable amount of resources in providing facilities and putting on courses with the energy industry’s needs in mind.
There are a number of different ways and proposals as to how best to invest in skills for the offshore industry. I do not propose to go through these or, indeed, to pick a winner. Suffice to say that it is important that the necessary skills centres should be located near offshore engineering ports. This way we can create the world’s leading pool of offshore engineering skills here in the UK.
The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult centre proposed by the Technology Strategy Board will be located in Glasgow, and the north-east and will have an important role to play. I was concerned that it would not be a truly national centre of excellence, but those worries have been allayed and I know that organisations in Lowestoft such as OrbisEnergy and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science look forward to working with the centre in the coming months.
Fourthly, improving our outdated infrastructure is important if we are to make the most of these opportunities. The Government’s broadband initiative is welcome, though it is vital that the procurement process proceed smoothly and quickly.
In Lowestoft, conscious of the opportunities that will arise for funding through the single pot, which will be administered by the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, a prospectus of the transport infrastructure we need, both in the town and serving it, was published last week. Working together with the LEP, the councils and businesses, the town will strive to put in place the infrastructure needed to attract businesses to the area.
In conclusion, renewing the country’s energy infrastructure over the next 20 years provides a great opportunity to create a world-class industry that will provide the growth for which the country is so desperately searching. Much good work has been done, but I am concerned that as matters stand we are in danger of not making the best of the opportunity and we could, in effect, be exporting its benefits to other countries.
There is a need to provide businesses with both long-term certainty and a level playing field. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity and, in the words of Lord Heseltine, we must
“leave no stone unturned in pursuit of growth.”
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)
It was T. S. Eliot who said that we know too much and are convinced of too little, but that cannot be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is gaining a reputation as both a powerful and an elegant orator—if I may say so—in the interest of his constituents. Few Members of this House are more determined to advance the employment opportunities, the skills opportunities and the wider economic opportunities of the people they serve than my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to him for bringing this matter to the consideration of the House. He served with some distinction on the Energy Bill Committee, which he mentioned in his speech. I enjoyed working with him, and look forward to working with him further in future on that and other matters.
My hon. Friend rightly emphasised that the investment in our energy infrastructure is vital. The UK must be able to compete to stay ahead of others in what is increasingly a competitive world order. This is, to the use the Prime Minister’s phrase, a global race. We must ensure not just that we keep up, but that we win that race.
It is estimated that replacing and upgrading our electricity infrastructure and closing power stations over the next decade will require no less than £110 billion of capital investment. The Government’s electricity market reform programme, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his remarks, is designed to drive investment that will support as many as 250,000 jobs in the energy sector.
As part of the Energy Bill, we will of course engage in the process of enjoying with the people who will bring about that investment a full and proper debate on jobs and skills in the UK. We are working with communities to maximise benefits and working with the industry to ensure that this is an opportunity to drive growth.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I assume the Minister understands that, with such huge spending, he needs to take the people of Britain on that journey with him. Will he tell the House something about the call for evidence on community engagement on the benefits—supposed benefits—of onshore wind, which his Department finished in the middle of November 2012? We eagerly anticipate the results.
Mr Hayes
Some say I am the people’s voice. I would not want to claim that myself, but it is certainly true that the people’s interests are always close to my heart. I can tell my hon. Friend that we will respond to that call for evidence. Perhaps I should say more about it. I have asked my officials to look at pre-application consultation, benchmarking good practice, and ensuring that communities have the resources to evaluate and consider wind applications. Many representations have been made on cumulative impact and topography. It is vital—to use not my words, but those of the Secretary of State—that no community feels bullied into having wind turbines in the wrong places, and that the Department of Energy and Climate Change and indeed Government policy should not be used as an excuse for putting them in the wrong places. I cannot be clearer than that, but my hon. Friend will look forward to that publication with excitement and enthusiasm. He knows where I stand on these matters: I stand on the people’s side.
To return to the main thrust of my argument, the scale of the investment that I described a moment or two ago is big even compared with some of the other major infrastructure investment that the economy is likely to enjoy. It makes up nearly half the total investment in the pipeline—it is up to six times the investment expected in water or communications, and more than 30% greater than expected investment in transport. Perhaps sometimes in energy, we punch below our weight in making the case on infrastructure investment and the effect it can have on the wider economy, and on skills and jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has made clear.
As I have said, it is critical in that process that we work with businesses, not only to attract greater levels of investment to rebuild our energy infrastructure, stimulate our economy and bolster the jobs market, but to do so in a way that builds a sustainable supply chain.
In September last year, the Government launched an industrial strategy that will drive forward our approach to creating a new partnership with the business sectors that will give us the greatest potential for development and exports. My Department and my former Department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, are working closely together and in partnership with UK industry to produce three energy sector strategies as part of the industrial strategy, identifying ways that we can build up the UK supply chain in order to maximise the economic benefits of the investment we have attracted to communities and constituencies across the country.
These strategies cover oil and gas, nuclear and offshore wind, all of which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech, and are among the first to be launched as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. Indeed, the nuclear strategy was launched today. It sets out how we can achieve our ambitions in nuclear power, bringing a new generation of nuclear power to deliver light and heat to lives across the nation. It also sets out how we can achieve a massive increase in opportunities for those who work in that industry. It is fair to say that some of those skills have been eroded over time as the last nuclear power station we built was in 1985. There will be jobs in building those stations, in running them and in the regulatory system—the context in which they sit, because of course all we do will be safe and secure.
The oil and gas strategy will be launched in Aberdeen on Thursday. The offshore wind strategy will be published later this spring. An abundance of virtues is emanating from the partnership between my Department and BIS. The strategies set out where we are now, where we want to get to, and how we will get there. This work will bring forward important analysis of supply chains, focusing on barriers, skills and technology.
There is good news. For example, Hitachi, which is a partner organisation that wants to develop a new generation of nuclear power in this country, has suggested that 60% of the jobs created will be local. The Hinkley Point development, which has been debated in the House several times and is of critical importance, estimates that potentially 57% of the jobs will be from the UK. These are real and tangible benefits to our nation as the result of a policy that is not protectionist—although Joseph Chamberlain is one of my heroes—but planned, on the basis that if we get the economic effect for which my hon. Friend calls, we will build unparalleled resilience, flexibility and responsiveness. It is right that all should benefit from the plans that I have outlined today.
I make no apologies for being a patriot—no one in this House should—so of course the measure has to be quality. I know that, by and large, British is best. As we move forward with our nuclear supply chain action plan, which was delivered in December 2012, and work on the community benefits for sites that host new nuclear power stations and new technology in other areas—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—we must put the people’s interests first. That is also true in the oil and gas sector.
As I said, the oil and gas sector strategy will be published on Thursday in Aberdeen. It will focus on how we can develop further opportunities in the North sea to the benefit of communities and of the supply chain. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney will know that our gas generation strategy, published last December and of course on everyone’s bedside table, is designed to provide certainty for investors about the Government’s view of gas generation to ensure that sufficient investment comes forward within the context of the Government’s wider energy policies. Gas currently forms an integral part of the UK’s energy generation mix because it is reliable and flexible. It provides around 40% of our electricity. Shale gas is another exciting opportunity and our new office of unconventional gas and oil will be the pivot of our thinking and developments in that area.
We have enjoyed an exciting Easter Adjournment debate, and, at the end of that, another exciting debate thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. It remains for me to wish you personally, Mr Speaker, a joyous Easter, and to do so in the knowledge that this Minister and this Government are determined to do right by the British supply chain.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Munitions Workers
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
First, let me express my thanks to Mr Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to speak this morning about some of the forgotten heroes of the two world wars.
When people look back at some of the most memorable images of the first and second world wars, perhaps thoughts come to mind of the Royal Air Force repelling the Luftwaffe in the battle of Britain, or the Royal Navy hunting for U-boats in the Atlantic; or, going further back, people might think of the slog of trench warfare in the quagmire of the Somme. The bravery of those members of our armed forces is rightly remembered and their sacrifice should—must—never be forgotten.
When Winston Churchill made his first speech as Prime Minister to the House of Commons, he spoke of his own
“blood, toil, tears and sweat”.—[Official Report, 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.]
He also spoke for the millions of people who would become embroiled in the second world war. Nearly 600,000 people from the British Commonwealth were killed, and between 60 million and 80 million people lost their lives worldwide. We rightly remember the scale of the catastrophe, and never more so than in the forthcoming remembrance of the start of the first world war.
However, there was a group of people, no less heroic, who worked on the home front. Historically, the contribution made by those millions of people has received a great deal less attention, despite the huge sacrifices that they made, and despite their blood, toil, tears and sweat. I am delighted that in recent years long overdue steps have been taken to remedy that injustice. Groups such as the Bevin boys and the land-girls have been formally recognised, but today I would like to bring another group to the attention of not only the House but the country. They are still to receive the full recognition that they are entitled to and have deserved for many years. I refer, of course, to the workers in the nation’s munitions factories, the majority of whom were women.
In 1914 and 1915, it became clear that the country was under-prepared to provide munitions for a major war, so the Government increased their control of munitions manufacture and made sweeping changes. Perhaps the most significant of those, with millions of the male work force on military duty, was to force the employment of more women. By the end of that war, nearly a million “munitionettes” were employed in the factories and were estimated to have been responsible for 80% of all weapons and shells used by the British Army during the first world war.
As the threat of war heightened again in the late 1930s, the Ministry of Supply constructed dozens of new Royal Ordnance factories to ensure the uninterrupted supply of munitions to our armed forces. The women of Britain were urged once again to come into the factories, and yet again, they responded in their droves. It is estimated that anywhere between 1.5 million and 2 million people—mainly women—were employed in that highly dangerous industry. Many of the women were virtually conscripted; they were asked to come into the factories, but perhaps not given too much choice in the matter.
The work was incredibly dangerous, with workers at constant threat of either an accident or enemy attack. My attention was drawn to the issue when, at one of my advice surgeries back in 2008, I had a visit from a constituent whose mother needed my help. Her son explained that his mother had been injured in an explosion during her war work at the Royal Ordnance factory in Swynnerton, just a few miles from my constituency. She had one hand blown off, and the other was severely damaged. She had spent the majority of her adult life, and brought up her children, living with the most debilitating of disabilities, sustained during her service to her country. I have also been contacted by a lady who told me about an accident suffered by her mother: a box of ammunition had fallen on her leg and crushed it. By the time her mother died at the age of 91—a good age, happily, but sadly, without any formal recognition—she was unable to walk, but she had made that sacrifice and had literally put her life on the line, as had not only thousands but millions of others.
In an excellent piece of research entitled “Women of Britain come into the factories”, Samantha Webb provided many further such stories, and I commend her on the work that she has done over many years for the Roses of Swynnerton, as the women of ROF Swynnerton have become known. Those accounts of people’s lives range from the heart-warming to the harrowing, and include tales of heroism and great tragedy.
Samantha tells, for example, the story of May Barker, who started work at Swynnerton at the age of just 16. May was severely injured by an exploding shell, which left her in hospital, swathed from head to waist in bandages. She was blinded for five weeks and remained in hospital for four months, requiring the insertion of a steel kneecap. She lost a finger, and her leg injuries forced her to walk in irons for eight years. However, despite all that, May said that the
“atmosphere of companionship overrode the danger”,
and that she was motivated by the importance of her work. Right up until her death, May campaigned for a memorial to the Roses of Swynnerton, to whom, even in those later years, she felt such a close emotional bond.
Those brave women are typical of the thousands of people who lived with severe injuries from explosions, or with illness from the exposure to chemicals that they worked with. It was said that a munitions worker could often be indentified by the colour of their skin. Many of them became known as “canaries”, because the exposure to sulphur and TNT had the effect of turning their skin yellow. Some 106 workers died as a result of such exposure during the first world war alone.
The consequences of explosions in the factories were, of course, catastrophic. Two of the worst accidents were in 1916 in Faversham, leading to 106 fatalities, and in 1918, at the national shell filling factory in Chilwell, where 134 people lost their lives. It is estimated that about 600 workers were killed during world war one, with many thousands more injured. The safety record in world war two was better, but enemy action killed many people; at the Vickers factory at Brooklands, 86 people were killed in 1940, and the largest explosion ever on UK soil killed 81 people at RAF Fauld in 1944. It is thought that about 150 workers were killed during the second world war, but once again, the impact was felt most by the thousands who lived with injury or illness for decades to come.
That it has taken so long for recognition—any recognition, and even this debate—can no doubt be attributed partly to the fact that the location of the factories and the identity of the people working in them had to be kept secret, particularly during the second world war, as factories had to be moved away from the heavily bombed south to northern England, Scotland and Wales. We can still see the social impact of that in some of those places, where populations increased hugely by the influx of workers to munitions factories. I have mentioned ROF Swynnerton a number of times this morning, and huge numbers of people came down from Scotland to work in the factories there. Many of those people stayed behind after the war, rather than returning to their homes.
The manufacture of munitions was a truly nationwide effort. As the campaign of the all-party group on recognition of munitions workers has gained pace, people from all over the world have contacted us to express their disappointment that munitions workers have not yet been recognised formally. It was the sense of companionship and camaraderie that struck me most when I had the privilege, in recent years, of attending a Remembrance day service for the Roses of Swynnerton. I heard stories of the dreadful conditions in which the women had to work, the ever-present taste of the powder they worked with, their fear of accident or attack, and the extremely long shifts.
I remember a story of a group of workers on a train travelling to a railway station near Swynnerton that did not exist—it did not appear on any map or timetable. The train sat in darkness and quiet, obviously in huge danger, because if any light had shown, enemy planes would have spotted the train, which could have led not only to the death and injury of the people on it, but to the factory being traced. I talked to the women who were on the train, who said such situations were commonplace—they just got on with it. They sat for hours in comradeship, having hushed conversations among themselves. I spoke to an elderly lady who remembered, almost as if it were yesterday, how her youth had been spent helping the war effort. I heard from women who had lost close, dear friends, and had lived with the trauma of it ever since. They ask for no great show of thanks for their work, but simply that those of us who today benefit from the freedom that they played such a large role in defending and were so crucial in securing remember and understand their contribution.
I pay tribute to all the munitions workers I have had the privilege of coming into contact with over the past few years: Olive Astley, Avis Hendley, Alice Porter, Maisie Jagger and Iris Aplin, to name but a few. I am sure that colleagues present this morning will want to mention and remember workers from their constituencies—and I am sure that those hon. Members who could not make it here today would have wanted to do so. I thank the organisations that have helped us with our campaign: ADS has been with us since the start, and First Great Western and Virgin Trains provided travel for the group of munitions workers who attended the Cenotaph ceremony in November. It is worth mentioning that November was the first time that munitions workers marched past the Cenotaph and took part in the Remembrance parade. Having been approached by the all-party group, the Royal British Legion agreed to allow munitions workers to march past. There was a very good turnout from munitions workers and their families, showing the part they played in the war.
I also thank the Imperial War museum, which is undertaking a research project into munitions workers and the role they played in the first and second world wars, and to the national memorial arboretum, which has been so positive about our plans for a permanent memorial—the campaign for which we will launch on 15 April in Parliament. Most of all, I want to give thanks to BAE Systems, and particularly to Scott Dodsworth, without whom there is no way that we could have achieved what the all-party group has achieved so far. Their commitment to the campaign has been invaluable, and I want to put on record my gratitude for their support.
I am pleased that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is responsible for the subject but could not be here today, has agreed to meet us to discuss munitions workers. His predecessor was supportive and helpful. I hope that that is an indication that the Government might be open to considering ways of recognising the munitions workers. When the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) responds, I hope that he will also welcome the work of the all-party group and, although I recognise that this is not within his normal field of responsibility, that he will take the message back to his colleagues in the Treasury, to see whether there is a way forward.
Ideally, we would like an arrangement similar to the Bevin boys’ receipt of their badges in 2007—a badge for surviving workers, perhaps. Identifying who worked in munitions and defining munitions have always been problems. Does that include somebody who worked with small arms and shells, or with airframes, tanks and similar? In the all-party group, we are clear about what we mean by munitions workers: those who worked on royal ordnance. A problem is that over many years, the records of who worked at some of the factories that were turned over to produce munitions during the war have been lost. If a person in their 80s came forward and said that they had worked at a munitions factory, but it turned out that they had not—it is questionable whether anybody in their 80s or 90s would misrepresent themselves, but it might perhaps happen—giving away a badge or two to them would probably be a small price to pay for recognising those hundreds of thousands of workers. I do not think it would be hundreds of thousands now; sadly, only tens of thousands are still alive.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He spoke about the numbers. Does he agree that given that about 70 years have passed, we have a small window of opportunity? The number of people diminishes year on year, so we need urgent action.
Robert Flello
I echo everything the hon. Gentleman has said. Every day that goes by, there are fewer munitions workers—predominantly women who put their lives on the line for this country. I think only tens of thousands would be entitled to a badge.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that owing to the passage of time, relatives like me—my mother, who would have been 90 this year, was a munitions worker in the midlands—should be able to apply for whatever recognition is awarded following the campaign?
Robert Flello
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Where we draw the line has been a concern. Should the children, grandchildren or more distant relatives of a munitions worker who is no longer with us be able to get the badge? In an ideal world, I would agree with her that the children, and possibly the grandchildren, of munitions workers should be entitled to receive the badge on behalf of their loved one, who sacrificed themselves and put themselves on the line for this country. As a compromise, given the difficulties identifying people, the first step would be to recognise those who are still alive.
As far as the families are concerned, the second part of what the all-party group is asking for at the moment is being launched on 15 April: the fundraising launch for a lasting memorial at the national memorial arboretum. The memorial would form a permanent reminder, to which families—children, grandchildren and more distant relatives—could go. The Roses of Swynnerton—groups around the country referred to their munitionettes in different ways—could perhaps take a rose along to it. A memorial at the arboretum would be a good permanent reminder for families more widely, but as a first step we need the recognition for surviving munitions workers.
I assure the Minister that the issue is not party political. The campaign is an all-party one, and has support from Members across the House. We are absolutely committed to working collaboratively and, like the munitions workers, in a comradely way, with the Government. We just ask that, rather than seeking justification for why living munitions workers should be excluded from the recognition that other groups have had, the Government consider again how such recognition can be given. We also ask the Minister to agree that the danger and cost of giving a badge to someone who perhaps was not there is far outweighed by the need to recognise the ever-decreasing group of people who risked their lives day in, day out. That risk is a price worth paying.
All I really ask of the Minister is that he consider the matter with colleagues. My Front-Bench colleagues will probably hate me for trying to push for a spending commitment, but we are talking about a few thousand pounds. The fundraising push for the permanent memorial seeks to raise £100,000, and the cost of providing a medal or a badge to the surviving munitions workers is probably half that amount. The Chancellor will probably not lose too many nights’ sleep over £50,000, and any help and support, not least in publicising the fundraising drive, would be much appreciated.
In closing, I repeat my concern that if we do not make rapid progress it will be too late for the brave individuals who worked and risked—often giving up—their lives at factories such as the Royal Ordnance in Swynnerton. Those people are all now in at least their mid-80s, and with every day that passes more of them pass away without recognition. I therefore again urge the Minister and his colleagues to review their position. It is only just and proper that the Government give the Roses of Swynnerton, and everyone who was employed in the manufacture of munitions, the formal recognition they deserve. They went about ensuring, in a quiet and determined way—almost without raising an eyebrow—that this country could fight the first and second world wars. They ensured that there were bullets in the guns that our brave soldiers were firing, shells in the artillery pieces, and munitions in the aeroplanes that went up to defend us. If there had not been, all the work and effort, and the fact that the lives of our fantastic military personnel were put on the line, would have come to nothing.
These people need recognition, and they need it soon. I therefore urge the Government to put aside concerns they may have. I hope that in responding to the debate, the Minister can at least say that he will talk again to colleagues. To go away and think again would be a good first level of commitment. Let us give recognition to these people—predominantly women—who have sacrificed so much.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
As wartime munitions were manufactured also in my Kettering constituency, it is my good fortune to have the privilege of chairing this debate. In a moment, I will call Mr Reckless, and then it will be Nia Griffith, Phil Wilson, Huw Irranca-Davies and Russell Brown. I will ask Mr Perkins to start his speech at no later than 10.40 am, so if you pace yourselves you will all get in.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I am particularly interested to hear of your constituency interest, Mr Hollobone, through Kettering munitions manufacture.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). With the work he has already done through the all-party group and in securing this debate, he can take pride in putting the subject on the agenda, at least in this Parliament, and in so doing giving recognition to the munitions workers. I am pleased to bring a cross-party element to the debate by adding my voice in support of his request. As he states, any financial sum involved is de minimis compared with the scale of the contribution that the workers made to our country.
It was of course David Lloyd George who, as Minister of Munitions, so strongly put this issue on the agenda in the years around 1915. The workers had an important profile at that time, and it would be a great shame were that not to be recognised. Given what they did to win the first world war and then, in different conditions, their contribution to the winning of the second world war, it would clearly be a good thing, if it were possible, for them to get the recognition that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South seeks. Although the Minister here is not the Minister we would expect to respond to such a debate, I welcome him in terms of his ability to push discussions within Government, and to put the issue on the agenda and have it looked at with a fresh pair of eyes.
Regarding medals for groups that perhaps have not received rightful recognition, two things in particular have struck me. The response a few weeks back to the announcement of a medal for those involved in the Arctic convoys was important, and I have just had a constituency case involving a gentleman in Cliffe Woods village who served at Suez but did not get the medal of recognition he should have received. When my office pressed the issue, it appeared that there had been some confusion and his service had fallen through the cracks, so to speak, within the Ministry of Defence. We were able to provide the firm evidence that he had served in Suez, and the medal was then awarded. To the gentleman, the recognition was a source of great pride. That was one of the most rewarding pieces of constituency casework with which I have been involved.
I represent Rochester and Strood, and the Medway towns more broadly, and I am not sure whether constituents of mine would fall under the definition put forward by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. He mentioned Faversham, however, and of course at Woolwich there was the large Royal Ordnance munitions manufacturing base, and from Rochester or Strood—Chatham station is also in my constituency—Faversham and Woolwich are both within half an hour’s travel. I have no doubt that significant numbers of constituents in my area served in munitions manufacture, and a number of them are perhaps still alive and resident there. The hon. Gentleman kindly said that there were problems with the definition. Understandably, he and his group have settled on a clear definition and I wish them well in seeking recognition for the people who fall within it, but I hope he does not mind my saying that there are other groups of people—he himself drew attention to the people who worked on airframes.
My constituency had Short Brothers, based on the Esplanade in Rochester. That is now all modern housing, with great river views, but there is great pride in the area’s industrial heritage of Short Brothers and the flying boats developed and manufactured at that site. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the movement of factories during the war, and the vulnerability of Rochester to German bombing may have led to Short Brothers’ greater focus on its manufacturing in Northern Ireland. However, I believe that the skills base developed by those who worked on airframes in Rochester deserves recognition. Similarly, the royal dockyard in Chatham had many thousands of military workers, to whom we owe a great deal for both the first and second world wars, and indeed for many other wars going back several centuries.
To conclude, I associate myself and my constituents with the hon. Gentleman’s call that, just as those who worked and particularly served in military campaigns have been recognised with different medals and clasps, people who worked and contributed in such roles are also deserving of recognition. If, even at this late stage, the Government gave them the measure of recognition sought by the hon. Gentleman, I would very much welcome it.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I speak as a member of the all-party group on recognition of munitions workers, which aims to obtain recognition for the many thousands of such workers, mostly women, who did dirty, smelly and dangerous work in munitions factories. I endorse all the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who described the bravery of the women and men of the munitions factories.
I am grateful to my constituent Mr Les George, who has undertaken research into the local Royal Ordnance Factory at Pembrey in my constituency. He became interested because his mother had been a munitions worker there and narrowly escaped from explosions, the memories of which remained with her for life. Our parliamentary group has looked at some form of medal or veterans badge for munitions workers, like those for the Bevin boys or land-girls. In April, we will launch our fundraising campaign in Parliament for a permanent memorial to munitions workers in the national memorial arboretum in Staffordshire. Mr George has prepared information for display on the former site of ROF Pembrey, and we hope that the county council will support recognition of the role of local people in the munitions factory.
The research has not been easy because of the secretive nature of such factories. Pembrey has a long history of manufacturing explosives: a powder works was established on the Pembrey Burrows as far back as the 1800s, and was known as the New Explosive Company of Stowmarket. Detonators, fuses and other explosives were produced on the site, which covered an area of some 150 acres, stretching along the Pembrey coastline. The factory employed almost 80 people, including young boys and girls. As the work was highly dangerous, employees were paid by piece work that enabled them to earn between 2 shillings and sixpence and 3 shillings a day. At the time, that was comparatively good pay, so there was a local shortage of people wanting to be domestic servants.
The industry was not without its dangers. A minor explosion occurred at the Pembrey Burrows site on 11 November 1882, but fortunately no one was injured. It prompted Sir John Jenkins, my predecessor as MP for the area, to ask a parliamentary question on Thursday 16 November, because the sheds apparently held well over the legal limit of 150 tons of material authorised under the terms and conditions of the company’s explosives licence. He asked the Secretary of State:
“If he is aware of the fact that about 300 tons of dynamite is stored in one room at Bury Port…within a comparatively short distance of the shipping…and of large works where hundreds of workmen are employed…?”—[Official Report, 16 November 1882; Vol. 274, c. 1533-34.]
Sadly, the following day there was a large explosion, causing the tragic loss of life of seven young workers—three males and four females, ranging in age from just 13 to 24. The noise of the explosion was so great that it was heard as far away as Pembrokeshire.
In 1886, the New Explosive Company of Stowmarket was taken over by the Nobel Explosives Company of Glasgow, which was owned by Alfred Nobel—the same man who, when he died, left most of his wealth in trust to fund several awards, one of which we know today as the Nobel peace prize. In 1914, with war looming in Europe, the then Secretary of State ordered and approved the construction of a new plant at Pembrey, with the Government bearing the full cost. It was agreed that the Nobel Explosives Company would be retained as administrative agents of the plant and that the 750-acre site would remain Government property after the war. The Pembrey plant was one of the first of more than 200 purpose-built TNT and propellant-manufacturing factories in the UK during world war one.
As the second world war approached, work started in July 1938 to build a new factory on the Pembrey site, with the Ministry of Works acting as agents. It opened in December 1939 under the control of the Ministry of Supply, as one of several explosives Royal Ordnance Factories making TNT. Unlike other factories, ROF Pembrey also made tetryl and ammonium nitrate. Production of explosives began in December 1939 and reached its peak in 1942, producing 700 tons of TNT, 1,000 tons of ammonium nitrate and 40 tons of tetryl each week. There was a complex arrangement of buildings, spread out over the 750-acre site and set among the sand hills. The magazines were carefully housed around the plant and were well camouflaged to avoid detection in case of possible air raid or sabotage. The site was self-contained, having its own water plant and a power station for electricity. In addition, the administrative buildings, canteen, doctors’ surgery, laundry, police barracks, library and other offices were grouped together at the main site. We can see how big it was.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, these factories were under constant threat of attack. Indeed, shortly after midday on Tuesday 10 July 1940, a single German bomber plane made a sneak attack on the factory and dropped about nine bombs just inside the main entrance gates. Tragically, 10 workers were killed outright or died later of their injuries, and others were injured, some severely. Serious though the bombing was, had it been a little later the casualties would have been much greater, as many men and women would have been on their way to the canteen for their lunch break.
Production continued at a much reduced scale after the war, except for a sharp upturn in the early 1950s, during the Korean war. One of the main functions of the site after the war was to break down large quantities of superfluous or obsolete ammunition. The TNT was melted out of the shells by jets of hot water, and taken to solidify on isolated stretches of sand, where it burned off. The bright glowing flames of burning cordite lit up the night sky, and could be seen for miles around; it was quite spectacular.
Workers in the explosive process units were easily recognised in the area because, as has already been pointed out, the skin of their exposed face and hands was tainted yellow. A stream running from the Royal Ordnance Factory and joining the sea on the west side of Pembrey was reddish in colour, as it had been tinted by the TNT from the factory. That was more noticeable at low tide—it was known locally as the “red river”—and, as the water was always warmer than the sea, locals regularly enjoyed swimming there during the summer months.
The Royal Ordnance factory is now closed and there is a country park on the site, which is on a spectacular piece of coastline. Although I am delighted that munitions workers were represented at the Cenotaph last year, we very much hope that, in the national memorial arboretum, in a medal for the individuals who are still alive, and in something in Pembrey, we will have a permanent memorial to the work done by munitions workers.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, to debate a subject that is important for many of our constituents, and to remember the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who worked in dangerous industries during the war to keep our defences going in that period.
I want to talk about the munitions factory at Aycliffe, now Newton Aycliffe. In 1941, when Royal Ordnance factory No. 59 opened in Aycliffe, the town of Newton Aycliffe did not exist; it became a new town in 1947. The former site of the ordnance factory is now the second-largest industrial estate in the north-east. If people go to the industrial estate, they can still see the blast walls and some of the buildings where munitions workers worked during that period. At its peak, in 1943, the factory employed 17,000 people, 90% of whom were women. Around the country, there were some 64,500 munitions workers who filled the shells and the bullets. The importance of their work was recognised, as they received visits from Winston Churchill, King George VI and even Gracie Fields, who gave a beautiful rendition of the Lord’s Prayer, which is well remembered by many of the workers.
Filling shells and bullets is obviously dangerous work. I understand from a study by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in 1940 that the Aycliffe Royal Ordnance factory produced more than 700 million bullets during its period of operation. The work was extremely repetitive, fragmented and boring, but there were high levels of companionship among the women as they daily risked their lives filling bombs and bullets. Many of the women started work at 18, but the average age was 34. Workers were supposed to be under the age of 50 to work at the factory, but apparently a Mrs Dillon, who claimed she was 49, was actually 69. She was the best worker in the factory, losing only two days of work in two-and-a-half years. She received the British Empire medal from the King for her work.
The women who worked in the factory became known as the Aycliffe Angels because, in numerous wartime broadcasts, Lord Haw Haw used to say:
“The little angels of Aycliffe won’t get away with it.”
Although there was never a raid on the factory, because it was secret, the workers faced terrible situations. I have a personal interest in this story, because my grandma, Isabella Woods, worked in the factory during that period. Dorothy Addison spoke to the Northern Echo about her time at the station. In a description of what she did, she said:
“I was on ‘Group Five’ and our job was to weigh cordite, put it into linen bags and sew gunpowder on top. This was put into ‘25-pounder shells’ and the next block had to put the detonator on top! We were searched and if anyone was found with matches, it was instant dismissal! We wore protective clothing and shoes that didn’t cause any friction and our hair had to be tucked in a turban. I remember one girl in the next block getting her hair in a machine and being scalped—she died!! German bombers often came over and all the lights had to be out. One night they came over—we knew the sound—the siren went and we all had to go into the shelters. The sky was lit up with hundreds of ‘chandeliers’—our name for bombs.”
That is what they had to put up with, day in and day out for the period of the war.
Let me mention also some of the people who died. There was an explosion on 2 May 1945—just days before the end of the second world war—in which Isabella Bailey, Elsie Barrett, James Bunton, William Clark Hobson, William Mitchell, Christopher Seagrave, Edmund Smith and Alice Wilson died. Phoebe Morland died on the night of 20 February 1942, along with Irene Irvin, and Alice Dixon. Phoebe’s husband was in the Navy during the war; although his job was considered the more dangerous, it was his wife at home who was killed, leaving behind two children. That is what our ancestors had to put up with. Many of us have relatives or know of people who worked in those industries.
I pay tribute to Great Aycliffe town council for doing its bit over the years to remember the Aycliffe Angels. It produced a memorial certificate, which it gave to the survivors. My grandma was awarded one posthumously; she died 30 years ago. To this day, it sits on the coffee table in the sitting room of my mum’s house. The council also helped to prepare and build a memorial in the town centre to the men and women who worked in the industry.
Newton Aycliffe is now a thriving town with a massive industrial estate. The town itself did not exist until after the war; there were only fields. The factory was built on that site because the area tended to get misty, so it could be hidden from bombers. That is part of the proud history of the town. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate. He is right that the munitions workers should be recognised. They were not on the front line or fighting in the desert or in the jungle or at Normandy, but they helped to keep the war effort going and some of them lost their lives in that dangerous industry. A permanent national memorial would suit their endeavours.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate. I recognise the cross-party support from Members on the all-party group on recognition of munitions workers. I pay tribute to those who have spoken and given personal testimonies on behalf of themselves, their families and the areas they represent.
Curiously, in researching my speech, I came across a personal link of a different kind, not to someone who worked in a munitions factory, but to the right hon. Jim Griffiths, a cousin on my mother’s side and a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). On 3 June 1937, he spoke in a debate on the munitions factory in Bridgend. We must not forget that in the selection of sites for munitions factories, a number of factors came into play, including that areas were not easily identifiable by bombers and that, in what were termed depressed areas, there was a ready supply of good labour. Those taking part in that debate in 1937 included not only my relative from Llanelli, who later became Secretary of State for Wales, but my predecessor, Mr E.J. Williams, one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Ogmore, who asked the Minister about
“the sources of recruitment for the Bridgend munitions factory”—
which was one of the largest munitions employers in the country, employing some 40,000 people—
“and whether any instruction is issued which debars unemployed persons from Maesteg, Aberkenfig, Pontycymmer, and Ogmore Vale Employment Exchanges?”
He went on to ask whether the First Commissioner of Works
“will stipulate in all contracts that, except for technicians, local labour must be engaged at the preparatory or constructional work at the Bridgend munitions factory.”—[Official Report, 3 June 1937; Vol. 324, c. 1149.]
That issue of employing local labour echoes down the years to our current industrial strategy.
The debate in 1937 took place when factory sites were being identified and before the first recruitment of conscripted young women. In Llanelli, Carmarthenshire and in the south Wales valleys, young, unmarried women would receive a letter on their doorstep telling them that they had a choice: go into the forces; be sent away to do X,Y or Z; or work in their local munitions factory. Many of them uprooted, went to work in the factories, lived in barracks and contributed for the whole of that period. As we have heard, while many of them settled or returned to their families, many others lost their lives, not only in explosions but through cordite and chemical poisoning, with many people maimed or dying of their injuries.
Let me fast-track right to the end of the war, when thankfully we had overcome the challenge we had faced from the fascists and others, to a fantastic piece of history—the foremen’s farewell dinner in the regional canteen at the Bridgend factory. It was not an entirely joyous occasion, because many of the people there were returning to places with high unemployment. As part of this dinner for the foremen—and forewomen, as working in the munitions industry was, in many ways, a major step forward in the employment of women—there was a bit of a sing-song. The last chorus of the song that they sang at the dinner goes:
“And now we’re redundant,
But work ain’t abundant,
So that is the end of us Foremen, God help.
But our ghosts, pale and sallow,
Will haunt cleanways so narrow,
Crying, stores for wars, alive, alive O.”
And off they went to seek work.
In the few minutes I have for my speech, I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South in his call for recognition of munitions workers. The all-party group has done great work and will shortly be launching in Parliament a fundraising effort to build a permanent memorial in the national memorial arboretum. The group has already instigated, with the support of outside partners, archive work with the Imperial War museum, bringing together the sources of information on munitions workers.
Last year, for the first time there were 18 positions reserved for munitions workers on the march to the Cenotaph as part of Remembrance Sunday; they came from all around the country. However, that still leaves outstanding some form of individual memorial—a badge, a ribbon or a medal—and I say to the Minister that that is where he and the Government come in, and where we would ask for his support.
The 40,000 people who worked in the Bridgend factory made a significant contribution to the war effort. Today, I am focusing not on the scale of that support but on the fact that we should recognise that, for many of those people, this work was a formative part of their growing years as young men and women. In the Bridgend factory, with 40,000 people working there, essentially a huge town was established, with a rail network, new road infrastructure and so on. On the site, they had dance halls, canteens and a massive social life. They had darts leagues, football leagues, opera societies, a factory band and a rugby club. As a big rugby aficionado myself, I notice that it says of rugby in the Christmas 1943 newsletter:
“The Rugby side, despite many difficulties—the chief being the loss of players to the forces—has done creditably, having played 9, won 6 and lost 3. Points for 42, against 55.”
However, on the front of that same newsletter, there is something that I will quote and leave the Minister to think about. The superintendent of the site says:
“Looking back, we remember that last Christmas gave us the first lifting of the shadows then engulfing us, the first promise of a better day dawning. If you remember, it was in November 1942 that our Glorious Eighth Army started to drive Rommel back on his long desert retreat—and since then what truly great feats we have accomplished! Africa freed—Mussolini banished—the U-boat menace squashed—our feet on the mainland of Europe and the conquest of Italy well in hand. In all these feats, you, the Workers of R.O.F. 53, ‘have had a share’. You have a right to be proud of your contribution to the fight for freedom.”
I say to the Minister that we in the all-party group on recognition of munitions workers will do all we can to gain recognition for those people of Royal Ordnance factory No. 53 and for all the others right across the country—the tens of thousands of people—who played their part in the war effort. We urge the Minister to consider what else can be done by the Government to ensure that we recognise individually the contribution of munitions workers.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
As other colleagues have already done this morning, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate. Like one or two others who are here in Westminster Hall today, I am also a member of the all-party group on recognition for munitions workers. I also have to declare a further interest; before I came to this place, I was a munitions worker myself for 18 years. So there was life before this place.
In considering the task that was laid before people during the second world war and the first world war, I recognise only too well just how hard the work of munitions factory staff was. However, that work was being done in completely different circumstances to those that exist today. The “war effort” is something that people glibly talk about, but they never recognise just how difficult it really was back in those days.
I will go back to the first world war. In my local community—I say “my local community”, but it is actually in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) —the two villages of Eastriggs and Gretna were built around the manufacture of munitions. In fact, the village of Eastriggs is called “the Commonwealth village”, and that can be seen in its street names: Halifax road; Sydney road; Melbourne avenue; Winnipeg way; and Auckland way. All around that village, there are streets and avenues with names from the Commonwealth.
I pay tribute to the local people in that area who have developed what could be seen as a tourist attraction. They have developed a project called “The Devil’s Porridge”, where they put on a display of what life was like during the first world war. They have tried to replicate that period as best they can, and I must say that they have made a fantastic effort to replicate what it was like to work in a munitions factory back then.
I also think back to the presentation of awards and badges to the Land Army girls. I must say that some of the hardy souls I met at that time made the comment, “Well, we were very lucky, we escaped the munitions factories”, because they were given a choice: did they want to go to work on the land, or did they want to go to the munitions factories? Quite clearly, they wanted to be out in the open air rather than working in a munitions factory, which they recognised was very dangerous work. Unfortunately, that offer was not made to some people, who were told, “You are going to munitions factories.” We must also keep it in mind that the women at that time were paid only half what the men were being paid, so there was not just a workforce dominated by women; there were men in the factories, who were actually paid twice as much as the women were.
Colleagues have mentioned today the companionship and comradeship found in munitions factories, and I have to say that I have found it absolutely fascinating, during the period that the all-party group has been established, to meet some of the women workers. They related their own stories and I must say that some of them could not be printed in Hansard, because of some of the antics that these people got up to. They were safe in a workplace, but their antics outwith included social events, social evenings, even cycling 10 or 15 miles to a dance. That was not uncommon and when we consider that many of today’s young people will ask “Can I get a lift?” if they are asked to pop down to the shops, we realise that these women in the factories were real hardy souls who saw nothing whatever as a challenge.
They also experienced a lot in the workplace. We have already heard about the “canary girls”, but all of the people in munitions factories were working with chemicals of all kinds, including acids. Sadly, many individuals were left disfigured because of severe acid burns. There were some acids that people worked with that resulted in their teeth falling out. So it was not pretty, but it was the war effort.
I also thank the Royal British Legion for enabling a number of these ex-munitions workers to take part in the Armistice day parade last year. I actually came down to London to be with two ladies from my constituency who took part in that parade, Margaret Proudlock and Margaret Shields. They will be for ever grateful to the all-party group for achieving that initial recognition. However, as hon. Members, including the Minister, have heard we want that little bit extra—something a little bit special—for individuals to be recognised.
The site that I worked at was the Royal Ordnance factory Powfoot, which was managed by Nobel Explosives, a subsidiary of ICI. I remember distinctly being told about the site on my first day, “There’s 365 acres here, boy. One for every day of the year.” That was founded in 1940. Also in my constituency was a site at Edingham in Dalbeattie, built in 1939. There was a further subsidiary site of Nobel’s in Dumfries itself, at Drungans. In checking one or two things, I came across the following in Hansard from 25 February 1946:
“Mr. McKie asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement regarding future plans for the munitions factory at Drungans, Dumfries.”
At that time, the President of the Board of Trade was Sir Stafford Cripps, who replied:
“This factory has just been declared surplus to Government requirements. It is, in its present form, suitable only to a limited extent for peace-time production, but the Board of Trade will endeavour to make arrangements for it to be used to the best possible advantage.”—[Official Report, 25 February 1946; Vol. 419, c. 548.]
That factory continued to operate from that date into the late 1980s, when it closed. The Powfoot site, which I worked at, ceased production in November 1992, after the privatisation of Royal Ordnance factories.
I want to add a little support to what has been said this morning. The Imperial War museum has been helpful to us. I am confident that we will get something at the national memorial arboretum and that there will be an effort to raise the £100,000 that we want. I also thank Scott Dodsworth of BAE Systems for all the work that he has done.
One challenge that became apparent when I first raised this issue was that we have no records of these individuals. In my home town of Annan, a lady at the Historic Resources Centre, Renée Anderson, has a card index system of some 2,600 members of staff who were employed. It is fascinating. I do not know how old this lady thinks I am, but she produced a significant number of photographs, some of which were black and white and from way back and asked if I recognised any of the people. Of course I did not, but I am sure that people in the community will come forward to try to identify them. Renée wants to put on a display about what that site did.
As we have heard this morning, these places were secret. I met a chap a good number of years ago who used to fly for the RAF. He said, “We were always told to keep away from this area, because we had no idea what was there. We were told, ‘Do not fly within this specific zone.’” People were moving around that site something that could, with the slightest spark, have decimated the area. To give an example, I am sure that colleagues will remember incidents in recent years, in Peru and Holland, where fireworks have gone off in an enclosed area and totally destroyed it, and have taken the paintwork off vehicles in the vicinity. That is the ferocity with which this material—small arms propellant—burns. It is ferocious and, when it goes, people stand no chance at all. That is the sort of environment that women worked in during the war.
My latter days at the Powfoot site were spent as a production supervisor. People in a work force do complain and my answer to complaints from some of the guys that that was dirty, heavy work, was, “This was women’s work during the war”—not demeaning anyone, but just showing the fortitude of those women in ensuring that our guys on the front line were properly armed.
I hope that the Minister will speak to his colleagues. It is little to ask that these women get individual recognition. I know that the records are not as we would like to be able to identify each and every one of them, but the information channelled to my office and in the Historic Resources Centre in my home town is a good starting point. I am sure that other colleagues will work tirelessly to ensure that we get official recognition for these people who made the difference to our troops on the front line, especially during the second world war.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is not the first time, but it is exciting none the less.
This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on his excellent speech and on the work he is doing to promote this issue. He started by reflecting that the debate was recognising some of the forgotten heroes. In as much as they have been forgotten by history, the work that the all-party group is doing and the speeches by hon. Members today are ensuring that they are forgotten no longer. We need to recognise the contribution they made. My hon. Friend reflected on the huge personal risks and sacrifices made by munitions workers, known as “canaries” because of the effects of their work with chemicals. I endorse the work of the all-party group. The Opposition should look to work with the Government and the all-party group on some of the more difficult issues to do with individual recognition.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) broadened the description of people who also served. When discussing this issue, we need to reflect on the many people who contributed in different ways to the war effort. Steps forward have been taken in recent years to recognise various groups, and the hon. Gentleman gave us a glimpse of other groups that we might choose to bring under this umbrella in the future. Perhaps inadvertently, he posed a challenge to my hon. Friend, as the description could continue to grow. At what point do we narrow it down? If we are asking for individual recognition, recognising that collective recognition that is long overdue—although there are real signs that it will be given—what work can the all-party group, with Government and the Opposition, do to try to narrow the description so that we can find out how many people we are talking about, how we are going to find them, who will do the work to see who will receive the recognition, and how we ensure that there is public confidence that a self-certification model will not demean the achievement in receiving it? Questions arise from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) reflected on the contributions and sacrifices of her constituents. She brought some colour to the debate, with her description of yellow-faced people swimming in a red river, which nicely brought to mind the massive personal sacrifice and contribution that people made. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) reflected on the fact that 90% of the workers in the factory at Aycliffe were women. More than 1 million women worked in munitions factories during the second world war. He alluded broadly to the way that history had, in various ways, written out women’s contribution to the second world war effort. As a society, we are belatedly recognising that contribution, and this debate helps in that process. My hon. Friend was also proud to talk of his respect for the Aycliffe Angels and the contribution they made to the war effort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) reflected on the importance of local munitions factories as employers in the pre-war years. He also reflected on the fact that the big immigration concern in the mid-1930s was whether people would come from Maesteg to steal all the jobs. As the world has shrunk, the issue has broadened out slightly, but it was none the less interesting to hear that concerns we still recognise today were alive and well in Bridgend in the 1930s. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) made an interesting pitch for the tourism offer in his area. He made us aware that today we can still see evidence of what munitions factories were like, and many people will be interested in taking up his offer. He also reflected on the sacrifices made by workers at the time.
In discussing this issue and the fact that I would be contributing to the debate, I learned that my mother-in-law had worked in the Bryan Donkin factory in Chesterfield. The more we talk about this issue, the more we hear about people we never even realised had made a contribution. The BBC’s “People’s War” website included a contribution from the Derby action team about the war effort of munitions factory workers in Chesterfield. It mentioned that Chesterfield people kept a relentless black-out to ensure the factories were never bombed, although errant German bombers accidentally bombed the Chesterfield football ground and the Walton golf course. What the Germans had against Chesterfield’s sporting prowess, we will never know, but they did not manage to get to the factories.
The eminent war historian Simon Fowler has written about munitions workers, and one quote brings together very nicely some of the issues we have talked about:
“Britain could not have emerged victorious in 1945 without the help of the many who selflessly worked all the hours they could to provide the materials the British Army and Allied troops used to defeat the Germans… People were injured or killed while making munitions every day. Their recognition is long overdue. They played a key part in the War and it’s a scandal it’s taken until now, when there are not many left to see it.”
Many of us would echo those comments. In recent years, there has been not only renewed appreciation of the role of our heroic armed forces, but wider recognition by society and, I glad to say, the Government of those who served in many other ways. In recent years, we have taken huge strides forward in recognising the contribution of the Bevin boys, the land-girls and the Women’s Timber Corps, and we also have the memorial to women who died during the second world war.
I entirely support the recognition that munitions workers received for the first time at the Armistice day parade at the Cenotaph, and I congratulate the Royal British Legion on that. I also entirely support the campaign for a national memorial at Alrewas. I hope and expect that there will be wide public support for the campaign my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South described.
I acknowledge the difficulty posed by the lack of adequate records, as well as the fear that individuals will, as a result, never get the personal recognition we all think they deserve. I hope that wider recognition will be granted as quickly as possible, given that the clock is against many of those who clearly deserve recognition. Her Majesty’s Opposition are more than happy to be involved in cross-party talks on practical ways to move things forward in a way that enjoys confidence and is effective.
This debate is a time for us to recognise the debt that this generation owes to all those who stood up and were counted in Britain’s finest hour. It fell to them to fight for the essential freedoms that these blessed isles have enjoyed for so long and, God willing, will continue to enjoy. When questions were asked of that generation, they answered—and then some. They saved lives, but they also saved the world from a tyranny so evil that even imagining defeat makes our blood run cold.
In recognising the contribution of all those who served in our munitions factories in this debate, we are also passing on the gratitude, respect and thanks of this generation to all those who heroically served and saved our country all those years ago.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I join the many others who have spoken in congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing a debate on such an important subject. He has a keen interest in this issue, which he has expressed over a number of years on behalf of many of his constituents. I am grateful for the work that he and the chairman of the all-party group have done.
It is worth recognising not only the cross-party nature of the debate—there have been contributions from both sides of the House—but the fact that there have been contributions from almost all parts of the UK. We have heard from those representing the south and the north of England, the midlands, Wales and Scotland, so this really is a matter for the whole United Kingdom.
It is almost unnecessary to say that the production of munitions was essential to winning the war. Hundreds of thousands of women were drafted into armaments works and assembly plants across Britain to keep the armed forces supplied and to free men to fight on the front line. As we have heard from almost everybody who has spoken, many of these workers were killed, maimed or injured in industrial accidents or air raids, as the Luftwaffe tried to halt the production of supplies. That in itself demonstrates how vital the work was to the war effort.
The hon. Gentleman spoke with lyrical eloquence about the blood, toil, tears and sweat of not only those on the front line, but the munitions workers and, indeed, the munitionettes, who ensured an uninterrupted supply of munitions to the front. Nobody can fight or defend themselves and their country without munitions. About 2 million people took part in the production of munitions, and we have heard of the Aycliffe Angels and the Roses of Swynnerton, but there are no doubt many other such groups across the country. People were uprooted, some lost their lives and the lives of others were irreparably altered by injury and by their work. Their contribution should be remembered and understood by this generation.
The Government recognise and appreciate the courage and fortitude of all those who worked in munitions factories in the second world war to supply our armed forces. Photographs in our history books remind us of the endless lines of munitions that were produced. We have heard again of the huge impact of this work on the social fabric, with women going to work in factories often for the first time. That was the case in my family: my grandmother took up work for the first time in that period and never gave up the habit afterwards. The same thing happened across the country, and it resulted in a permanent change in the social fabric. Women made a great advance in the work force; it was a necessary advance, although work is still needed today to complete it.
During the war, factories were the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply, a predecessor of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That is why replying to the debate falls to my Department. In a sense, as the Minister for Skills, I am the Minister for Labour Supply, to use older terminology. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said, answers need to be worked out to complicated questions about the potential formal recognition of munitions workers. There is the question of numbers: there could be tens of thousands of people still living who worked in munitions factories in the second world war. That does not include those who worked in factories involved in closely linked activities that were vital to the war effort, such as producing airframes, ships and boats, vehicles—tanks have been mentioned—and uniforms. The war effort could not have proceeded without any of those.
As has been mentioned, the disruption to employment in the war years, the time that has elapsed since and the necessary secrecy of the work make it harder still to identify all those who were involved. Manufacturing of equipment for our armed forces was spread throughout the UK’s extant manufacturing base, and many businesses that would not obviously fall within the definition of munitions factories were integral to the work. For example, small carpentry firms and furniture workshops produced wings for aircraft, and sewing machine manufacturers and repair facilities made essential components for weapons.
Robert Flello
The Minister is right to say that it is important to recognise the work of the different allied trades, but I regard our proposal on munitions workers as a first step. When the Bevin boys were recognised, it was appreciated that the land-girls would need to be too, but the issues were dealt with discretely and individually, so there is a precedent.
Matthew Hancock
Yes, I understand that point. Fireworks manufacturers, which were mentioned in the debate, were also critical to munitions work, but there is an important question about where to draw the boundary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) talked about close links to Woolwich and the involvement of a range of people. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) talked about Les George and Pembrey munitions factory and reminded us not only of the dangerous work done during the war, but of the entirely necessary work that continued after 1945 to make unused munitions safe. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) reminded us that the work was often repetitive and, in his word, “boring”, but that it was none the less a proud part of the history of the town and that the work was a source of companionship. That was not least the case in places where it had a huge and obvious impact, such as Bridgend. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) spoke of the massive, 40,000-person Bridgend site and the debate about who should work there—a debate that I entirely recognise in what has been happening this very week. We can imagine the camaraderie in the canteen, among the foremen of Bridgend and in the enjoyment of dance halls, opera, football and rugby, but also in the workers’ fortitude in the face of the danger of the task. Finally, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) talked about his personal experience. He provided a powerful testament to the strength and fortitude of the women who worked in the factories during the war, which he related to his account of the men who work in the same factories now.
The lack of records and the difficulties in verifying entitlement raise practical questions about how to recognise formally the contribution of individual civilian workers, but I will consider the points that have been made in the debate and speak to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is formally responsible. He is to meet the all-party group on 23 April to listen to the arguments in person, and sends apologies for not being able to attend the debate. He has also been invited to the event on 15 April and will attend if he can. He is looking forward to replying to the all-party group about that shortly.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I welcome the way in which the Minister has responded to the debate, and the fact that he is keeping an open mind. In Bridgend there is a memorial to the 27 people who died, which reads:
“Cofiwn yn ddiolchgar
Bawb a weithiodd yn
Ffatri Arfau Penybont
Ac yn enwedig y rhai
A laddwyd yno”,
which means:
“Remember with great gratitude
All those who worked at
The Bridgend Arsenal
And especially those
Who were killed there”.
It goes on to list all the names. We are starting to put in place the things that will give recognition, and I welcome the fact that the Minister’s mind is not closed to the possibility of individual recognition for those who served, including those who have passed away. Their families may want them to be recognised and to have something that is personal to them, by which they can remember.
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman suggests that time is pressing, especially for those who served during the second world war. I pay tribute to the all-party group, which was set up to explore ways to prevent those valiant efforts from being forgotten. The Government appreciate its work. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said, thanks to its efforts, last Remembrance day, munitions workers, both male and female, participated for the first time in the march past the Cenotaph. We should thank the Royal British Legion for its support.
The launch event for the fundraising campaign to raise £100,000 for a lasting memorial at the national memorial arboretum in Staffordshire will be on 15 April in the House of Commons, and I wish it well. I hope that campaign that will be well supported by the public—I am sure that it will. I also hope that, subject to other business, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to make it to the launch. I know that he was pleased to receive his invitation. I pay tribute also to the partnership with the Imperial War Museum, supported by BAE Systems—in particular I want to recognise the work of Scott Dodsworth—to record the achievements of munitions workers and ensure that we do not forget.
Huw Irranca-Davies
As encouragement to the Minister and others in the Government to come to the event, perhaps I should I point out that they would be in the inestimable company of our patron, the authoritative and renowned broadcaster Huw Edwards, who lends his gravitas to the work being done by the all-party group. I am sure that Ministers would bask in the glow of the launch.
Matthew Hancock
If Mr Edwards’s eloquence can match that of the hon. Gentleman, it will be a truly memorable event. His reading of words from the front of the Bridgend factory magazine, and, also in translation, from the memorial, had powerful force. I wish the all-party group every success on 15 April and sincerely hope that the event will result in a fitting tribute to those who risked and gave their lives in munitions factories. I will take a clear message back to my colleagues. I am grateful to have had the chance formally to restate our gratitude to the thousands of people who carried out that essential and dangerous work in the name of freedom, and who risked and gave their lives so that we might enjoy that freedom today.
Fetal Anti-convulsant Syndrome
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am delighted to have secured this important and topical debate after months of bad luck in the ballot. The House will adjourn for the Easter recess today, and I appreciate the effect of that on the number of participants. As hon. Members have other commitments in their constituencies, the turnout is lower than it would have been had the debate taken place at a more convenient time, so I am grateful to colleagues who have made it here.
Members who watched the recent BBC “Inside Out” programme will recognise the timeliness of this debate, because new expert medical research has highlighted the dangers of anti-convulsant medication to pregnant women and their unborn children. Before we get into the debate, I will provide a bit of background information on fetal anti-convulsant syndrome and the Independent Fetal Anti-Convulsant Trust.
Fetal anti-convulsant syndrome is a medical condition that arises among the children of mothers who suffer from epilepsy and take a type of drug known or used as an anti-convulsant medication to treat their condition during pregnancy. Not all children who are exposed to anti-convulsant drugs are affected. The level of risk is determined by known factors, such as the particular anti-convulsant medication used and the dose taken, as well as other susceptibility factors. Children suffering from fetal anti-convulsant syndrome suffer from a constellation of physical and neuro-developmental deficits, and so have to be diagnosed by a medical specialist.
The Independent Fetal Anti-Convulsant Trust was launched in November 2012 to gather information and provide support and assistance to those affected by the condition. It is run by a small, hard-working team of volunteers, a couple of whom are in the Gallery today. I would like to put on record my thanks to the entire team, and especially to Janet Williams, who has done a fantastic job in providing me and many other hon. Members with so much invaluable information. I would urge anyone who suffers from the condition, or who has a relative or friend with it, to contact the trust.
It is difficult to get an accurate picture of the number of people affected by the condition; in response to a parliamentary question to the Department of Health on the number of women receiving anti-epileptic drugs through the NHS, I was unfortunately told that the information was not available centrally. Things are made even more difficult by the fact that many children with the condition will not have been diagnosed with the syndrome because they do not have a major congenital malformation, such as a heart defect or spina bifida. Those children are less likely to be referred to a clinical geneticist.
Sodium valproate is the drug that reportedly carries the largest risk of causing fetal anti-convulsant syndrome. According to prescription records, there were more than 21,500 women taking sodium valproate in 2010 in England and Wales alone. A range of scientific studies conducted over the past couple of decades have demonstrated that some 10% of children exposed to sodium valproate will be born with a major congenital malformation. Their IQ is likely to be lower than it otherwise would have been, with 29% requiring additional educational support and 6% being diagnosed with significant social communication difficulties, such as autism.
More broadly, there have been numerous case reports in medical journals of children born with one or more major birth defects when the mother had been taking anti-convulsant drugs. Those children include not only those born with spina bifida and heart defects, but those born with cleft palates, limb malformations, neuro-developmental delays and learning difficulties. There are therefore likely to be tens of thousands of children affected by the condition.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is making his case very well. Fetal anti-convulsant syndrome is an unknown quantity that affects children. I am aware of a family in my constituency with children who suffer from it. The hon. Gentleman has not yet mentioned that children may also suffer from autism as a result of fetal anti-convulsant syndrome. Is he aware of that? Does he feel that more research is needed to find the necessary treatment, and that the Government should respond by encouraging, and making moneys available for, a treatment to be found for those young people and their parents?
Anas Sarwar
I did in fact mention autism, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need direct support from the Government to help families affected by this condition.
The campaign has identified 500 families, but there are likely to be thousands of families across the country who do not know that their child suffers from this condition, and who do not have support from an organisation such as the trust. We therefore need Government action to support those families at this difficult time. The Organisation for Anti-Convulsant Syndromes—of which Janet Williams, who I mentioned earlier, was a founder—has been contacted by more than 500 families, with nearly 700 individuals affected by the condition.
The drug sodium valproate, which is manufactured under the name of Epilim by Sanofi, has been prescribed in the UK since the 1970s. Despite the drug’s efficacy in treating certain types of seizure, research has demonstrated that it carries a higher risk to the exposed foetus than other drugs. The first case reporting the effects of sodium valproate during pregnancy appeared in 1981, and it grew to be a hot topic within the medical profession in the 1980s, with numerous reports appearing in the medical journals. The report, however, was never investigated in the review of medicines from 1971 to 1990. The then Medicines Control Agency, which became the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in 2004, did not pursue the claims made by the medical research community. The MHRA “Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance” reports addressed the effects of sodium valproate in January 1983 and continued to do so intermittently. No action was taken, however, to convince Sanofi to recall the drug, improve it, or provide comprehensive warnings to patients and their doctors.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, and I add my thanks for the tenaciousness of Janet Williams, who is one of my constituents. In a sense, her work mirrors some of my work with the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) and the all-party group on tranquilliser addiction.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) hits the precise point on the licensing of these drugs and their side effects. General practitioners need to have knowledge of those side effects and transfer that knowledge to the patients to whom they dish out the drugs. Has he any suggestions for how we might tighten that up, or at least tighten up the knowledge among GPs of what they are actually prescribing?
Anas Sarwar
The hon. Gentleman is very lucky to have such a fantastic constituent who has put so much fantastic effort, energy and hard work not only into her own personal circumstances but into getting justice for families across the country. That says a lot about his constituent, and he is a very luck man in that sense. There clearly needs to be better guidance for GPs, and in a second I will make some suggestions and ask direct questions of the Minister on that topic.
From the early 1990s, Sanofi continually insisted that patients consult their doctor when taking Epilim during pregnancy, which is standard for a patient information leaflet. In 2005, it added this to its patient information leaflets:
“Some babies born to mothers who took Epilim during pregnancy may develop less quickly than normal and may require additional educational support.”
In 2011, Sanofi added:
“Some babies born to mothers who took Epilim…during pregnancy may develop less quickly than normal or have autistic disorders.”
Sanofi therefore recognised in 2005 and 2011 that its drug can have a negative impact on a foetus. Why did that take so long?
Research by a group of six academics from the universities of Liverpool and Manchester was published this year, and it concludes that if sodium valproate
“is the treatment of choice, women should be provided with as much information as possible to enable them to make an informed decision. This should take place prior to conception as the evidence suggests that the neuropathology of Autism Spectrum Disorders develops early in gestation. Further, these findings have implications for the care of children with a history of prenatal exposure to Anti-Epileptic Drugs (AED). Children exposed to AEDs in utero, particularly Sodium Valproate (VPA), should be monitored closely during early childhood to allow for early intervention, diagnosis and support, should it be required.”
There are many pieces of similar medical research, but it would be difficult to go through all of them and their findings in the short time available.
The personal story of a young constituent of mine compelled me to initiate this debate. When he was born in 1997, he was immediately taken to a special baby care unit because his body was very floppy. In 1998, he was diagnosed with pneumonia and stayed in hospital for 10 days, at which point he was diagnosed with dextrocardia, which is a congenital defect affecting the heart. In 2001, he started nursery and showed signs of regression. He lacked co-ordination and was unable to handle his emotions, as a result of which he was given a preliminary diagnosis of fetal valproate syndrome, another name for fetal anti-convulsant syndrome. He was then given a firm diagnosis by a geneticist at Glasgow’s Yorkhill children’s hospital.
In 2002, my constituent started primary school and was given a special educational needs teacher. The same year, he was admitted to hospital for surgery on his tonsils and adenoids and had grommets inserted. In 2003, he was admitted to hospital with problems going to the bathroom that required surgery. He was diagnosed with pneumonia again, and with primary ciliary dyskinesia, a genetic disorder affecting the respiratory tract. He was put on a repeat prescription of antibiotics to prevent chest infections and given physiotherapy three times a day.
In 2004, my constituent was seen by occupational, educational and speech therapists owing to his communication problems and inability to mix with peers. In 2006, he was sent back to occupational therapy and sent for a CT scan on his chest that showed fibrosis on the lower left lobe of his left lung, which was found to be smaller than his right. Between 2007 and 2009, he was diagnosed several times with pneumonia and severe chest infections requiring intense physiotherapy and antibiotics. In 2010, he was diagnosed with pneumonia again and, after admission to hospital, with hypoplasia of the left pulmonary artery, which had failed to develop.
As shocking as that story is, it is only one case, and there are many worse. I was informed of a family in which two children have been on disability living allowance since the ages of five and eight. Anyone hearing those stories can only be saddened by the personal circumstances. It is incumbent on Members from all political parties, whether in government or opposition, to ensure that we work together to get justice for those families and provide them with any necessary support.
The anti-convulsant that my constituent’s mother was given during her pregnancy was sodium valproate, otherwise known as Epilim, taken twice daily. It is clear that both the Government and the pharmaceutical companies, particularly Sanofi, could have done more and taken further action to protect the public. It was Sanofi’s duty to keep up to date with known medical knowledge, conduct further research and pass on that information to patients via the patient information leaflet. It was the MHRA’s duty to ensure that Sanofi investigated the medical research claims of birth defects caused by their products. Delays by both have resulted in thousands of women becoming pregnant without being given the necessary information on the levels of risk associated with the treatment.
Is the Minister aware that an estimated 40% of children exposed to sodium valproate during pregnancy are affected by neuro-developmental problems, autistic spectrum disorders and physical malformations, and that approximately 20,000 have been so affected since 1973? Does she think that that is acceptable? I know that her answer will be, “Of course not.” Is she also aware that this year, sodium valproate will have been licensed for 40 years, and that it is now being prescribed for other conditions, such as bipolar disorder and migraine headaches, and as pain relief? Does she think that that is appropriate, given the significant concerns raised by medical research about the drug’s use?
Mr Hollobone, you will be shocked to hear that 80 families claiming damages against Sanofi-Aventis lost their legal aid in 2010 after six years of pre-trial preparation. Their legal aid was withdrawn after assessments ruled that the group’s prospects of winning had fallen and a judicial review failed. It was a devastating blow to families who had been struggling to deal with the condition without knowing what the problem was, and without any proper support. Their lawyer, David Body, summed up the tragedy when he said that
“our case against the manufacturers of Epilim must be discontinued, not because we have lost our fight in court but because continuing without legal aid funding would place our clients at too great a financial risk.”
I know that the Minister cannot reinstate the legal aid funding, but there are other things that she can do. As an aside, we should never allow thousands of families to be affected by the malpractice of a medical company and a failure of the state, and then not give them the support that they need to find justice for their families. We should never allow a situation in which people, through no fault of their own, cannot pursue justice owing to the barriers put in their way by the system. No one who believes in the principle of fairness would think that that was just. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we support those families in bringing their action, so they can get some justice. It will not be the justice that they want, which is to have fit, healthy children, but it will be some kind of justice.
Given that successive Governments and regulators have failed to address the issue, will the Minister consider launching a public inquiry to investigate why sodium valproate and other anti-convulsants have been allowed to cause so much damage over such a long period? At the moment, there are pregnant women taking sodium valproate who are unaware of the dangers, because they did not receive pre-conception counselling. Will she confirm that she will ensure that that is corrected in future? Will she commit to working with the Independent Fetal Anti-Convulsant Trust to raise awareness of the condition? As a minimum, will she assure me that new guidelines will be issued to ensure that children exposed to anti-convulsant drugs in utero, particularly sodium valproate, are monitored closely during early childhood to allow for early intervention, diagnosis and support, should they be required? Lastly, is she or one of her colleagues prepared to meet me, my constituent and representatives of the Independent Fetal Anti-Convulsant Trust to discuss how we can support people affected by the condition, and help protect others from it in the future?
Inaction is not an option. These families have suffered for long enough, and it is incumbent on all of us to work together to find a fair deal for them, so they can get the necessary compensation, and so that we can ensure that not a single family suffers in future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) for bringing this matter to the House and for his speech, which was clearly based on careful consideration of a number of matters that have, properly, been brought to his attention by his constituents and by the action group to which he has referred.
I concede that it is never attractive for a Minister to begin opening remarks by saying, “This particular issue is not within my brief.” Immediately, it sounds like trying to pass the buck to somebody else. However, notwithstanding that the issue is not within my brief—I am standing in for the Minister with responsibility, who is unfortunately unable to attend this debate—I assure the hon. Gentleman that on my return to the Department of Health, I will speak to the Minister’s officials and ensure that they are fully aware of all the matters that he has raised and the many questions that he has rightly posed, some of which I will be able to answer. I will ensure that all the answers are given, if not by me today then certainly in a letter.
I will speak directly with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). Knowing him as I do, I am sure that he will be keen to meet the hon. Gentleman. It might take a little time—our diaries, as one might imagine, are fiendishly full—but I can see no good reason why my hon. Friend would not want to know more about the issue. Anybody hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech, the arguments advanced and the stories behind this unfortunate condition would want to know more and to see whether anything can be done.
What we do know is that fetal anti-convulsant syndrome can occur when a mother must take anti-epilepsy drugs, as the hon. Gentleman has explained better than I can. We know that it can result—although, it is important to say, not always—in delays in developing speech and language skills in the babies born, difficulties with social interaction, memory and attention and physical defects such as spina bifida, heart defects, ocular abnormalities and characteristic facial features.
It is important to say that most women with epilepsy will have successful pregnancies and healthy children. However, epilepsy during pregnancy can pose challenges. Epilepsy is associated with the risk of giving birth to a disabled child, and for women on anti-epilepsy drugs, the risk is greater. Pregnancy may also increase the frequency of seizures in about one third of women, and it can alter their metabolism of AEDs. Prolonged fits can be dangerous for the baby as well as the mother, so ideally, pregnant women should be seizure-free.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central rightly made the point that women have been diagnosed and prescribed this treatment but have not had sufficient explanation of the risks involved in continuing to take that form of medication, which many epilepsy sufferers take without any difficulty, for the sake of their health because of its positive effect.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) for the important point he made about the role of general practitioners in ensuring that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines are followed. I have those guidelines in front of me and what they say is important. It is all well and good that the pros and cons of the medication are set down, but it is also imperative for GPs and everyone else involved in the treatment of a woman with epilepsy who is thinking of becoming pregnant or is of childbearing age to understand the potentially bad consequences of taking AEDs throughout a pregnancy. Such women need proper information and a full and frank discussion so that they can make an informed choice—I emphasise that it should be an informed choice—before and during pregnancy.
The NICE guidelines are clear:
“In women of childbearing age, the risk of the drugs causing harm to an unborn child should be discussed and an assessment made as to the risks and benefits of treatment with individual drugs…In girls of childbearing age, the risk of the drugs causing harm to an unborn child should be discussed between the girl and/or her carer”—
in most cases, a parent—
“and an assessment…made as to the risks and benefits of treatment with individual drugs…Prescribers should be aware of the latest data on the risks to the unborn child associated with AED therapy when prescribing for women and girls of childbearing potential…Specific caution is advised in the use of sodium valproate because of the risk of harm to the unborn child”.
The NICE guidelines could not be more clear, but proper information sharing and full and frank discussion are critical to informed choices.
Anas Sarwar
I thank the Minister for reading out the NICE guidelines, which I have also read. When that system fails, however, as it clearly has for so many years, affecting thousands of families, what happens then?
Anna Soubry
Indeed. I was about to move on to that very point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and to discuss support for children who have such an affliction, obviously through no fault of their own or of their mother. Before I do so, let me add that data related to the safety and use of AEDs during pregnancy remain under scrutiny; the information and the advice are updated and issued as appropriate. The MHRA regularly reviews both the evidence on AED use in women of childbearing age and the information provided in the product information and in patient information leaflets—although many people think that we are lucky if anyone reads leaflets in boxes, and that they are not the way to convey information to a patient; they are no substitute for sitting people down and telling them face to face, going through everything in the manner I have described. The important fact is that we are continually scrutinising the information and advice so that they are regularly updated.
On the specific point about children with this unfortunate condition, better care and outcomes for disabled children are a priority of the Government. The mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board sets out our ambition to give children the best start in life and to promote their physical and mental health and their resilience as they grow up. At national level, the new Children And Young People’s Health Outcomes Board will bring together what my brief describes as key system leaders in child health to provide a sustained focus on improving outcomes throughout the child health system. The Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum will provide continuing expertise in child health and offer constructive challenge as we take forward plans to improve the system.
Those are fine words, though the brief was not written by me—it is not in the nice, clear, plain English that I would like. When I return to the Department of Health, however, I will make the point that, given the structures and our good, strong ambitions, it is imperative for us to ensure that the case of children who suffer from the syndrome is advanced within such forums, and today’s debate will help with that.
Anas Sarwar
The Minister says that she likes plain language, and I, too, like plain language. With due respect, any family with a child suffering from such a condition will not want to hear strategy documents; they want to hear what specific action is to be taken to help such families, what compensation they might get, what action is to be taken against the medical companies, or what change of structure will take place in the health service to prevent such failures happening again. They do not need strategy documents; they need plain language and action. What will they get?
Anna Soubry
I am trying to assist the hon. Gentleman by explaining that women with epilepsy should, from the very outset, get proper, sound information and should have a full and frank discussion with their medical practitioner so that they can make an informed choice based on everything put forward and knowing the pros and cons. There are many pros—[Interruption.] I prefer not to be heckled. I am happy to give way, and I will in a moment, because I do not have a difficulty with doing so.
I was absolutely clear in my explanation. I then discussed a series of organisations and structures—call them what you will—that also make it clear that the health and well-being of all children, including those who suffer from this syndrome, must be considered, and they must be looked after and cared for as we all wish them to be. The hon. Gentleman now seeks for the spotlight to be turned on this particular syndrome as it has perhaps not been before, and he is achieving that through the debate and by bringing me to this Chamber so that I can assure him that I will take the matter back to the responsible Minister. The hon. Gentleman has already pushed the syndrome up the list of priorities by casting the spotlight on to it, as should be the case.
Furthermore, services for children with special educational needs—some of the children we are discussing will need such services—will be enhanced by the provisions in the Children and Families Bill. From 2014, local authorities and clinical commissioning groups—this is an important provision to understand—will commission services jointly to meet the educational, health and care needs of young people with SEN through a single, integrated assessment process. In other words, we are now beginning for the first time ever to integrate all the specific needs of a particular child, right across all the various departments and people involved, in a way that has not been done before. If we do that, we will undoubtedly see an improvement in the lives of those children.
Anas Sarwar
I assure the Minister that I was not heckling her; I am too much of a gentlemen to do that. I was trying to say yes to action on proper advice for potential mothers with epilepsy and to future guidance to stop the condition happening, but my direct question was about the support to be given to the families for whom that is too late. They already have the condition and the difficult circumstances. What specific support will they get?
Anna Soubry
Those families are already receiving support; no one is saying that the children have been completely abandoned and are not getting any support at all. Perhaps much more can be done but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in a debate of this length and given the constraints placed on me or any Minister, he will not get an instant answer, especially without notice of such questions. If I cannot answer all his questions in the short time that we have, and the clock is against me, he will get a letter with all his questions answered. Furthermore, when I go back to the responsible Minister, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt get a meeting to follow.
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for securing the debate. He has cast the spotlight as it needed to be done, and I am sure that there will be positive outcomes as a result.
HMRC Closures
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for being present to respond to my debate.
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs recently changed its services: it is trying to become “leaner and more efficient”. Two weeks ago, we learned that HMRC has hatched a plan to close all 281 inquiry centres throughout the country. Last year, those offices gave advice to more than 2.5 million people, but HMRC is closing them because the number of visits has halved since 2006 and, it claims, closing them will save £13 million a year. Other Members would no doubt have their own tales to tell, were they here to speak, but I invite the Minister to consider the claims about usage and cost savings as they apply to the Isle of Wight, because he will find them completely spurious.
Let us look first at the number of people visiting the office. The old HMRC office was open from 9 o’clock to 5 o’clock, five days a week; now it is open only from 10 o’clock to 3.30 pm, three days a week. HMRC shares a building on the island, Broadlands house, with Jobcentre Plus, so people with tax problems can often see HMRC staff through the glass but are unable to speak to them, which is ludicrous. Furthermore, staff are discouraged from dealing with clients personally, face to face; instead, they must floor walk them to a free phone in the next office and get them to speak to someone in the contact centre on the mainland. People are not supposed simply to walk in and get advice: if a taxpayer turns up and insists on talking to a real live person, staff are supposed to make an appointment for another time, a rule which applies even if the office is open and staff are available. I am pleased that the staff on the Isle of Wight do their best to be helpful and tend to ignore that particular edict from on high. None the less, it is little wonder that figures show fewer personal calls being made to inquiry centres, because HMRC has done everything it can to make visiting in person difficult and inconvenient. I have estimates for the island for the past two years. In 2011-12, there were 4,925 visits to HMRC’s Newport office and the two outreach offices; in 2012-13, that figure dropped, but by fewer than 300, so that the total was 4,630. That is more than 4% of the island’s adult population visiting HMRC, which is hardly insignificant.
We should also consider the major changes to the tax and benefits system being introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Planned changes to child benefit are likely to lead to 1 million extra people filling in self-assessment forms. In addition, real-time information, as it is called, starts in two weeks. HMRC itself describes the changes as
“the biggest shakeup of the Pay As You Earn…system in nearly 70 years”.
It cannot be safely assumed that the number of people needing face-to-face help on the island or elsewhere will fall.
Let us look at the claimed savings on the Isle of Wight. The original HMRC office in Upper St James street was closed and 36 staff moved into the newly built Apex centre, although taxpayers needed to walk for 10 minutes from the bus stop or had to drive to reach it. The move was always planned to be temporary, and in May 2011 the HMRC office moved again, to Broadlands house. It was anticipated that some staff would relocate to other HMRC offices within what was described as reasonable daily travel distances, but that turned out to be a journey of an hour and a half each way. The majority of staff lost their jobs, and only nine people now work in the HMRC office on the island. Broadlands house is also home to the main Jobcentre Plus office, as I said, and to the valuation office. HMRC’s nine remaining staff moved into empty offices in the building, which seems an eminently sensible solution. The Government already pay for the upkeep of the entire building, so the costs are minimal, and it is hard to see what savings could be made on rent, rates or utility charges from closing the office. The only other opportunity for substantial savings, therefore, would be on staff.
In addition to being open to the public three days a week, the staff carry out what are called personal taxes operations, which is computerised work generated centrally. The work can be obtained by HMRC officers anywhere in the country and includes activities such as changes to tax codes, addresses and so on. The staff on the Isle of Wight are justifiably proud to be achieving 100% of their target. They should be proud: they are an efficient and experienced team—in fact, the nine staff have a combined total of 186 years’ experience, which may well be a record, but certainly represents a large investment by HMRC in training and development over the years. HMRC claims that it intends to deploy the staff affected by the proposed changes elsewhere, and such experienced officers must be a valuable asset, but there are no opportunities within reasonable daily travelling distance from the Isle of Wight. HMRC would therefore be willing to pay the costs for staff to relocate, not only paying the costs of removals, legal fees, stamp duty and so on for a new house, but perhaps even extending to cover the difference in house prices if staff move to a more expensive part of the country. HMRC could therefore incur significant costs for Isle of Wight staff to move elsewhere to undertake exactly the same work that they are doing now. The alleged £13 million savings appear to take into account neither that nor the costs of redundancy packages for staff who cannot be redeployed to another job or do not wish to move.
As part of the plans, HMRC is going to invest in a shiny new telephone system costing £34 million—to save £13 million a year. Looking at HMRC’s record, I would not put my trust in that working out too well. HMRC spends money, but that does not necessarily bring success. Despite HMRC spending £900 million on customer service, the Public Accounts Committee found it had “an abysmal record”. Last year, HMRC allowed 20 million telephone calls to go unanswered—a quarter of all the people who tried to call it. Even its new targets for call answering are described by our colleagues on the PAC as “woefully inadequate and unambitious”. For callers who do get through, there can be other problems.
I want to raise an issue brought to my attention by Jonathan Isaby, of that excellent organisation the Taxpayers Alliance. He received an e-mail from a customer adviser working in an HMRC call service. Apparently, advisers do not have targets based on how long a telephone call takes; instead, the focus is on what they call “wrap-up time”, which is the time after a call in which necessary administration is carried out, such as tax coding, sending e-mails, making referrals and updating customer records. Customer advisers are targeted to keep their wrap-up time to an absolute minimum. They do that by putting people on hold and keeping them on the phone unnecessarily, which increases the cost to the taxpayer and generates income from the telephone call for HMRC. That cannot be right and I urge the Minister to look carefully into that allegation. I know that Mr Isaby will do all he can to assist in getting to the bottom of it.
For those who still need face-to-face advice after the closures, the plan is to replace the current system with a mobile team. They will talk to taxpayers using community centres or local libraries, or, if called for, by making a home visit; but home visits by experts are expensive and inefficient. We do not usually call a lawyer or an accountant to visit us at home.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. He makes an important point about efficiency savings and HMRC’s proposals. Rurality is a huge issue in itself. Mobile units going round to support small business people and farmers in my community across mid-west Wales would be a huge cost. One wonders how much that has been factored into the equation.
Mr Turner
I am not able to say how much it has been factored in, but I can say that doing this over two weeks once a year, which is what I do in the summer when I visit people locally, takes a lot of time. I can only judge that the same business will be included.
It is clear that HMRC does not intend home visits to be the norm. That is a most important point. I feel certain that only a very few people who currently use the face-to-face system will be offered a home visit. It is hard to see the financial sense of somebody coming across from the mainland to visit a small business man or an elderly pensioner on the island, but island staff have been told categorically that the mobile team covering the island will be based on the mainland and that they cannot be part of that team.
What is the poor taxpayer to do if he cannot work out the answer to his question online, cannot get through on the telephone and cannot persuade the chap from the mainland to visit him at home? He could go along to meet an adviser in a community centre or library, which is exactly what happens now on the Isle of Wight. Local staff have introduced an outreach service in Ryde and Freshwater on the days that the Newport office is closed. So what this decision means is that islanders will not be able to visit a tax office to talk to local advisers, but HMRC staff from the mainland will travel over at huge expense to provide a service that is already being provided by qualified, experienced people, and those people will have been paid to move away or made redundant. I understand the mobile teams may even hold sessions in tax offices. They could use the empty office in Broadlands house, which would no longer be open to the pesky public. You could not make it up, Mr Benton. It is the Isle of Wight version of “Yes Minister”. I can picture Sir Humphrey’s self-satisfied smile now—he will be in his element.
The Minister must be aware that a face-to-face session can achieve things that cannot be achieved over the phone. An experienced adviser can quickly spot that a figure has been put in the wrong box, and a taxpayer who does not understand what information should go where can show the relevant paperwork to somebody who understands it. That simply does not happen online or over the phone, and vulnerable groups may find it particularly difficult to engage by those means. Most people deal with HMRC not because they want to, but because they have to. Those 2.5 million people did not go to their tax office because they wanted a jolly day out. If they felt that they could have dealt with the issue online or by telephone, presumably the vast majority would have done so.
HMRC is running a pilot in the north to see how the new telephone advice service will work. It follows a previous trial undertaken last year when taxpayers were telephoned to try to sort out queries. I understand that of 1,354 calls made, only 259—less than 20%—resulted in the query being sorted out over the phone; the other 80% of cases still needed a face-to-face appointment. Yet HMRC still intends to close all 281 inquiry centres next year, come what may, and issue telephone advice from Bradford and Peterlee. I wonder why considerations of job shortages never seem to apply to places such as the Isle of Wight.
All of us in this House and the other place understand the need to make savings, but our tax system is fiendishly complicated. I know that the Government are trying to sort that out, but in the meantime we must make sure that those who need advice can get it. We must make sure that the claimed savings are not based on flawed research or shoddy decision making. Only yesterday, the Home Affairs Select Committee highlighted the “catastrophic leadership failure” of Lin Homer, the current chief executive of HMRC, when she ran the UK Border Agency. Previously, as chief executive of Birmingham city council, she was criticised by an election judge for having
“thrown the rule book out of the window”
during the 2004 postal vote fraud. Such a record hardly fills us with confidence. As for the Isle of Wight, it is obvious that closing the only accessible tax office will not benefit my constituents, or achieve the cost savings that HMRC is claiming for the closure.
I suspect that we are not unique. If the issues facing the Isle of Wight are not exceptional, I hope that the Minister, who is an eminently sensible gentleman, will intervene. He needs to make sure that HMRC looks again at this decision. On the other hand, HMRC could argue that the circumstances I have outlined this afternoon are unique: the island’s physical separation from the mainland makes us different. If so, HMRC must look again at the decision to close the office on the Isle of Wight and come up with a unique plan. An appropriate decision must be made, and it must be made soon, before HMRC pays to get rid of further staff or pays for them to move to the mainland, and, even more significant, before islanders lose access to the expert advice they need.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I commend the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on securing this afternoon’s extremely timely and important debate. His record of assiduously standing up for his constituents and their interests is well known to the House. The issue of HMRC closures is clearly of particular importance to the people living on the Isle of Wight, given its geographical isolation from the mainland. He set out clearly and carefully the potential impact of HMRC’s proposals on his constituents. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and how he intends to ensure that such problems and issues are mitigated and addressed.
The debate is timely: we heard only two weeks ago about HMRC’s proposals to change the way in which it supports customers who need extra help. I use the word “customers”, because that is the language deployed by HMRC and, no doubt, the Minister will use it in his reply, but as the Public Accounts Committee has frequently articulated, those who come into contact with HMRC have little choice about whether they do so. Many of those people—an estimated 1.5 million—find dealing with HMRC difficult because they have a disability or a mental health condition; they have low literacy or numeracy skills; they do not speak or read English; they do not have the confidence or capacity to deal with what can be a very complex situation; or because of a combination of any or all of the above. Ensuring that such people have access to the best possible support and advice in their dealings with HMRC is, of course, something that we all wish for, and we on the Opposition side of the House have regularly advocated that.
Mr Mark Williams
I want to add something to the mix of problems that the hon. Lady identified. In my constituency, we have a problem with broadband: 20% of my constituency is not broadband-enabled. The assertion is made that a lot more of the transactions and discussions can take place over the internet, but that simply is not available for many of my constituents. The Government are doing some sterling work to change that, but a solution for my constituents is some way off.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which is very important, not only for areas without access to good broadband that allowed online dealings with HMRC not to end in utter frustration —even when people have broadband, it may not be sufficiently fast—but for constituents who do not even have computers or have access to them. I will mention later a concern in my constituency, which is that many public services, such as libraries and community centres, are struggling, and some are set to close, but many provide the only access that some people have to a computer. Although we would love to live in a digital age, we are not there yet.
We heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, in his excellent contribution, about the 10-week consultation that was launched on 14 March, and the proposal to close every one of the 281 inquiry centres that provide face-to-face advice for customers. The centres are apparently to be replaced by “more accessible”, “targeted” and “tailored” services for people who need extra help in engaging with HMRC, either all the time, or in response to a particular life event, such as a bereavement. It is proposed that the new service will include specialist expert help over the telephone by a new team, and face-to-face support delivered by a mobile team of advisers, who can meet customers at suitably convenient locations in the community, or in their home.
That issue is particularly pertinent to me, not only in my capacity as shadow Exchequer Secretary, responding to the debate, but because I represent the esteemed people of Newcastle upon Tyne North, and HMRC proposes to trial or pilot the new idea on them. From 3 June to 31 October, the pilot will run throughout my region of the north-east, and 13 inquiry centres will be closed in the process. For the record, those centres comprise Alnwick, Bishop Auckland, Hexham, Darlington, Durham, Middlesbrough, Morpeth, Newcastle, Stockton, Sunderland and—although I, and many proud Yorkshiremen and women, might quibble over the Minister’s geographical knowledge of the north-east—Bridlington, Scarborough and York. Apparently, depending on the outcome of the consultation and the pilot, HMRC states that it will look to introduce the new service across the UK in February 2014, resulting in the closure of the remaining inquiry centres between March and May next year—including the one in the Jobcentre Plus in Newport, on the Isle of Wight.
The proposal will clearly also have a direct impact on the 1,300 HMRC staff employed in inquiry centres across the country, although I understand the intention is that many of them will be redeployed either within HMRC or to other parts of the civil service, and that is to be welcomed. As I stated earlier, I fully support the notion of providing a better service to the most vulnerable people with whom HMRC comes into contact. I welcome the fact that HMRC has said that it is working with TaxAid, Tax Help for Older People, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, Citizens Advice, Gingerbread, the Child Poverty Action Group and Age UK as part of the consultation on what additional support may be required and how it might be delivered. However, I want to probe the Minister on exactly how he thinks that HMRC will be able to improve its performance in that area, given the context in which the Department is operating.
I have previously told the Minister—indeed, only last month in this Chamber—that serious concerns remain about the customer service provided by HMRC. The National Audit Office report on HMRC’s customer service performance, published in December, revealed genuinely troubling findings about the way in which HMRC treats some of its customers. To remind hon. Members, 20 million telephone calls went unanswered by HMRC last year, costing customers £33 million in call charges; that is in addition to the estimated £103 million cost of customers’ wasted time. As I have stated previously, that is particularly worrying for people on low incomes who cannot afford to sit waiting on the telephone, and for small businesses that could be making much better and more profitable use of their time, which is particularly important in the current economic climate.
The Public Accounts Committee report on HMRC customer service published earlier this month was equally scathing, describing the Department as having an “abysmal record” in this area. Those concerns have been echoed by eminent professional bodies, such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, whose members’ surveys have found significant concerns regarding the customer service performance of HMRC, which often fails to meet its basic responsibilities.
I acknowledge that there appears to have been some recent improvement in HMRC’s handling of post, but I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the current position on its call-handling performance. According to the answer to a parliamentary question I received from the Minister only last month, the percentage of calls not handled—in other words, unanswered—by HMRC had gone up from 25.6% last year to 28.6% in this financial year to date. Given that we are now only days away from the end of the financial year, will the Minister confirm whether that fall in performance has continued, and if it has, what specific measures he has put in place to ensure that it does not fall further?
That point is, of course, pertinent to this debate, not only because of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, but given the recent words of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge):
“Just how the department is going to improve standards of customer service, given the prospect of its having fewer staff and receiving a higher volume of calls, is open to question. HMRC plans to cut the number of customer-facing staff by a third by 2015. At the same time, the stresses associated with introducing the Real Time Information System, Universal Credit and changes to child benefit are likely to drive up the number of phone calls to the department…Since our hearing it has also been announced that HMRC is to close all of its 281 enquiry centres which give face-to-face advice to customers. This will undoubtedly put even more pressure on phone lines.”
That is also relevant because HMRC’s consultation document appears to suggest that anyone who requires a face-to-face appointment with HMRC staff under the new system can obtain one only once they have spoken to at least two helpline advisers— and then a face-to-face appointment will be offered at the discretion of HMRC staff.
Catherine McKinnell
I would welcome a guarantee from the Minister today that HMRC will significantly increase its call handling and customer service performance —perhaps beyond the relatively low targets it sets for itself—before the new service is introduced.
Of course, the proposals that we are discussing today are simply out for consultation. Indeed, HMRC itself has stated:
“No final decision will be made until we have consulted on and piloted the new service, and fully assessed the findings of the consultation and the pilot.”
It has also said:
“We plan to close our Enquiry Centres as the new service is introduced in 2014. This is subject to our making a formal assessment of how the closures affect our customers, the local communities they serve and our staff—as well as to the outcome of a pilot of the new service in the North East of England.”
However, I question the extremely tight time scales and the nature of the process. HMRC’s consultation ends on 24 May, yet it proposes to introduce the pilot in my region, thereby closing the existing inquiry centres, on 3 June—five working days later. It would be a genuinely impressive improvement in HMRC’s response times if it were able to process and adequately respond to all the consultation submissions it receives in such a short period. What will happen to the inquiry centres in the north-east if the pilot does not turn out to be a success? Will they re-open? Indeed, what measures will HMRC use to determine whether the north-east trial delivers what is intended? We often hear that Government pilots are “doomed to succeed” and I very much suspect that that is the case in the present instance. Does the Minister share my concern that HMRC staff have apparently already been told that it is “highly likely” that all 281 centres will close before the outcomes of either the consultation or the pilot are even known?
I understand the rationale behind HMRC’s proposals, based as they are on the decline in the number of people using inquiry centres over recent years from more than 5 million in 2005-06 to around 2.5 million in 2011-12. HMRC also states that it has conducted detailed research, which
“confirms that inquiry centres no longer meet the needs of our customers”.
Will the Minister address the concerns of the PCS union that that research was flawed? Did those conducting research on behalf of HMRC really not give people the option of selecting “speaking to someone in person”, when asking whether customers would prefer to deal with the department “by phone, post or online”?
It is not only PCS that is raising concerns about the proposals. The director of tax at Berg Kaprow Lewis, David Whiscombe, has said:
“No doubt many taxpayers would be happy to deal with HMRC online or via call centres if either were reliably available. But there is a swathe of taxpayers who are uncomfortable with these methods including numbers of the elderly, less literate or less articulate sections of the population for whom face-to-face contact delivers the only sensible option.
For HMRC to disregard them is arrogant, insensitive and, dare I say it just plain stupid”.
Jane Moore, tax faculty technical manager at ICAEW, commented:
“I'm disappointed because I think a lot of people could still make use of the Enquiry Centres. For the last few years I don't think the Revenue has done enough to publicise them or provide a comprehensive service.”
Those are worrying concerns being expressed by experts in the field.
Finally, I would like to mention an important concern in addition to those that I have raised already, and those raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. It was briefly addressed when the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) raised it. HMRC states that it will be able to provide its new tailored service to those customers who need most support in a number of venues, including local libraries and community centres. However, as I have said, hundreds of libraries, community centres and other local facilities are either closed or facing closure as a result of the cuts that the Government have dished out to local government funding.
Those cuts are being targeted at areas such as northern cities, and many of the London boroughs with the highest needs. In such places there are likely to be more of the type of people for whom HMRC states it wants to provide a better service. What discussions is the Minister having with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about the impact of their funding decisions on the venues from which HMRC hopes to be able to provide its new service? I am sure we would all agree that there is little point in HMRC offering face-to-face advice in community facilities if those facilities no longer exist.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on securing the debate, which has provided an opportunity to discuss why HMRC is introducing a new service to support customers who need extra help, and to clarify what that means for customers and staff. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for her remarks and her balanced comments about the proposal. I hope to address the questions raised by both Members in my remarks.
Several concerns have been raised in the debate about the new service, and particularly HMRC’s plans to close its network of inquiry centres. I would like to address the three main concerns that have been raised today: the impact on HMRC staff; whether a face-to-face service will continue; and what the changes really mean for people who currently use inquiry centres.
First, in relation to the impact of these proposals on HMRC staff, as Members will be aware, HMRC has recently written to all Members of Parliament about the proposal. That included a confirmation of something that I want to stress again today: that the proposals are no reflection on the dedication and commitment of the 1,300 HMRC staff working in the inquiry centres, including the nine staff based in Newport on the Isle of Wight. HMRC will be looking to redeploy staff affected by the proposals, including those in the north-east pilot area—I hesitate to call it that, since, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North pointed out, it extends beyond the north-east region—to other roles within HMRC or in other Departments.
For the majority of affected staff—about 1,000 of them in fact—we expect redeployment to be relatively straightforward. Many inquiry centres are based in buildings alongside other HMRC staff, or near other HMRC offices, where inquiry centre staff can be moved into new roles, either in HMRC or in other Departments. There will also be a need for staff in the new mobile face-to-face advisory service that will be introduced, and that could include staff based on the Isle of Wight.
My hon. Friend asked about the situation on the Isle of Wight. I think that he has been informed that a post in the mobile advisory service will not be available for those who are based there, but let me reassure him that that has not been decided. The pilot will test the new service and the skills and needs necessary for the mobile service. HMRC will work closely with all stakeholders to ensure that customers get the service they need. No decisions have been taken on where the people serving the Isle of Wight will be based. I shall take on board my hon. Friend’s comments and his representation that some of those providing the mobile service on the Isle of Wight should be permanently based there. I can provide no guarantees, but equally I can provide some reassurance that no decisions have been made on that front.
Where there is no HMRC office nearby, staff might be offered roles that will involve slightly longer travel times. If there is no redeployment possibility in HMRC, remaining staff will be helped to find another role in the civil service. HMRC has tried-and-tested methods in place to manage the impact on staff and will endeavour to avoid compulsory redundancies where possible.
Mr Andrew Turner
I am glad to hear what the Minister says and am grateful for his non-promise—I understand why he gave it in that way. How many other jobs are there in the civil service on the Isle of Wight?
Mr Gauke
I am not in a position to answer that specific question. I am sure that my hon. Friend is closely informed of the job opportunities available on the Isle of Wight. I made a general point that HMRC will show considerable willingness to deal with staff in the best way possible. If one looks at the scale of the reduction in the number of people working for HMRC over a long period—since its formation in 2005—compulsory redundancy has been necessary on a very limited number of occasions. HMRC has a good record of ensuring that its staff are well looked after.
Concerns were raised that the closure of the inquiry centres marks the end of HMRC’s dedicated face-to-face advisory service. I can reassure hon. Members that that is simply not the case. A face-to-face service is about people, not bricks and mortar. What is important is that HMRC provides an accessible and flexible, face-to-face service that meets the needs of customers and can be tailored to the specific needs of particular locations, including the Isle of Wight. That is what HMRC proposes to do, only it will do it where it is most convenient for customers, whether that is in their local community, place of work or even, if they so wish, in their own homes. A modern face-to-face service is not about maintaining a patchwork network of buildings set up in the 1950s, when the needs and expectations of customers have changed. Inquiry centres are not universal; large parts of the UK are not even served by them.
The use of the centres has fallen sharply in recent years: visitor numbers have halved, from more than 5 million in 2005-06 to 2.5 million in 2011-12, and some inquiry centres are now open just one day a week, because local demand is so low. I shall address the Isle of Wight specifically. My hon. Friend quoted some numbers on the usage on the Isle of Wight. HMRC’s management information system shows that the Isle of Wight inquiry centre had 7,032 visitors in 2005-06, but since then the number has fallen: in the 2011 calendar year, it was 4,763; in the 2011-12 financial year, it was 3,622; in the 2012 calendar year, it was 3,298; and the projected number of visitors for the 2012-13 financial year is 2,886. There is a clear trend. The number is going down.
Catherine McKinnell
What does HMRC analyse as being the reason for the decline? Is it entirely because people contact it in a different way—over the internet, telephone and so on? Does the projected number take into consideration the significant changes pending for universal credit, the real-time information system, child care and so on?
Mr Gauke
As far as we can see, the driver for the fall in the number of people using inquiry centres is that people prefer to use other means of communication. There are always particular challenges within the tax system that might cause an increase in demand and phone calls. Steps are taken to reduce some of that demand from time to time.
In that context, it is worth turning to the research, which the hon. Lady touched on, that helped guide HMRC in its decision. It was undertaken by an independent agency, adhering to strict industry guidelines, and its findings confirm that face-to-face support works best for some HMRC customers who need extra help. It also says that any service for customers who need extra help must be as flexible and as accessible as possible, which is why HMRC is introducing specialist, expert over-the-phone help and working closely with the voluntary and community sector. A face-to-face service is an important part of the proposal, but it is worth underlining that the inquiries of the 2.5 million or so who visit HMRC centres are satisfied over the telephone. They use the inquiry centres to phone contact centres, which leads us to the important issue of ensuring that contact centres provide an adequate service.
I shall take this opportunity to respond to the hon. Lady’s questions. The number of call attempts handled for February this year was 91.8%, which is considerably higher than it has been at any time since HMRC’s formation. I remember that the number was 45% for 2010-11, and I think it was about 75% for the previous years, as it has been subsequently. HMRC’s ability to handle calls has therefore increased, which is welcome progress, and that, to be honest, is what we should expect from HMRC—progress on the standards.
To elaborate on the point I made a moment or so ago, HMRC’s analysis of inquiry centre use shows that 84% of the centres’ customers did not need a face-to-face meeting and were able to get the help they needed over the phone or online. The 400,000 customers who did need face-to-face advice had to travel to their nearest inquiry centre to make an appointment, and if there was no appointment free at that time, go back on another day to take up their appointment. The service is not particularly convenient even for those who do have a centre nearby.
HMRC’s research, which I referred to a moment ago, shows that up to 1.5 million customers need extra help with their tax and benefits affairs. Many just need help for a specific event in their lives—for example, when they approach retirement, deal with the death of a family member or declare new income for the first time—and others may have low literacy or numeracy skills, or difficulties coping with their affairs as a result of a mental health condition. Most of the 1.5 million people who need extra help do not currently use an inquiry centre. HMRC has researched the needs of those customers and that research has helped in the design of the new service.
The new service will provide specialist expert help over the phone for those who need it, and its advisers will take the time to sort out issues if they can. Customers will be able to phone from home and arrange a call-back if they cannot afford the call themselves, or they may use a free phone at a local Jobcentre Plus. Customers needing extra help will be quickly identified and put straight through to a trained adviser who has more time, as well as the skills, knowledge and empathy needed to handle the inquiry at a pace that suits the customer.
If the adviser cannot sort out issues over the phone, face-to-face support, delivered by a mobile adviser, will be arranged at a place and time convenient to the customer. It might be at a library or a local authority location close to the customer’s home, but I must reassure my hon. Friend that it will not involve the Isle of Wight ferry service. If someone needs a home visit, HMRC will arrange for a local home visitor to contact them and arrange a convenient appointment time between 8 am and 8 pm every working day. That is much more convenient than being constrained to a fixed location that is potentially difficult to access and often open for only one day a week. Extra help will also be delivered through voluntary and community sector organisations, such as Citizens Advice and TaxAid, with additional funding from HMRC.
The new service will be not only better but more cost- effective. Customers will save an estimated £12 million a year, through such things as reduced travel costs, and from April HMRC will convert its 0845 numbers to 03 numbers, making calling HMRC cheaper for all customers.
The current network of 281 inquiry centres is unsustainably expensive. The average cost of an appointment across the network has risen from £106 in 2009-10 to £152, and in some inquiry centres it is up to £500. By comparison, it costs an average of £3 per phone call and just 9p per online transaction. Members will appreciate that that expense is just not sustainable in the current economic climate. The new service will save HMRC up to £13 million a year.
HMRC will reinvest some of the savings from the closure of the inquiry centre network into the new face- to-face service and the voluntary and community sector support. To ensure that the phones are answered when people call, HMRC is investing £34 million in its contact centres. HMRC has also worked extremely hard to make big improvements to its customer service following the Public Accounts Committee report, which was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North. As a result, it currently answers more than 90% of the call attempts it receives each week.
In designing the new service, HMRC has worked closely with a number of voluntary sector partners, including Citizens Advice, as well as tax charities such as TaxAid and Tax Help for Older People. On 14 March, HMRC launched a public consultation on how the new service would be implemented. The consultation focuses on the following: how a new service would be delivered in practice and whether refinements are needed for particular customer groups; the impact that closing inquiry centres would have on local communities, customers and diversity groups; the impact of the new service on the voluntary and community sector; and the support needed for customers to make the transition to other channels. The public consultation will enable staff also to feed in their views, and a summary of the responses will be published by the end of summer 2013.
A pilot of the new service in what I should perhaps describe as the greater north-east of England, will involve closing 13 inquiry centres and testing the new service between 3 June and 31 October 2013. That will help in gathering more information to ensure that the service is absolutely right for the customer, and a decision on whether to roll out the service nationwide will be made in December 2013. If the roll-out proceeds, the new service is expected to be launched between February and May 2014.
In conclusion, HMRC is making the changes in order better to meet the needs of the 1.5 million customers who need more help with their tax and benefits. HMRC is modernising its approach to break free from the outdated network of bricks and mortar and to provide a more flexible and accessible face-to-face service for people who really need it, including on the Isle of Wight. The proposals will target help at those who need it most, in a way that is better for them and more cost-effective for both them and the taxpayer. As a responsible employer, HMRC is taking all the right steps to minimise the impacts that the changes will have on its staff.
Bee Health
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. This year’s Budget quite rightly supports those people who are working hard and contributing to our economy. Life is tough for many hard-working people, and we are doing all we can to support them. Particular focus has been directed at people investing in British businesses and employing more people. The national growth strategy has identified sectors of our economy that are strong, that are growing and that have the opportunity to generate increased wealth for our nation by making more things and exporting them overseas. In the next 10 minutes or so, I would like the Minister to think about another army of workers that needs our support right now—Britain’s bees.
Agribusinesses, farmers, and food and drinks manufacturers are quite rightly identified as significant contributors to our economy and to our future prosperity. In my constituency, this sector is helping to lead the way towards sustainable, export-driven growth. Food, drink and farming businesses employ nearly a third of working people across Cornwall. Local products include the iconic pasty, the native oyster, wine, cider, beer, soft fruit and vegetables, and even tea, which is grown at Tregothnan and exported to China.
Nationally, the agri-food and drink sector contributes £85 billion a year to the UK economy and provides employment for 3.5 million people. Without a strong work force of bees, we will not be able to realise the potential of this sector in the coming years. Nearly all the drinks and food that I have mentioned need bees as pollinators. Bees deliver that service better than anything else in our ecosystem. It is estimated that manual pollination, which is the only option if a catastrophic decline in bee numbers takes place, would cost British farmers up to £1.8 billion every year. Don’t get me wrong—like all wildlife, the bee population is important in its own right, and as part of a balanced ecosystem, which is vital for our health and well-being. However, as we are so rightly focused at the moment in Parliament on the economy, the focus of my speech is on the economic benefits of bee health.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done much to try to understand why the bee population in Britain, the EU and the USA is declining. In the UK alone, the number of managed honey bee colonies fell by 53% between 1985 and 2005. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs understands that pollinators, including bees, are essential to the health of our natural environment and to the prosperity of our farming industry. DEFRA has estimated that pollination is worth several hundred million pounds every year. Also, bees are among our greatest allies in delivering DEFRA’s twin priorities of animal health and plant health. The Department is implementing the healthy bees plan, working with beekeepers to provide training and respond to pest and disease threats. Within that plan, DEFRA’s national bee unit provides inspection, diagnostic and training services to beekeepers. Before I entered Parliament, I was a trainee beekeeper, and I very much appreciated the helpful advice of those helping me to learn the craft, particularly inspectors.
Work under the “Biodiversity 2020” banner is delivering more and improved habitats for bees and other pollinators. A further bee-supporting project is the entry-level stewardship scheme for farmers, which promotes the growth of beneficial plants for bees and pollinators. Natural England is working hard with farmers to help them to identify areas of land to provide these habitats, and £10 million has been allocated to a range of research projects that will help bees and pollinators.
Taken as a whole, these measures represent a lot of different activities that are focused on trying to understand why bees are declining, and on taking action to reverse that trend. Most recently, DEFRA has been involved at the EU level in considering the restriction of some chemicals that are used mostly by our cereal crop farmers as pesticides. Just last week, the chief scientific adviser told the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I am a member, that he did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to ban the chemicals that are under consideration, but that we should keep the decision under review while awaiting more scientific evidence. He also said that we need to bear in mind the impact of withdrawing the chemicals in the pesticides, including the impact that would have on food prices, especially the prices of winter wheat and rape.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I will be brief. My constituent Hugh Sykes, who is the chairman of the Winchester and District Beekeepers Association, and whom I have met many times, has been in touch with me—along with hundreds of other constituents—on this subject, and he contacted me specifically about the recent vote on the issue in Europe. Does my hon. Friend know why our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs abstained on that vote? Also, although I appreciate what she is saying, does she not agree that until the science is proven on this particular pesticide—the Secretary of State said that he was a sceptic on the subject of this particular pesticide, as are many people—we should perhaps hold back from using it, given that there is clearly something greatly affecting the bee populations in our constituencies?
Sarah Newton
Like my hon. Friend, I have been contacted by many hundreds of constituents on this issue—I am sure that all MPs have—because many of our constituents take such a close interest in our environment and care for it, which is to be welcomed as it is a really good thing. There has been some excellent campaigning work done by, for example, Friends of the Earth.
As far as I understand from my correspondence with the Secretary of State, the reason for the abstention, which was backed up by the chief scientific adviser, is that the evidence is not clear as to how harmful some of these chemicals are. DEFRA operates on the precautionary principle when making decisions. It has agreed to ensure that the research in this area is kept open and continues, and it has also agreed that if any harmful impact is detected, it will, of course, act. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he has listened to more of what I have to say, will understand that I think we need a more holistic approach to how we are handling this problem. Much as I would love to think that there is one silver bullet, there probably is not, and we need to consider all the different contributing factors that have been leading, undeniably, to bee decline.
I return to the impact of reducing the use of these pesticides. Reducing their use would also reduce the quantity of crops, and that could have a detrimental effect on the bee population because it would reduce some of the bees’ foraging habitat, as well as reducing biodiversity.
Bees have been in decline for some time, as I am sure the beekeepers with whom my hon. Friend is in regular contact have been telling him. We have been hoping to discover a single reason, such as a disease that was causing the collapse of colonies and that could be cured, or one particular chemical that could be identified and banned. However, I think we have come to realise that there will not be a single solution, and that this is a complex problem.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House. I can well remember those halcyon days of the late 1960s and early 1970s when I was a young boy down in Clady outside Strabane. In those days, the sun shone regularly; it does not seem to shine as much now. Does she feel that the change in weather conditions is one of the factors contributing to the decline of bee numbers across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland? The reason I well recall that time in Clady as a young boy is that bees’ honeycombs were something that we prized zealously and refused to share with anyone. I am hoping that those days will return and that the bees can come back, because they are important for the countryside. There were bog meadows and open land, and there was not the same agricultural intensification that there is now. Does she feel that those things are also important factors, and that perhaps we need to see more land set aside?
Sarah Newton
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I know, for example, that last year beekeepers in Cornwall, like beekeepers all over the country, had to feed their bees in the hives because of the appalling weather. Where we have bees in managed colonies, that is fine, but the wild bees and solitary bees are not receiving that sort of care and attention, and they will be even worse affected by the weather. Without those beekeepers feeding the bees in their hives, we would have seen an even greater loss of bee numbers. Look at the weather outside today. Lots of flowers are blossoming, which the bees would naturally be pollinating, but what with the freezing temperatures and the winds, the bees will, rightly, be huddled up in their hives, relying on beekeepers to feed them until the wind drops and temperatures rise, so that they can venture outside. Undoubtedly, climate change will be having an impact on bees. When I talk about research, I shall mention that as one factor contributing to what is happening to all the bee colonies.
The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies that these are complex problems and only a range of activities can resolve them. We need a holistic approach, looking at the many contributing factors in a joined-up strategy, led by DEFRA and involving other Departments. I am asking the Minister to ask the Secretary of State to consider implementing a British bee strategy that would work across Departments and with stakeholders to develop a holistic action plan, with identifiable outcomes and budget allocations.
Parliament rightly demands evidence-based policy making, so let us start with the science. The Government have committed large sums to the science budget. An annual research spend of £4.6 billion has been ring-fenced in the 2010 comprehensive spending review, with additional investment of £1.3 billion in research budgets over the next three years. The UK has world-class universities of which we are rightly proud, and the science and innovation that they generate are a potential source of prosperity, as scientific discoveries are commercialised by businesses working with universities, creating beneficial products and services.
In addition to the DEFRA budget allocated for bee and pollinator research, I should like to see the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills working with the major research councils to identify a pot of money from the existing, and recently increased, funding for science. This could be used to commission university-based scientists, working in partnership with industry, to create a new generation of pesticides and fungicides that have less harmful effects to pollinators; to develop disease-resistant seeds to prevent the need for chemical treatment; and to explore different methods of crop husbandry to prevent the use of harmful pesticides and chemicals in the environment. All these have the potential to improve bee health, and are areas of science in which we already have a great deal of expertise.
It is important to recognise that the UK’s crop-protection sector has a vital role to play, but as with any market, it can work well to deliver innovation and quality. It is worth remembering that in the UK a pesticide is released on to the market only after an average of nine years’ extensive research. However, as recent news about antibiotics has shown, sometimes Government intervention is needed. The chief medical officer has recently warned that, because antibiotics are relatively cheap and not very profitable to pharmaceutical companies, they have made little investment in innovation. As a result, we face humans becoming immune to current antibiotics within the next 20 years—a risk to our well-being greater than climate change. The chief medical officer has called on the Government to use some of the money earmarked for investment in science to discover the next generation of antibiotics. She has also highlighted the need for international collaboration on the management of antibiotics. We need to think in the same way to tackle declining bee health.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend’s suggestion about creating a British bee strategy; that is vital. She makes the case powerfully for a strong, healthy bee population to ensure pollination in agriculture and biodiversity in our environment. Does she agree that it is important for a focus to be maintained across Government, and to bring together all the different resources from Departments to try to tackle and reverse this decline in bee numbers?
Sarah Newton
That is important. As I said, DEFRA has done a huge amount, and this Government should be proud of their track record in tackling the issue, but we need to step it up with more urgency and draw on all the resources of Government, not just on DEFRA. DEFRA is quite a low-spending Department, and it needs the extra sums that are available, particularly in BIS, for science and innovation, so that it can bring those extra resources to bear. DEFRA has done well to be still investing in bee research, having had to make cuts in expenditure—it is to be commended for that—but the scale of the challenge is so great that we should be reaching out to BIS and other pots of science money and commissioning research. Not only would that be beneficial for our bee population, agriculture, farming and the environment, but once these products are developed they could be exported and could generate a great deal of wealth in our country.
All this takes time. Root-cause research would take years—pesticides can take nine years to come to market—so there are things we need to do in the interim. We should listen closely to the calls of Friends of the Earth, which put together a national bee action plan, with some sensible steps that could be taken. I should like the Government to consider that.
We could create bee worlds by encouraging local authorities and the farming sector to work together to increase the availability of good feeding and nesting sites for bees. The mayor of Truro, Lindsay Southcombe, is using her year as mayor to highlight what we can do locally. We can do lots of things at a local level. We need to protect existing sites, conserving the lowland and upland meadows where bees thrive. We should ensure that science-based advice and guidance is provided to farmers and other bodies, setting out how those habitats can be better protected. This advice can be provided only if adequate expertise on bees is retained within Government agencies. For successful delivery of habitat creation and restoration for bees locally, we must ensure that that expertise is available at all levels in local authorities. We do have the bee inspectorate, and that must be preserved, but it must also be built on.
Finally, we need to consider commissioning research on new pest-control technologies and drawing on global best practice, with the aim of developing pest-control methods that maintain farming yields while minimising the impact on pollinator populations. That is the clear call of Friends of the Earth, which believes that stakeholders can be brought together and can help develop best practice, working alongside the Government, that can then be rolled out across the UK.
The evidence that bee populations are declining is clear. We have talked about that in respect of honey bees, but it also applies to wild bees and solitary bees. If we stand by and allow this decline to carry on, it would hit key sectors of our economy hard. The Government’s investment in a range of activities and research aimed at slowing this decline, and better understanding it, is to be welcomed. Now is the time to move to the next stage: to put together a holistic cross-departmental strategy aimed at developing new biodiversity-friendly approaches to crop protection that the rest of the world will welcome. Now is the time to show British bees, British farmers and the British food and drink producers that we are on their side, and will work with them to tackle this significant problem for our health, our well-being and our environment.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) not only on securing a debate on an important subject, but on the balanced way that she presented her arguments.
A healthy bee population is crucial not only to agriculture, but to the environment and the economy, so we have to get this right. I have a record of raising these issues when in opposition: some five or six years ago, I was one of those who was pressing strongly for a proper approach to bee health and for the then Government to invest in it. It is therefore a particular pleasure for me to respond to this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, whose responsibility it is, and to highlight what we have been doing to improve bee health, and our future plans.
Over the past five years there has been a welcome resurgence in interest in keeping bees. Many new beekeepers have turned to local and national beekeeping associations for information and support on how best to look after the pollinator species. The British Beekeepers Association, for example, reports that its membership has increased from some 16,500 in 2009 to 25,000 in 2013. The Government are playing their part in supporting and maintaining that growth in interest. The main focus of our efforts to protect bee health is through the work of the national bee unit, which is acknowledged as having one of the best bee health surveillance programmes in Europe.
It might be helpful if I quickly set out what the national bee unit does. First, it has an inspection and enforcement role: the unit has a team of some 60 professional bee inspectors out in the field controlling notifiable diseases and surveying for exotic pests. Thanks to their work and the results of the random apiary survey, which is internationally probably one of the biggest bee health surveys of its kind ever undertaken, we now have a detailed understanding of the health status of the nation’s bees and can use that information to target our inspection programmes to best effect. I am pleased to report that the incidence of the two notifiable diseases—European and American foul brood—remains nationally low, with infection rates around half those observed during the 1990s. Also, most importantly, no evidence has been found of exotic pests, such as the small hive beetle, and the pests remain absent from the UK.
Secondly, the national bee unit and its inspectors provide advice and support to beekeepers on pests and diseases, with emphasis on varroa management, during their inspection visits, or through training and education programmes jointly run with beekeeping associations. Last year, the unit took part in nearly 500 training events attended by more than 22,000 beekeepers. Guidance is also provided online: the unit’s website, BeeBase, provides a wide range of information for beekeepers to help keep their honey bees healthy and productive. I am pleased to report that the number of beekeepers registered on BeeBase has increased from some 12,000 in 2006 to more than 29,000 today. All those services are provided by the inspectors without charge.
Protecting bee health is not something the Government can achieve by themselves, nor should it be. The various challenges and threats can be properly addressed only through effective partnership working. The Government are co-funding a range of beekeeping association-led initiatives that are already beginning to deliver improvements with, for example, 400 new beekeeper trainers being trained and a suite of new training materials and courses already available. One of those programmes is the development of an apprenticeship scheme to encourage young people to become bee farmers, and we are working with the Bee Farmers’ Association to develop the programme further.
That is the context of what we are doing, but I know my hon. Friend and many of our constituents are worried about the perceived threat from the neonicotinoids. I take that threat extremely seriously. We must take any threat to bees and pollinators seriously, and we have kept the evidence on neonicotinoids under open-minded scrutiny. We have consistently made it clear that we will restrict the use of such products if the evidence shows the need. That is the crucial point for us at the moment as a Department that works on the basis of evidence. Although the potential for toxic effects has been shown, Government scientists and the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides last year advised that the evidence then available did not indicate harmful exposure in the field. The field evidence is limited, however, and focused on honey bees, so we commissioned research on the field effects of neonicotinoids on bumble bees. That work has just been completed and the results are positive, although not conclusive. In particular, the researchers found no relationship between colony growth and neonicotinoid residues in pollen or nectar in the colonies.
Following completion of the study, DEFRA has drawn up a short assessment of all the key current evidence, which I have arranged to be placed in the Library— hon. Members might like to look at it. The assessment cannot exclude rare effects of neonicotinoids on bees in the field, but suggests that those effects do not occur in normal circumstances. We are also analysing the implications for the environment and for agriculture of possible restrictions on neonicotinoids. If neonicotinoids were not available, farmers would switch to alternative insecticides that remain legally available, and it is important to understand the implications of that.
The European Commission proposed significant restrictions on neonicotinoids, which, as my hon. Friend mentioned, was put to a vote on 15 March. The United Kingdom abstained. I underline that we did not take that step because we have closed our mind to taking action; we abstained because the Commission’s proposal was not well thought through. We have urged the Commission to complete the scientific assessment, taking account of our new research. We have also emphasised the need to assess the impacts of action, so that the measures taken are proportionate to the risks. We will continue to make that case in Europe.
The difference between the laboratory tests on which much of the information is based and the field trials that we have now undertaken is that the dosage levels are not comparable. The dosage in the field is much lower than that used in the laboratory experiments, so the toxicity might not be demonstrable or replicable in field conditions. We need to investigate that important aspect further.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
A number of European countries certainly believe that the evidence justifies a moratorium—we know that from the vote. The Minister’s Department also believes that there are risks, although it is not convinced that the risks are high enough to justify a moratorium. Would he, as a secondary step, or perhaps as a compromise, consider doing what many have recommended, which is introducing a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids for non-farm applications, such as golf courses, private gardens, urban areas and so on? That might help the scientific process and the journey that DEFRA is currently on.
Mr Heath
We will consider the effectiveness of all propositions that are on the table. My concern about agricultural use is that we need to assess carefully the environmental consequences, including the consequences for bee health, of using other substances, such as pyrethroids and organophosphates, as an alternative. I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has to say.
We have joined some of the UK’s major research funders to fund projects aimed at researching the causes and consequences of threats to insect pollinators, including honey bees. Understanding the threats will help us to identify the best possible action to support those species for the future. That is the key, given the role of pollinators in agricultural production, estimated to be worth more than £500 million, and in our overall food security. The initiative’s total spend is up to £10 million over five years, to which DEFRA has contributed £2.5 million. We look forward to seeing the results of those studies over the next two years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned that there are other stress factors, and she is absolutely right. The other stress factors include weather—the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—pest infestations or infections, nutrition and hive management. We need to consider all those factors in the round. She also mentioned the key importance of having a bee strategy, and emphasised that pollination is more than just about the role of honey bees. Lord de Mauley has announced that he is considering exactly what she suggests—the development of a more holistic health strategy to cover all pollinators—and he has been meeting interested parties, such as Friends of the Earth, to explore what added value that approach might bring.
I end by stressing to hon. Members that the Government are committed to continue playing their part, working in partnership with beekeepers and other interested parties, to sustain the health of honey bees and other key pollinators. This is an extraordinarily important subject, and I and my noble Friend Lord de Mauley are determined to get it right. We must do so by considering all the consequences and taking action as seems appropriate on the basis of the evidence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the debate.
Under-Occupancy Penalty (Birkenhead)
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Mr Benton, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, on not only a personal but a regional level, as I will explain. I am grateful to the Speaker for giving me the opportunity to debate this issue, which unfairly affects my constituency, yours and others in the north-west.
I have been in the House for more than three decades, and I have witnessed many so-called welfare reform measures, but I have never witnessed a measure as grossly unfair as this one. As the Minister well knows, under-occupancy is a supply-side issue, yet we are trying to control the demand side to make people on low incomes fit into the regimented holes into which the Government would like them to fit.
I know the Government have a fig leaf to parade around to cover their nakedness, and no doubt we will hear about it. They will say that there is a huge number of people in social housing properties who have too many bedrooms and a shortage of social housing. If only those damn people would move from their under-occupied properties to ones that fit, a major problem would be solved. We all know that it will not be, for reasons that I hope to explain.
I feel so strongly about what the Government are doing to my constituents and similarly placed constituents around the country that I call on both social housing and housing association landlords to defy the measures, not by not operating them, but by doing what landlords did after the nine years’ war, when a Government similarly stretched for money imposed a window tax. In many instances—we see it in older properties in our constituencies—landlords bricked up windows. I hope that landlords will brick up the doors to spare bedrooms and, where appropriate, knock down the walls, so that the properties can safely fit the tenants. I have never before asked for direct action. I do so now because I feel that the measures are grossly unfair. In more than three decades, I have never debated such a vicious cut. Even if most people wished to do what the Government want them to do, they would be unable to do it.
The background to the case is that the Government claim that there are 1 million spare bedrooms throughout the country, and that the subsidy for those spare bedrooms costs £500 million. If only they could get people to move around to fit into the accommodation that the Government would like them to have, £500 million in public expenditure would be saved. The means of doing so are as follows. From April this year, those who have one so-called spare bedroom will lose 14% of their housing benefit, and those who have two spare rooms will lose 25% of their housing benefit.
This is the last opportunity for the House to debate this wretched measure before it comes into effect in our constituencies. We know that about one third of social tenants will be affected, and that their average loss of benefit will be £14 a week. We know that 40,000 will lose their entitlement entirely, and, as I said, a higher percentage of tenants in the north-west will be affected than in London and the south-east.
In this debate, I will rely on figures supplied by Riverside, one of the larger housing associations offering accommodation to my constituents. Some 25% of its tenants will be affected by this vicious little measure, and 20% of tenants of Wirral Partnership Homes will be affected. Let us look at the facts that Riverside dug out. In the three years between 2008 and 2011, in one part of my constituency, Tranmere and Rock Ferry, 500 new tenancy allocations were made. Of those households, 302 needed one bedroom, yet only 126 one- bedroom flats were available. Even if those tenants wanted accommodation that fitted their needs as defined by the Government, they would not be able to meet the policy. Riverside sensibly asked those who would be affected by this vicious little measure what they intended to do to try to balance the books. Some 32% said that they would try to move to smaller properties, 11% said that they would ask people in their household to help them pay the rent, 16% said that they would ask people outside their household, 17% said that they would try to earn extra money, 9% said that they would take a lodger, and 42% said that they would probably fail to pay the rent.
I want to dwell on two aspects. One is the 17% who said that they would try to earn more money. One of the Merseyside police’s worries about the measure is that there has been a significant increase in the number of people being encouraged to use spare bedrooms to grow pot. One consequence of this Government action will be to enable those gangs who try to enrol vulnerable constituents to make extra money in that way. That will be a real first for the Government. They should be proud, shouldn’t they?
Let us then look at the 42% who will fail to pay their rent. They will face eviction due to significant reductions in their income. Of course, they will try for a time to cut down on other necessities, such as fuel. I can switch on the heating, but unlike me, many of my constituents do not switch it on during the day. They will now spend even less time with their heating on. Others will eat a far less healthy diet.
When push comes to shove, what will those with children do? They might let their rent fall into arrears, which the Government do not seem to realise is a far better option than not paying other bills, because other bills attract penal rates of interest if they are not paid, and as yet—although no doubt there will be a measure to help them—local authorities and housing associations cannot enforce this wretched little measure by charging interest on debts that accrue.
My plea to housing associations is not to evict. As a result, their revenue will be affected. All the housing associations in Birkenhead have gone down the route of going to the banks to pledge their future revenue against loans. Once the revenue is not forthcoming, what will the banks do? I would prefer the housing associations to go bankrupt rather than bankrupt my constituents. One of the not-so-hidden consequences of this vicious little measure is that housing associations will risk going bankrupt. What will the Government do then? They will not be able to allow them to remain bankrupt. I hope that a plan B that is slightly more effective than the plan B for the economy is on the stocks.
Let us suppose that the tenants could move. The housing stock is not available, but suppose they could. We know from those who have managed to find alternative accommodation that it actually costs more. For example, one-bedroom places in Birkenhead average £71 a week, but in the private sector they are £88 a week. If every wonderful tenant in Birkenhead affected by this vicious little measure did what the Government wanted, the savings would not be made and the housing bill would go up, defeating the measure; the Department for Work and Pensions, which wants people to move around to free up accommodation, would have to have a serious conversation with the Treasury about why the idea has failed to deliver the £500 million cut.
Housing associations should follow the example of the landlords who took action after the nine years’ war to ensure that they and their tenants did not pay an unfair tax. If tenants request such action, the doors to spare bedrooms should be blocked up, as the windows were, and their walls should be knocked through to make one larger room, where it is possible and safe to do so; that would apply only where no downsizing options were available. It would not solve the problem of a grossly unfair tax, but it would mitigate some of the worst results by freeing tenants from this poll tax.
The Government are of course unlikely to achieve the £500 million cut in housing benefit demanded by the Treasury, but their cover is blown anyway: for the reasons I set out, even if all the tenants could move to smaller accommodation, the Government would make no savings in public expenditure at all. Indeed, as suitable accommodation in the private sector is more expensive, the housing benefit bill will rise.
Why am I for the first time advocating direct action? I do so because this tax is so grossly unfair, and it is being levied on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Wicked actions require a different response from us parliamentarians.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Good afternoon, Mr Benton. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on securing a debate that is of considerable importance to his constituents. I entirely accept that the effect of this nationwide policy is different in different areas, and that a higher proportion of working-age households are affected in the north-west than in some other parts of the country.
Steve Webb
I thought that that was fairly uncontentious, but I will give way.
Steve Webb
I am representing the Government rather than discussing my constituents, but clearly far fewer of mine are affected than the right hon. Gentleman’s, which is no great surprise to anyone.
The right hon. Gentleman’s speech was made in a vacuum, without mention of the fiscal context or how we treat other tenants. He used various lurid adjectives to describe the policy, as though it was some uniquely unfair concept that where benefits are paying someone’s rent, the level of benefits should have regard to the size of the household. He suggested that this is some unprecedented, evil thing, the like of which he has never come across in 30 years in Parliament—except that he was a Minister in my Department and, intermittently, a supporter of the previous Government, who introduced the local housing alliance. As I am sure he knows, with that allowance we say to private sector tenants on housing benefit that, broadly speaking, the rents we pay will reflect household size: generally, if not universally, someone can have private rent up to, now, the 30th percentile of rents for a household of the size it is. For some years, therefore, we have said to 1 million LHA private sector tenants, “We won’t pay benefit for an extra bedroom. If you want one, that’s fine, but you pay for it.”
If that policy is fair and appropriate for private sector tenants, why is it squalid, evil and unprecedented for social tenants? Surely consistency and fairness—a word the right hon. Gentleman used—mean that we should treat people the same way, whether they are private sector or social tenants. One might argue, indeed, that social tenants generally have the advantage of a subsidised rent, which private sector tenants do not have, and we treat private sector tenants unfairly in the sense that we do not give them an extra bedroom.
Mr Field
The Minister knows perfectly well that the local housing allowance level we set was above the average amount for those in social housing, so there is still a real difference in the rent levels for what someone can command in the private sector compared with the public sector.
Steve Webb
The right hon. Gentleman reinforces my point: people in the private sector were having to pay higher rents than those in the social sector, and they could not have a spare bedroom.
Steve Webb
People in the social rented sector still benefit from subsidised rents and, potentially, spare bedrooms. The figure used by the right hon. Gentleman was of more than 800,000 spare bedrooms in households where the rent is paid for by housing benefits.
To give a sense of scale, we are asking a household with one spare bedroom to contribute £2 a day on average for having the spare bedroom. I do not belittle the financial pressures that many households are under, because it would be entirely wrong of me to do so, but we know from experience of the private rented sector that some households will decide that, notwithstanding the financial pressures on them, £2 a day for the advantage of that extra bedroom is a price that they will pay. There will also be many other responses. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned taking in lodgers, and some housing associations and local authorities have given their tenants advice on how to do that. It is good use of a spare room, because it provides accommodation to someone, such as a young single person perhaps, as well as extra income to the household, and deals with the problem.
There will be some movement in the social rented sector. In the right hon. Gentleman’s area, 20 housing associations and local authorities have come together to form Propertypool Plus, doing exactly what they should be doing, which is pooling their stock and giving a much greater chance of having something to suit a particular family than an individual housing association would have. If we facilitate someone moving from under-occupied accommodation into a house that fits, someone else who is living in overcrowded accommodation can also move to a house that fits, which seems to be an entirely good thing, although the latter person’s voice was silent in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
I looked at the Wirral housing strategy for 2011 to 2026, and the council has realised that under-occupation is an issue. Before we invented our policy, the local authority stated:
“Research has identified that there are a number of people who are under occupying their home, regardless of tenure,”
going on to say that
“the Council will seek to help people by offering a range of services”
to help them live in more appropriate accommodation. There is therefore recognition in Wirral of a mismatch between the homes people are living in and the homes that they might need, perhaps particularly in the case of older people, although I stress that pensioners are exempt from our policy.
Creative things are being done in the right hon. Gentleman’s part of the world. For example, Wirral metropolitan borough council has obtained £2 million of Homes and Communities Agency funding to work on empty properties and plans to bring 765 empty properties back into use over a three-year period. He is right to say that supply is a crucial part of the story. We want to ensure that the supply is there for people, but that will not happen overnight. We also know that initiatives to deal with under-occupation have not really worked. Simply saying, “Would you like to move to somewhere smaller?” when there is no reason for anyone to do so, has not worked, and we have to regard the spare bedrooms in social housing in this country as a precious resource, because there is not enough housing.
The right hon. Gentleman colourfully described bricking up spare bedrooms, but I can save the landlords he is seeking to send down that track the trouble. If, for example, they want to designate a property with one bedroom occupied and a spare bedroom as a one-bedroom property, they can do so. They do not need to brick anything up or knock any walls down; they can simply designate it as a one-bedroom property. They will take the lower rent, but the tenant is not under-occupying. The reduction in the spare-room subsidy would not apply because there is not a spare room; it is the landlord who takes the financial hit in that situation. Knowsley local authority has, on occasion, followed such a policy. If landlords decide that that is the best solution, we have no problem with that. Obviously, we get the saving, because we are only paying the rent for a one-bedroom property and not a two-bedroom property, so if local authorities and other landlords can bear the financial impact, that might be a part of the mix. I do not think that many will be able to do so, but questions of bricking up rooms do not arise.
I have come across cases in which housing associations have designated a box room as a second bedroom and they have been gaily claiming the rent on a two-bedroom property. Then this measure comes in and it is quickly apparent that it is not really a bedroom; it is just a box room. Part of the answer is for landlords to be honest about the nature of their properties and say whether there really is a spare bedroom that someone could sleep in. They should then designate the property accordingly.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned fairness. I have referred to fairness between social and private tenants, but what about fairness between overcrowded households, households on the waiting list and those who are in under-occupation? In Wirral, there are 21,280 households on the waiting list for a home. Where is their voice in this debate? I may be wrong, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the people on the waiting list or the people who are overcrowded. Fairness is surely about them as well as the people already in occupation.
We recognise that there are some people who should not be affected by this measure. That is why, for example, we have exempted pensioners. People living in their lifetime home, who have retired and have no prospect of working again, are exempt. We have also taken the view that local authorities need money to deal with what one might loosely call hard cases. In Wirral, in the year that is coming to an end—2012-13—roughly £500,000 of discretionary housing payments were available; next year it will be not far short of £1 million. For individuals whom it would be wrong or inhumane to expect to move, money is there to make up the shortfall. Nearly £1 million in that local authority and about £150 million nationwide is a huge sum of money, provided to make sure that where the room is not really spare and where it would be inappropriate to expect someone to move out or put someone else in the room, local authorities have got the resource to respond appropriately.
It is vital that local authorities spend the money, yet we have come across cases of local authorities underspending their discretionary housing payments. Hon. Members berate the Government and say how terrible the policy is, but their local authority is sitting on cash that it has not spent to help people who have a shortfall in their housing benefit.
Steve Webb
My understanding is that the right hon. Gentleman’s own local authority had a discretionary housing payment contribution of £464,000 for the current year, but has a carryover that takes it up to £522,000. I am happy to write to him with figures for the country. That is not a one-off example. It is surprisingly common. I have spoken to local authority leaders in the past few weeks who have said, “We are not spending the money we have got.” We and they need to make sure that the money that is specifically there for hardship is actually spent.
Steve Webb
We expect local authorities to budget, but of course this measure comes into effect on a single day, and good landlords and good local authorities have already been looking at the existing stock of people. It is by definition a stock of people that does not turn over very much, so it is pretty predictable. My plea to local authorities is to use the money that we have given them.
We have given local authorities discretionary money, initially with two groups in mind. The first is people whose houses have been substantially adapted for disability. We accept that if there is a spare bedroom in a house that has been completely redone to reflect wheelchair access or whatever, it is not cost-effective, sensible or humane to say, “You’ve got to move,” and then either the public purse has to pay for another property to be done up or the people have to live somewhere inappropriate. We estimate that, nationwide, roughly £25 million of the potential saving from the measure would be related to properties of that sort. Our initial plan was to try to define that centrally in regulations: what is a substantially adapted property? We then took the view that it is better left to local discretion, so we made the money available locally.
We did the same for foster families who have a spare room because they are between foster children. Most people would accept that foster parents need to have a spare room. Initially, we thought that we would support that through £5 million of discretionary payments, but the message we got back was that foster families wanted to have a right to a room and not to be reliant on a discretionary payment from the council. We have now passed regulations, which will come into force next month, that give foster families the right to a spare bedroom, subject to certain constraints. We have also recently made it clear that where, for example, a child with a disability or health condition cannot sleep in the same bedroom as a sibling, the family can go to the local authority, which, having satisfied itself that it is a valid claim, can allocate an extra bedroom.
I stress that the measure is not a crude one-size-fits-all cut. We have to save money. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have to save money and that housing benefit is one of the biggest working age benefits that we have. He knows that two thirds of the housing benefit bill is for social tenants and that we have already cut back on the housing benefit bill for private tenants. In the context of needing to save money on social tenants’ housing benefit bill, not paying for spare bedrooms seems to be a place where we can find savings, subject to the crucial proviso that we protect the most vulnerable.
We have protected the most vulnerable through discretionary housing payments. Of course, although local authorities can use such payments for substantially adapted properties, the clue is in the title: they are “discretionary” payments. Local authorities have the payments for this purpose and for other changes. They have core discretionary housing payments that they had anyway, before any of the measures came in. Local authorities have that pot of money, which is of course not limitless and does not cover everybody, but at least it gives them the flexibility to respond to people as they come to them. The crucial thing for anybody listening to our proceedings who is concerned about the impact of the measure is that if people genuinely need the additional room, and if the options that some would take up, such as swapping, taking in a lodger or working extra hours, are not options for them, they should approach the local authority.
The right hon. Gentleman said that if people move into the private sector, it will cost money, but that is a very static way of looking at things. When somebody moves out of the social sector and into the private sector, a social sector property will be freed up that someone perhaps paying a high rent in the private sector will move into. It is not self-evident that in cases where someone moves from the social sector to the private sector, it costs money overall. Yes, we are trying to save money, and half a billion pounds will be saved by the measure, but let me set that in context: in the final year of the previous Labour Government, we were trying to fill a hole not of half a billion pounds, but of £150 billion a year. The right hon. Gentleman objects to the measure, but it illustrates the scale of the task we have been faced with. Even a measure such as this, which has been controversial and difficult, saves only half a billion pounds, and we have had to take many more such decisions to deal with the fiscal deficit.
Good things are going on in local authority areas such as that of the right hon. Gentleman. I welcome the fact that housing associations and councils are pooling their stock to enable people to exchange. My local housing association and others have had what they call “speed-dating” events—I am not being flippant; that is what they call them. They try to bring together people from among their tenants, some of whom have a spare room and some of whom are desperate for a family home. I think of a constituent of mine who contacted me after receiving a letter about this. She said, “I am living on my own in a three-bedroom house. What are my options? Actually, could my brother and sister-in-law move in?” I said, “Absolutely. Talk to the landlord.” That was an ideal outcome: it meant that the housing stock was better used and someone else had suitable housing.
To summarise, the way in which people respond to the measure will be individual and varied. Some will be able to exchange with someone else. Some will stay where they are, regarding £2 a day, on average, as worth paying for that spare bedroom. Some will fill the spare bedroom with a lodger. As the right hon. Gentleman colourfully suggests, some landlords will redesignate properties, so that in effect there is not a spare bedroom, and the landlord will take the cost. Some people will go to the local authority, and we have put money into the pockets of local authorities such as his—nearly £1 million in the Wirral—so that the most vulnerable people can go to their local authority and make their case and be heard.
Again, I urge the local authorities to spend the money that they have been given to help people, because we have sought to protect the most vulnerable. We have sought to protect families with disabled children, fosterers, and people with service personnel living at home. We have given local authorities the ability to respond on a case-by-case basis. None of these decisions is easy, but they are necessary decisions that we have sought to mitigate where possible. We are trying to bring about a beneficial effect: to make better use of scarce social housing stock and to create fairness between private and social tenants, which, I have to say, in the past, we have not had.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Double Taxation Agreement (UK/Albania)
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
A first time double taxation agreement with the Republic of Albania was signed on 26 March 2013. The text of the agreement has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on HM Revenue and Customs website. The text will be scheduled to draft Orders in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
Environmental Taxation
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
This Government are reforming the tax system to make it more competitive, simpler, fairer, and greener. As part of this, in May 2010 Government committed to increasing the proportion of tax revenue accounted for by environmental taxes.
Last summer, the Government published their definition of environmental taxes which set the baseline for achieving that commitment. This statement provides an update of the Government’s progress against that commitment, using the independent OBR forecasts published alongside the Budget. To provide greater clarity the Government will also publish similar summaries of progress each year until the end of this Parliament.
The Government classify environmental taxes as those that meet all of the following three principles:
The tax is explicitly linked to the Government’s environmental objectives;
The primary objective of the tax is to encourage environmentally positive behaviour change; and
The tax is structured in relation to environmental objectives (for example: the more polluting the behaviour, the greater the tax levied).
The Government have defined the following as environmental taxes based on these principles:
Climate Change Levy
Aggregates Levy
Landfill Tax
EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)
Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme
Carbon Price Floor
The OBR forecasts demonstrate that the coalition remains on track to achieve its commitment to increase the proportion of revenue accounted for by environmental taxes.
Tax | Actual Revenue Raise 2010/11 | Actual Revenue Raise 2011/12 | Revenue forecast 2012/13 | Revenue forecast 2013/14 | Revenue forecast 2014/15 | Revenue forecast 2015/16 | Revenue forecast 2016/17 | Revenue forecast 2017/18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate Change Levy and Carbon Price Floor | £0.7 bn | £0.7 bn | £0.6 bn | £0.3 bn | £1.9 bn | £2.4 bn | £2.5 bn | £2.5 bn |
Aggregate Levy | £0.3 bn | £0.3 bn | £0.3 bn | £0.3 bn | £0.3 bn | £0.3 bn | £0.3 bn | £0.3 bn |
Landfill Tax | £1.1 bn | £1.1 bn | £1.1 bn | £1.0 bn | £1.1 bn | £1.2 bn | £1.1 bn | £1.2 bn |
EU ETS | £0.5 bn | £0.2 bn | £0.3 bn | £0.7 bn | £0.7 bn | £0.8 bn | £0.8 bn | £0.9 bn |
Carbon Reduction Commitment | £0.0 bn | £0.7 bn | £0.7 bn | £0.7 bn | £0.9 bn | £0.9 bn | £1.0 bn | £1.0 bn |
Total | £2.5 bn | £3.0 bn | £3.1 bn | £4.0 bn | £4.9 bn | £5.6 bn | £5.7 bn | £5.9 bn |
2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | 2015/16 | 2016/17 | 2017/18 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Revenue from Environmental Taxes | £2.5 bn | £3.0 bn | £3.1 bn | £4.0 bn | £4.9 bn | £5.6 bn | £5.7 bn | £5.9 bn |
Total Tax Forecast Receipts | £551.4 bn | £572.6 bn | £586.8 bn | £612.4 bn | £633.1 bn | £657.6 bn | £694.1 bn | £723.0 bn |
Proportion of Total Tax Receipts | £0.5 bn | £0.5 bn | £0.5 bn | £0.7 bn | £0.8 bn | £0.8 bn | £0.8 bn | £0.8 bn |
Revenue Raising Taxes & Fiscal Instruments with Environmental Benefits
These are taxes and fiscal instruments which are primarily designed to raise revenue or to achieve other objectives, and therefore do not qualify as environmental taxes on the basis of the Government’s three principles.
Differentiating environmental taxes from taxes which are designed to achieve other objectives provides greater clarity and transparency to the Government’s overall tax strategy. However, non-environmental instruments may have an environmental impact due to behavioural change. On that basis, the Government believe that it is important to make reference to transport taxes, levies and exemptions/reliefs in its overall assessment of environmental taxation.
Budget 2013 made several announcements that will act to sharpen the environmental signals of non-environmental taxes, including:
Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles—Budget 2013 announced a £100 million package to support the purchase and manufacture of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs) in the UK through company car tax (CCT) and the capital allowances regime. Government are guaranteeing reduced rates of CCT for ULEVs until 2020; and extending the 100% first year allowance for ULEVs until 2018.
Enhanced capital allowances: energy-saving and water-efficient technologies—The list of designated energy-saving and water-efficient technologies qualifying for enhanced capital allowances will be updated during summer 2013, ensuring the most efficient technologies continue to be targeted.
Capital allowances: railway assets and ships—Budget 2013 announced the extension of first year allowances (including enhanced capital allowances for energy-saving and water-efficient technologies) to expenditure on railway assets and ships from April 2013.
VED: Reduced Pollution Certificates (RPCs)—Budget 2013 announced that the Government will end RPC Vehicle Excise Duty discounts for Euro I-III vehicles within the HGV Road User Levy scheme from 1 April 2014, and for all other Euro I-III vehicles from 1 April 2016.
Companies House Public Targets 2013-14
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2013-14:
Public Target | Proposed2013-14 Target |
|---|---|
Customer | |
Achieve a score of more than 86% in our customer satisfaction survey | >86% |
To achieve an average compliance level for accounts of 99% | 99% |
To achieve an average compliance level for annual returns of 98% | 98% |
Resolve complaints within five days | 99% |
WebFiling services are available 99.7% of the time | 99.7% |
Software filing services are available 99.7% of the time | 99.7% |
Companies House Direct Service is available 99.7% of the time | 99.7% |
WebCHeck service is available 99.7% of the time | 99.7% |
Document images ordered by search customers are available in the Companies House Direct download area within 35 seconds (new target) | 98% |
CEO to respond to all letters from MPs delegated to him to reply within 10 working days of receipt | 100% |
Process | |
Electronic transactions received are available to view on the public record (image format) within 48 hours (new target) | 99.9% |
Images placed on Companies House image system are legible and complete | 99.8% |
To achieve an average electronic filing target for accounts | 60% |
To achieve an average electronic filing target for all other transactions | 85% |
Reduce carbon emissions by 2%, based on the previous financial year | 2% |
People | |
Ensure that the average work days lost per person is no more than <8.5 days | <8.5 |
Finance | |
To achieve taking one year with another, a 3.5% average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets | 3.5% |
Achieve by 2013-14 a reduction, in real terms, of 15% compared to 2010-11 in the operational monetary cost of the organisations operational costs (2nd year of a 3-year target) | 5% |
Payment of invoices within 5 days of receipt | 90% |
Contingencies Fund Advance 2013-14
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills wishes to recruit five non-executive directors and three executive directors to the proposed Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) before Royal Assent has been received for the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill which will create the CMA, a new non-ministerial department later this year.
The new board together with Lord Currie CMA chair designate and Alex Chisholm CEO designate will play a critical role in driving forward the creation of the CMA. To ensure a smooth transition process the board will need to take early decisions on key areas such as operation structure and governance. When making these decisions, they will need to consider how the CMA will achieve greater coherence in competition practice, deliver a more streamlined approach to case handling and decision making, and creating an effective, high-impact competition regime, in order that the CMA fully delivers the benefits envisaged by Government.
Parliamentary approval for resource cover of £58,000 for this new service will be sought in an estimate for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £58,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the contingencies fund.
Land Registry
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
The Land Registry vision is:
“To be recognised as a world leader in the digital delivery of land registration services and in the management and re use of land and property data”.
To meet this vision, the following four strategic objectives have been adopted with associated key performance indicators and objectives, plus two equality objectives:
Efficiency |
We will unlock efficiency in the public sector and land and property market |
Strategic Milestones |
(E1) Run the operational budget with real term efficiency and business strategy reduction of 3.2% |
(E2) Increase the number of substantive dealing applications lodged electronically by 11% to achieve 44% electronic dealing delivery by March 2014 |
(E3) Develop a prototype Local Land Charges register, evaluate it and complete a report to Ministers by March 2014, with recommendations for the next steps towards a new Local Land Charges Service |
Key Performance Indicator |
(E4) Substantive registrations completed within an average of seven working days |
(E5) 5% reduction in carbon emissions on 2012-13 |
Data |
We will maximise the reuse of our data for the benefit of the wider economy |
Strategic milestones |
(D1) release additional licensable data sets by 31 March 2014 |
(D2) Develop an online facility able to provide easy access for customers to licensable data by 31 March 2014 |
(D3) Release two additional data sets to W3 standard level 4 by 31 March 2014. |
Key Performance Indicators |
(d4) Average external e-service availability at 99.6% or higher during published service hours |
Assurance |
We will increase and extend the assurance and compliance provided to the market |
Strategic Milestones |
(A1) The percentage of customers who rate our overall service as good, very good or excellent to achieve 96%. |
(A2) To achieve a Net Promoter Score (NPS) of 50 |
(A3) Introduce a free property alert service launched by 30 September 2013 |
Key Performance Indicators |
(a4) Substantive registrations to pass at least 98% of defined quality checks |
Capability |
We will grow and maximise the benefit of our organisational capability |
Strategic Milestones |
(C1) We will be in the third quartile of Whitehall departments for staff engagement by the end of 2013-14 |
Key Performance Indicator |
(C2) Introduce Performance and Innovation (LEAN) techniques to the management teams in each directorate and local office by 31 March 2014 |
Equality Objectives
a) Internal equality objective
To drive a culture of inclusion and respect within our organisation and positively seek to improve engagement of staff who share protected characteristics.
b) External equality objective
To equip our staff to identify, anticipate and satisfy our customers’ diverse needs by delivering products, services and channels at a cost we can both afford.
Note: we will assess our achievement against these two equality objectives by monitoring how well we progress in implementing the supporting action plans.
Student Loan Book Sale
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I am today announcing that the remaining publicly owned mortgage-style student loan book will be offered for sale by the Government under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 as amended by the Education (Student Loans) Act 1998. The sale will take place in conjunction with the Scottish Government, the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland and the Student Loans Company.
Mortgage-style loans were available to eligible higher education students who were enrolled between 1990 and 1998. Borrowers are required to repay in fixed monthly instalments over a defined period, typically five or seven years. Interest is charged at a rate equivalent to the retail prices index. Repayments can be deferred for a year at a time if a borrower’s income is below the threshold, which is 85% of the national average earnings. Currently the threshold is £27,813. There will be no change to borrowers’ terms and conditions as a result of the sale.
The Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for loans issued by those respective Administrations and both have agreed the sale. English and Welsh loans are the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
There were two previous sales of mortgage-style loans in 1998 and 1999. The remaining loans owned by the Government are mostly either in deferment or in arrears, so total annual repayments are low.
The loans to be offered for sale have a face value of around £900 million but, due to the low level of repayments in relation to the loan book, the market value will likely be significantly lower. The Government recognise that the private sector may improve the collection of repayments using their expertise. Additionally, they will provide operational benefits to the Student Loans Company (SLC) as the significant majority of the administration is transferred to the buyer. This sale will reduce public sector net debt and forms part of a wider effort to maximise the value of Government assets.
We will be assessing all potential buyers against a strict set of criteria and a sale will only proceed if value for money for the taxpayer and borrower protections consistent with the law are assured. The sale will not include any income contingent repayment (ICR) loans, therefore no current students or borrowers who solely took out an ICR loan after September 1998 will be affected.
More details of the sale will be published by BIS in due course.
“Nuclear Industry Strategy”
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The Government have today published “Nuclear Industrial Strategy”, which has been produced in consultation with industry and other interested stakeholders.
I set out last September the Government’s new industrial strategy. This is a long-term, whole-government approach, with partnership with industry at its heart. Its purpose is to establish a clear and consistent approach to the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, with a view to stimulating economic growth and creating jobs.
Part of the industrial strategy is about supporting successful sectors. Today’s nuclear strategy is one of several sector strategies we will be developing between now and the summer in partnership with industry; and this is one of three that focuses on energy industries, the others being offshore wind and oil and gas.
The nuclear market provides significant opportunities for economic growth, with industry indicating that the UK new build programme (around 16GW) equates to investment of circa £60 billion, which could support an estimated 30,000 jobs1. Globally, investment in new nuclear power stations is projected to be £930 billion by 20302. And the global decommissioning market is estimated to grow to a value of £50 billion per annum by 2020.
Nuclear power has the potential to play an increasing role in meeting the UK’s future energy needs. It is a source of low-carbon energy and can contribute to the UK’s energy mix and security of supply longer term. This strategy—like those for offshore wind and oil and gas—will achieve a more effective alignment and integration of energy and industrial policy to enable the UK to deliver competitive energy technologies in future, with significant input from UK-based industry.
The strategy builds on much of the work that was undertaken last year in preparing a response to the House of Lords’ Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into the UK’s nuclear R and D capabilities. That response is also published today with the nuclear industrial strategy, and consists of:
A “Long Term Nuclear Energy Strategy”, which sets out the Government’s vision for nuclear energy, and its potential role in contributing to the UK’s future energy mix from the near term and up to 2050.
A nuclear “Industry Vision Statement”, which expresses the nuclear industry’s own ambitions for the future in the key areas of the nuclear new build programme, fuel cycle service, waste management and decommissioning, and operations and maintenance.
A nuclear R and D landscape review, which provides an assessment of current civil nuclear R and D capability.
A nuclear R and D road map, which provides an analysis of different scenarios for nuclear power up to 2050, and the R and D activities associated with those scenarios.
These different work streams were guided by an ad hoc nuclear R and D advisory board, chaired by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington. The ad hoc advisory board made its own recommendations based on those work streams, which the nuclear industrial strategy seeks to address.
The strategy is also linked to the separate nuclear supply chain action plan that was published in December 2012. The implementation of the action plan will be co-ordinated with the work taken forward under the strategy.
The nuclear industrial strategy has been prepared at a time when important decisions are in prospect about building new nuclear power stations in the UK—the first new build for nearly 20 years. The scale and timing of the nuclear new build programme will depend on a number of factors, such as the competitiveness of nuclear energy compared to other technologies and attracting significant levels of investment.
The strategy also covers the many other parts of the nuclear industry that offer considerable opportunities for effective long-term collaboration between Government, industry and the research community. That includes handling waste management and decommissioning—already a significant area of industrial activity, which is managed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
It also includes fuel cycle services, waste management and decommissioning, operations and maintenance as well as establishing effective links between the research community and industry, which can help inform research priorities and identify opportunities for commercial spin-offs.
A new Nuclear Industry Council has been established to provide strategic oversight of the implementation of the strategy, and consists of a membership that reflects the diversity of the industry. The Government will work closely with the new council and ensure the strategy provides the basis for making a real impact of benefit to the UK.
A copy of the “Nuclear Industry Strategy”, and the other documents mentioned above, have been placed in the Library of the House.
1 Nuclear Industry Association Capability Report 2012
2 The World Nuclear Supply Chain: Outlook 2030, September 2012
National Measurement Office
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
I have tasked the National Measurement Office to provide policy support to Ministers on measurement issues and a measurement infrastructure which enables innovation and growth, promotes trade and facilitates fair competition and the protection of consumers, health and the environment.
I have agreed with the NMO that its objectives for 2013-2016 will be to:
Increase economic growth, innovation and social impact through a world-class scientific measurement infrastructure.
Promote competition and fair trading both in the UK and at the global level through a modern weights and measures and hallmarking regime.
Provide good value-for-money metrology services.
Protect the interests of the public, business and the environment by enforcing relevant legislation.
The agency will also be expected to provide professional, value-for-money corporate services that contribute to agency objectives, align with cross-Government initiatives, promote good and informed decision making, ensure accountable governance and provide effective channels of communication.
In support of these objectives I have set as specific ministerial targets the following for 2013-14:
Improve performance of the NMS programmes over the corporate plan period 2011-12 to 2014-15 as measured by the value scorecard developed for this purpose.
Support business by ensuring a minimum of 95% of meter examiner appointments, manufacturer authorisations/consents and modifications to meter approval and decisions are made within five business days of receipt of all necessary documentation.
Achieve a satisfaction rating among certification service customers of at least 95% for customers scoring satisfied or above, with at least 60% scoring “very satisfied”.
Achieve an increase in income of at least 5% for certification services from the 2012-13 financial year.
Generate at least a positive 3:1 net contribution to consumers and the environment as well as the low-carbon economy through the activities of the enforcement authority.
Reduce non-ring-fenced administration costs by at least 14% in cash terms over the corporate plan period 2011-12 to 2014-15.
Ensure that reduced contributions from BIS towards overheads are absorbed without any increase in per capita overhead rate.
Reduce NPL energy consumption in 2013 calendar year by 5% from 2012 calendar year.
Agree by 31 March 2014 the partners who will work with Government on NPL and the model under which the partnership will operate post-March 2014.
Low Pay Commission
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
On 10 July 2012 the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), former Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs announced the commencement of the triennial review of the Low Pay Commission (LPC). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The Low Pay Commission is a statutory body which plays an important role providing independent advice to Government about the national minimum wage.
The review concludes that the functions performed by the Low Pay Commission are still required and that it should be retained as an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB). The review also looked at the governance arrangements for LPC in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office. The report makes some recommendations in this respect; these will be implemented shortly.
The full report of the review of the LPC can be found on the Gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Ministerial Pensions
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
In the spending review 2010, the Government announced their intention to increase employee contributions in public service pension schemes. This followed on from Lord Hutton’s interim report on public service pensions1 which concluded that there was a clear rationale for public servants to make a greater contribution if their pensions were to remain fair to taxpayers and employees and affordable for the country.
The ministerial pension scheme was not covered by Lord Hutton’s recommendations, but I consider it appropriate that its members face similar changes.
In 2012-13 pension contributions were increased in a similar way as applied to other public service pension schemes, and further increases for 2013-14 will apply from 1 April 2013. This will mean that:
Secretaries of State, the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons and Mr Speaker in the House of Lords will pay an additional 2.4 percentage points of pay, and a total of 4.8% higher than 2011-12;
Ministers of State, the Government Chief Whip, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lords, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords will pay an additional 1.6 percentage points of pay and a total of 3.2% higher than 2011-12; and
Parliamentary-Under Secretaries, the Government Whips and Opposition Whips will pay an additional 1 percentage point of pay and a total of 2% higher than 2011-12.
In line with other public service schemes, a further consultation will take place on the contribution increases for members of the ministerial pension scheme in 2014-15. Before these increases are implemented, I will consider any evidence of opt-outs from the scheme in line with the Government’s commitment given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Ministers in the House of Commons make separate contributions towards their pensions as Members of Parliament. Responsibility for the setting of pension provision for MPs is the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
The details of the new scheme have been laid before the House, along with a copy of the response to the consultation from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund Trustees.
1Independent Public Service Pensions Commission: Interim Report 7 October 2010. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/hutton_pensions.htm chapter 8.
2014 Local Elections
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Elections to the European Parliament will be held in the spring of 2014 and are currently scheduled to be held on 5-8 June, unless the Council of the European Union unanimously acts to change the date. In order to accommodate the Pentecost holiday in 2014, the Council has proposed moving the date of the 2014 European parliamentary elections to 22-25 May. The European Parliament will be consulted on this amendment before the Council formally adopts a decision to change the dates, which will mean that for the United Kingdom elections to the European Parliament would be held on Thursday 22 May. Local elections are currently due to be held on Thursday 1 May. This would potentially mean two sets of elections taking place within three weeks of each other.
Given this, I am today publishing a consultation document inviting views about moving the date of the local elections from 1 May 2014. The document is available on the Government website, and I have also placed copies in the Library of the House. While we are specifically inviting the views of councils and political parties and certain other consultees listed in the document, comments from all are welcomed. The consultation ends on 13 May 2013.
Firebuy Ltd
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I have today deposited in the Library of the House a copy of the annual report and accounts of Firebuy Ltd for the financial years 2010 to 2012.
Firebuy Ltd was an Executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government. It was a public policy failure of the last Administration, on top of the failed FireControl programme. In October 2010 it was announced that Firebuy was closing as part of the Government’s wider review of arm’s length bodies. It went into voluntary liquidation and ceased trading on 13 July 2011.
These accounts have been produced to report to Parliament for the expenditure incurred between 1 April 2010 to 13 July 2011 when Firebuy entered into liquidation and for all subsequent transactions up to 31 March 2012. In doing so my Department is fulfilling its intention to produce the accounts on Firebuy’s behalf in order to meet our commitments within managing public money and to be open and transparent.
The directors of Firebuy were discharged prior to completion of these accounts in order to allow Firebuy to enter into liquidation and close. Retaining the directors while these accounts were being produced would have delayed closure and incurred additional costs to the public purse in respect of an organisation that had failed to deliver value for money. By closing Firebuy the Department has saved over £1 million per annum.
We will be taking forward the lessons learnt from Firebuy’s operation (and the closure process) within my Department as well as disseminating across Whitehall.
Ultimately procurement is a matter for fire and rescue authorities to lead on based on their individual requirements. They are best placed to develop relevant models that ensure best practice standards are adopted as appropriate, so that the financial and efficiency benefits of inter- operability and collaborative procurement can be realised. Like other public bodies, fire and rescue authorities are encouraged to update the publicly available “Contracts Finder” with details of upcoming procurement to allow suppliers to access these opportunities and promote joined-up procurement.
Electricity Market Reform (Contingencies Fund)
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
The Department for Energy and Climate Change requires a cash advance of £6,580,000 from the Contingencies Fund for financial year 2013-14, to support urgent preparatory work to set up a contracts for difference (CFD) counterparty; to fund a panel of technical experts; and to fund external advisers in relation to transitional arrangements for early investors before parliamentary approval of both the specific enabling legislation and the necessary estimate.
Contracts for difference (CFDS) are designed to ensure sufficient investment comes forward in time to replace old generating plant due to close from 2016 onwards with new low-carbon plant, thus ensuring continued security of supply for the UK and contributing significantly towards achievement of our legally binding EU renewable energy target.
The Energy Bill will, subject to Royal Assent, provide for the establishment of a CFD counterparty. Work needs to commence now in order to ensure that the CFD counterparty is ready to sign and manage contracts for difference from mid-2014.
The Energy Bill also makes provision for transitional arrangements to enable developers to take investment decisions, where required, ahead of full implementation of electricity market reform. The Department needs to engage external advisers before the Bill receives Royal Assent to support the negotiation of any such arrangements to ensure they represent value for money for consumers.
Government have committed to setting up a panel of technical experts in order to scrutinise the analysis that will inform the first electricity market reform delivery plan. The first EMR delivery plan will be published in 2013 and set out the CFD strike prices for renewable technologies and the reliability standard for a capacity market. An advance is required to pay the panel for this work.
Accordingly, parliamentary approval for additional resources of £6,580,000 for this new service will be sought in an estimate for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £6,580,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
Low Carbon and Renewable Heat
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I am pleased to announce today the publication of DECC’s heat policy document “The Future of Heating: Meeting the Challenge”. I am also announcing the next steps for supporting renewable heating through the renewable heat incentive (RHI).
Heating is an integral and critical part of our lives and our economy, worth billions of pounds to industry and an essential element of all of our lives. The vast majority of heating is currently supplied by fossil fuels, comprising around a third of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions, and more than half of the UK’s natural gas usage.
We need a strategic plan if we are to change the way we heat our homes, businesses and industry in the decades ahead to meet our carbon emissions targets. That is why in March last year I published a vision for low-carbon heat. I made a commitment to produce a follow-up paper setting out policies and actions to help make the vision a reality. Today I am delivering on that commitment.
Today’s publication deals systematically with all the different heating requirements in the UK; and commits us to clear steps forward. To meet our long-term climate change target, we are going to have to change the way we generate, distribute and use heat in buildings and industry. This needs to be delivered in a way that is fair and affordable, and maximises benefits to the economy in terms of jobs, growth and investment. My Department has been engaging with a range of organisations in the public and private sectors, from business to consumer organisations, from local authorities to research establishments to develop these new proposals.
Last year’s document contained questions to which we received over 150 responses covering the domestic, commercial and industrial sectors. I would like to thank all those who submitted a formal response.
Heat for industry
I believe that there is a great opportunity for UK industry to become more efficient, save carbon and prosper in a low-carbon future, provided it looks ahead and prepares now. Different industry sectors face very different challenges. The key to greater efficiency and lower emissions lies in the nature of the particular industrial processes employed in each sector.
So with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my Department will work with industry over the next two years to develop a low-carbon “road map” for each industrial sector for the long term, focusing on the sectors that use the greatest amount of heat and represent the greatest carbon emissions. Through closer working with the companies themselves, we aim to understand more about how energy is used in each of these sectors and how it can be decarbonised.
Heat networks
Heat networks will be an important part of our low-carbon future—with the potential to provide heat to dense urban areas at a lower cost and with lower emissions. I am today announcing support to promote their deployment. To overcome the initial hurdle of heat network development, DECC will provide £6 million over the next two years. This will help authorities to carry out heat network planning and development, bringing forward projects to the stage where they are suitable for investment by the green investment bank and commercial lenders.
I will also establish a heat networks delivery unit to support local authorities in developing heat networks. This added capacity and expertise will supplement project teams in individual authorities—by sharing best practice, and identifying and tackling barriers to development to deliver a step change in heat network deployment.
Renewable heat incentive
The Government continue to make progress towards finalising all the details of the domestic RHI scheme and the expansion of the non-domestic RHI—the first scheme of its kind in the world. We intend to announce the final details of the domestic and expansions to the non-domestic RHI in summer 2013 and open the schemes for payment from spring 2014. To provide continued support to the domestic renewable heat market in the interim period we will extend the renewable heat premium payment scheme for a further year to March 2014 with the same level of support as in 2012-13. This will not affect current application deadlines, but will allow for new applications to come forwards.
The non-domestic RHI has been available for just over one year. In response to uptake of the policy and stakeholder feedback, my Department has looked at the evidence on the cost data and heat usage assumptions used to set the level of tariffs when the scheme was launched, alongside the level of uptake so far under the scheme. I concluded that some new input assumptions should now be adopted and my Department is working to identify what impacts this will have on tariffs. Later this spring, I propose to launch a short consultation on some tariff changes and to confirm our decisions in the autumn. We are progressing this work as quickly as possible. Subject to the necessary approvals and acceptable modelling outputs, I expect the outcome of this review to come into force by spring 2014. Where tariffs increase as a result of this review, it is DECC’s intention that installations accredited from 21 January 2013—when the early tariff review was first announced—would also benefit from that increase.
Where there is compelling evidence, I expect to consult on increased tariffs for some technologies and to leave other tariffs unchanged via this review process. The degression mechanism the Government announced in February will be used to reduce tariffs if required, according to our policy for budget management. Where we consulted on introducing new technologies into the scheme in September, we will provide an update on modelled tariffs as part of the consultation. However, decisions on their inclusion in the scheme and the final tariff level will be announced in the summer in the Government’s response to the September 2012 consultation.
The tariffs and technologies affected are summarised on the DECC website.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I attended the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 18 and 19 March in Brussels. Richard Lochhead MSP and Michelle O’Neil MLA also attended.
The main business of the Council was to agree Council’s position on the four regulations which set out the rules for the common agricultural policy (CAP) over the 2014-20 financial period; and agreement was reached on this late on Tuesday evening.
I am pleased to report that many of the key negotiating objectives for the UK were secured. I worked closely with all the devolved Administrations, and as a result we successfully secured key changes to address concerns for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales on issues such as internal convergence—the rules governing the move from historically based to area-based payments for those regions which have not already achieved that transition—and the designation of areas of natural constraint; and in particular, a change which was designed to clarify that implementation decisions on all aspects of the CAP can be taken at regional level. We will continue to represent the interests of the whole of the UK throughout the continuing discussions on the legislation, and in the negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament.
I made it clear that the Commission’s proposed “greening” of the CAP, which will involve part of the subsidy envelope being paid on the basis of compliance with environmental measures, should be delivered through a simple system, to achieve environmental benefits without imposing unnecessary costs on farmers, and to secure value for taxpayers. Council agreed to include an option for member states to design their own certification scheme to deliver the Commission’s “greening” outcomes, which has the potential to simplify implementation significantly, for both farm business and the paying agency.
I was disappointed that the majority of member states were content to allow farmers to be paid twice under two different budgets for delivering the same environmental benefit; but compromises were necessary, and this now forms part of the position. I made it clear that I shared the European Parliament’s opposition to this approach.
Although several member states wanted to extend sugar beet quotas to 2020, I worked with other member states to persuade the Council to agree that they will end in 2017. I am disappointed that they will continue beyond the date previously set for them to end but we have achieved a compromise and fought off calls for the end to be in 2020. The result is that sugar beet quotas will finally be scrapped benefiting consumers and our food processing industries. It is also important that we ensure availability of cane sugar supplies to allow cane refineries to compete on an equal footing; and I am determined to work with the Commission to persuade them to ensure fair treatment for cane sugar refiners.
The Council concluded that the ceiling for coupled payments in each member State—effectively, the proportion of their CAP subsidy envelope which can be linked to production—should increase from that proposed by the Commission. Under the proposals, member states, including the UK, which have made the most progress in decoupling payments, will be allowed to pay up to 7% of their direct payment budget as coupled payments. The remaining member states will be allowed up to 12%. I was disappointed that the Council proposed that coupled payments continue, and that different levels of flexibility should be allowed to different member states, but the agreement is a clear improvement on the European Parliament’s proposal for 15% or even 18%.
The presidency had mistakenly removed from its proposed compromise on the rural development regulation, wording which is relevant to the calculation of a portion of the UK’s rebate. I made it clear that it was essential for this mistake to be corrected, and the presidency ensured that it was corrected in the compromise further changes tabled on the second day. Following objections from a few member states, the presidency maintained the text with the necessary wording, but put the article in square brackets and referred it for resolution in the framework of the Council deliberation on the EU own resource decision. However, at my insistence they also made it clear that this issue needed to be resolved before the rural development regulation could be agreed.
I and other Ministers successfully argued against pressure from some member states to extend the use of market intervention. Reducing market intervention has helped to keep Europe on the path towards a more competitive farming sector, with less of a distorting impact of subsidy.
Under any other business, I raised the issue of the European Commission’s proposed action on neonicotinoids. A total of 11 member states supported my call for the Commission to use all the latest scientific evidence, before any final decisions were taken; in particular I asked the Commission to ensure that any decision was taken in the light of field studies into effects on bee populations. The protection of bees is vital; but action should be considered, proportionate and science-led. I promised to deliver the results of our field studies to the Commission and other member states by the week commencing 25 March 2013.
Also under any other business, the Netherlands presented a paper on trade difficulties with Russia who planned to ban the import of plants from the EU from 1 June. They were supported by other member states and called on the Commission to provide the phytosanitary information Russia requested. I echoed this call, as seed potato exports to Russia are important for Scotland. The Commission acknowledged the situation and indicated that it would raise the issue with the Russians.
Veterinary Products Committee
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
Today I am announcing the triennial review of the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC). The VPC is an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB) sponsored by DEFRA which advises the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State on veterinary medicines.
Triennial reviews of NDPBs are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.
The work for this review will begin in April 2013 and will be conducted in accordance with Government guidance for reviewing NDPBs. I will announce the findings of the review later in the year.
Further information on the review is available on DEFRA’s website http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/with/ndpb-review/.
Horsemeat Fraud
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I would like to update the House on developments since my written ministerial statement on 4 March 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, on the latest results from the testing of beef products for the presence of horsemeat.
In addition to the results of 5,430 industry tests reported to the House on 4 March 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, the Food Standards Agency has received further results from the UK-wide authenticity survey of beef products. The survey is of beef products on sale at a range of retail and catering outlets, with samples being collected by local authority enforcement officers across the UK. Public analysts are testing these products for both horse and pig DNA. While the majority of testing has been completed, results of some analysis are still awaited.
A total of 364 samples have been taken in the first two phases of this survey, including beef burgers, beef meatballs, minced beef, beef ready meals and tinned beef products. Two products have been identified which did not meet the sampling and analytical criteria, giving 362 samples on which the Food Standards Agency will be reporting. Results for five samples are in dispute. Where results are disputed, a retained portion of the food sample may be sent for further, independent analysis.
Of the 357 samples for which analysis has been completed, all but five were clear of both horse and pig DNA at the 1% reporting limit. Two samples contained over 1% horse DNA and three samples contained over 1% pig DNA. All these products have been withdrawn from sale and named on the Food Standards Agency website.
There have been no positive tests to date for the presence of bute in any of the UK food samples found to contain horse DNA.
The Food Standards Agency met representatives of the food industry on 14 March to discuss future collaboration and reporting of test results. There was general agreement on four areas of future collaboration, for each of which the Food Standards Agency will now draw-up implementation plans. These areas are describing good practice for food businesses in assuring their food chains, with a particular focus on supporting small and medium-sized food businesses; an improved framework for securing and sharing intelligence; developing shared priorities for future food authenticity work; and creating a repository for sharing data and information.
Food industry representatives also agreed to continue to provide data on their ongoing tests for horse DNA in processed beef products, with identification of individual products testing positive above the 1% reporting limit. The Food Standards Agency will next publish a summary of this information in early June, and will continue to report individual products testing positive above the 1% reporting limit as soon as they are confirmed by the food industry.
Although in the short-term our priority has been to focus on the deliberate substitution of beef with horse, this does not mean that we have ignored the possibility of beef products containing undeclared pork or pig DNA. Consumers have a right to expect that all the food they are eating is correctly described.
I recognise that even trace levels of pork contamination, below the 1% threshold, are unacceptable to some faith communities. Where a product is labelled as Halal and is found to contain traces of horse or pig DNA, the relevant local authority will investigate each case and take steps to ensure that consumers are informed.
It remains the responsibility of all food businesses (including processors, catering suppliers and retailers) to ensure that the food they sell is what it says it is on the label, and Kosher and Halal certification bodies have a part to play in this. Any claims on a product certified by a certification body must be accurate. It is for the certification body to set out the standards which a certified product must meet, and for that body to work with food businesses to ensure those standards are adhered to.
On 14 March senior officials from DEFRA, Food Standards Agency, DCLG and the Laboratory for the Government Chemist met with certifying organisations to discuss the Government’s testing programme. The main focus was the testing programme for detecting horse and pig DNA in beef products. They also discussed research being undertaken on detection levels and cross-contamination thresholds.
Investigations continue at a number of sites across the UK. City of London police is the co-ordinating Police Authority for these investigations. At a European-level the Food Standards Agency continues to work closely with the Commission and other member states, sharing information via the rapid alert system for food and feed.
We will be reporting the UK’s contribution to the Europe-wide programme of testing to the European Commission in advance of the deadline of 15 April.
I will continue to keep the House informed.
Fair Playing Field Review
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
The Fair Playing Field Review has been laid in Parliament today, in line with the requirement set out in section 1G of the National Health Service Act 2006.
The aim of the review is to ensure that patients are able to access NHS services delivered by the best possible providers. In June 2012, Monitor—the independent health care regulator—was asked to look into any matters that might undermine this aim, and to report back with options for addressing such matters. The Department would like to thank Monitor for its work, the results of which have been published as part of the review.
Revised NHS Constitution
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
The NHS constitution sets out the principles, values, rights and responsibilities that underpin the NHS. It sets out the enduring character of the NHS as a comprehensive and equitable health service. It is intended to empower the public, patients and staff to know and exercise their rights to help drive improvements throughout the NHS. The constitution sets out rights to which patients, public and staff are entitled, and pledges which the NHS is committed to achieve, together with responsibilities which we all owe to one another to ensure that the NHS operates fairly and effectively.
Between November 2012 and January 2013, the Department ran a full public consultation on a package of amendments to strengthen the NHS constitution. This consultation followed advice from a NHS Future Forum working group, which advised on options for strengthening the NHS constitution to support the fair and effective operation of the NHS.
Today we are publishing a revised NHS constitution, which strengthens a number of areas, including:
patient involvement;
feedback;
duty of candour;
end of life care;
integrated care;
complaints;
patient information;
staff rights, responsibilities and commitments; and
dignity, respect and compassion.
In addition, the public inquiry report into the failings at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, chaired by Robert Francis QC and published in February 2013, emphasises the role of the NHS constitution in helping to create a positive and caring culture within the NHS. Of the 290 recommendations made in the report, nine of them relate specifically to the NHS constitution. We are carefully considering these recommendations and have already acted on two them. So, as part of our initial response to the public inquiry report into the failings at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, we have made changes in the revised NHS constitution to reflect that the most important value of the NHS is for everyone to work together for the benefit of patients, while also giving the values more prominence in the constitution and accompanying documents.
Alongside the NHS constitution, we are publishing the following documents today:
a Government response to the consultation, which sets out detail about the changes being made to the constitution and follows an earlier report on what we heard from the consultation that was published on 15 February 2013; and
an updated handbook to the NHS constitution.
Copies of “The NHS Constitution”, and “Consultation on strengthening the NHS Constitution: Government response”, have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
“The Handbook to the NHS Constitution” has also been placed in the Library.
Retention of Biometric Data
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I have today launched a public consultation inviting views on the draft guidance on the making or renewing of national security determinations as set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A national security determination will enable the police and other law enforcement authorities to extend the length of time that they may retain an individual’s biometric data where it is necessary for the purposes of national security. These determinations are subject to independent review by the Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material.
The use of DNA and fingerprints by our police and other law enforcement agencies is a vital tool in the fight against crime and combating threats to our national security. However, in discharging our duty to protect the public, we will not undermine the importance of our historic freedoms. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 changed the law to ensure the public is safeguarded while also protecting those innocent people whose DNA is taken and held by the police. The new framework provided by the Act for the retention, destruction and use of such material provides the necessary balance between public protection and individual freedoms.
The draft guidance on the making or renewing of national security determinations is intended to provide clear guidance to the police on the exercise of these important powers and sets out both the principles and procedures required for making a national security determination under the provisions of the Act. A copy of the draft guidance will be placed in the Library of the House and full consultation details can be found on the Home Office website.
The consultation closes in May 2013 and I would encourage all interested parties to participate.
UK Counter-Terrorism Strategy
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Protecting the safety of the UK and our interests overseas is the primary duty of Government. Terrorism remains the greatest threat to the security of the United Kingdom.
I have today published the annual report for the Government’s strategy for countering terrorism, Contest (Cm 8583). It covers the progress made towards implementing the strategy that we published in July 2011. Copies of the report will be made available in the Vote Office.
The threat from terrorism is changing but remains substantial. The terrorist threats we face are now more diverse than before, dispersed across a wider geographical area, and often in countries without effective governance. Collaboration with international partners remains vital. There have been no attacks on the scale of 7/7 in Great Britain over the period covered by the report. But since December 2010, there have been at least five serious terrorist plots in this country and a very significant number of terrorism-related arrests and prosecutions.
Our counter-terrorism response continues to reflect our commitment to protect the people of this country and our interests overseas in a way that is consistent with core British values. We recognise that our response must continue to be based on partnerships at all levels—local, national and international. Communities, local authorities, Government Departments, agencies, devolved Administrations, our security industry and overseas partners all play vital roles in the successful delivery of Contest.
Staying ahead of the threat requires a dynamic and responsive counter-terrorism strategy. I am convinced that Contest will continue to provide a sound basis for our work and that we will build on our success.
Court and Tribunal Reform
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I have previously set out my plans for reform of rehabilitation services and youth custody, and will shortly be setting out proposals for further reforms to legal aid. I am today announcing that I have asked my Department to explore proposals for the reform of the resourcing and administration of our courts and tribunals.
The courts and tribunals are at the centre of our justice system, relied on by the public to enforce their rights and uphold the rule of law. As in other areas, we need to look at the way we deliver our services to provide a more efficient service that delivers access to justice quickly and effectively, while delivering value for money for the taxpayer. At the same time, we must preserve the independence of the judiciary which lies at the heart of our constitutional arrangements.
Our courts and judiciary command great respect around the world and we should be proud of their international reputation and the contribution they already make to our economy. This country is a major centre for legal services and dispute resolution. I want to explore how we can further enhance the position of the UK at the centre of the international legal market and the revenue it can generate.
I also want to ensure that those who litigate in our courts pay their fair share, and that it is possible to raise the revenue and investment necessary to modernise the infrastructure and deliver a better and more flexible service to court users.
I have therefore asked my Department to consider appropriate vehicles to achieve these aims, and the organisational structures that might best support this. I am clear that any new model must support the administration of justice as a core pillar of our constitution and its effective delivery will remain an important responsibility of the state.
I have discussed these ideas in outline with the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals and will continue to work closely with the judiciary as to the detail of these reforms, as well as work with the relevant Parliamentary Committees.
Rail Franchising
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
This morning I have announced to the stock market our long-term plans for rail franchising. This plan is designed to drive improvements to rail services, deliver on major infrastructure projects, and put passengers at the heart of a revitalised rail franchising system.
In addition to publishing a detailed timetable for all rail franchises over the next eight years, I am announcing the immediate start of the competition for the east coast franchise, currently directly operated, with the expectation the new franchisee will carry its first passengers by February 2015.
The new programme will provide long-term certainty to the market and support the delivery of the Government’s £9.4 billion rail investment strategy for 2014-19. The future competitions will also place passengers in the driving seat by ensuring that their views and satisfaction levels are taken into account when deciding which companies run our railway services.
In rolling out the programme the Department for Transport will work closely with the industry to negotiate further new services and more capacity in all franchising contracts while delivering the best deal for both passengers and taxpayers.
Delivering on Brown review recommendations, the new programme will provide a more sustainable schedule for rail franchising by delivering no more than three to four competitions per year, and staggering the two principal inter-city franchises, west coast and east coast, so they will not be let at the same point in the economic cycle.
In order to roll out the programme and stagger future competitions, it will be necessary to exercise a number of contractual extensions with current operators and to negotiate a series of direct awards with current operators. During these discussions the Department will look to negotiate further passenger benefits, which will ensure the best deal for tax payers. As a result, I will later today be serving notice on First Capital Connect and Southeastern to call seven period extensions available in their contracts.
The new franchise programme is set out below:
Franchise (Operator) | Owning Group | Current Franchise Expiry Date | Duration of Franchise Extension and/or Direct Award | Start Date of New Franchise |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Essex Thameside (c2c) | National Express | May 13 | 16 Months | September 14 |
Thameslink (First Capital Connect) | First Group | September 13 (FCC) | 12 months (FCC) | September 14 (FCC) |
& | & | & | & | |
Southern (Merge to become Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern) | Govia | July 15 (Southern) | n/a (Southern) | July15 (Southern) |
East Coast | Directly Operated Railways | n/a | n/a | February 15 |
Northern | Abellio/Serco | April 14 | 22 months | February 16 |
TransPennine (TransPennine Express) | First Group/Keolis | April 15 | 10 months | February 16 |
Great Western (First Great Western) | FirstGroup | October 13 | 33 months | July 16 |
Greater Anglia | Abellio | July 14 | 27 months | October 16 |
InterCity West Coast (Virgin Trains) | Virgin/Stagecoach | November 14 | 29 months | April 17 |
London Midland | Govia | September 15 | 21 months | June 17 |
East Midlands (East Midlands Trains) | Stagecoach | April 15 | 30 months | October 17 |
South Eastern (Southeastern) | Govia | April 14 | 50 months | June 18 |
Wales and Borders (Arriva Trains Wales) | Arriva | October 18 | n/a | October 18 |
South West (South West Trains) | Stagecoach | February 17 | 26 months | April 19 |
Cross Country | Arriva | April 16 | 43 months | November 19 |
Chiltern | Arriva | December 21 | n/a | December 21 |
In my statement of 31 January I announced that the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern would be a management style contract due to the level of investment and change on the route. For Great Western, our plan is to put to market a competed management contract in 2016. We will further develop this proposition in the light of experience with the Thameslink competition, which has similar infrastructure challenges, and will give consideration to the capacity in the market closer to the date.
In order to oversee this ambitious programme the Government are also announcing the formation of a new cross-industry Franchise Advisory Panel, headed by Richard Brown, which will provide independent advice and support to both bidders and the Department during the procurement process.
In addition, following an industry consultation, I will today, publish a revised policy statement under section 26 of the Railways Act. This has been updated to reflect current franchising policy and completes a Brown review recommendation.
All the relevant documents will be published on the Department for Transport website. Copies will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.
Search and Rescue Helicopter Services
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
On 28 November 2011 the Department for Transport started a competition to procure search and rescue helicopter services to replace the joint capability provided by the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, and Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). The procurement process has now finished, and I wish to inform the House of the results.
I am pleased to announce that a £1.6 billion contract has been signed today to provide a search and rescue helicopter service for the whole of the UK with Bristow Helicopters Ltd. I would like to recognise the very high quality and the maturity of the bids provided by the two companies who reached the final stages in this vital competition for an emergency service in the UK. In buying such an important service that protects the safety of individuals in our maritime industries and in dangerous conditions on land and around our coastline, it is vital that we had a robust competition with credible and thoroughly developed propositions from industry. I am confident that we did. I am equally confident that the contract we are entering into with Bristow Helicopters Ltd represents the best solution for the UK over the next 10 years.
This contract represents a major investment by the Government in providing a search and rescue helicopter service using the most up-to-date helicopters and meeting the highest professional standards. Operations will commence progressively from 2015 and the service will be fully operational across the United Kingdom by summer 2017.
The contract will enable the RAF and Royal Navy to withdraw from search and rescue activities in the UK and retire their fleet of Sea King SAR helicopters. It will also ensure service continuity when the current contracted MCA service expires. Services under the new contract will operate from 7 to 10 years and will be managed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Experience of front-line operations has informed the military decision that the skills required for personnel recovery on the battlefield and in the maritime environment can be sustained without the need for military personnel being engaged in UK search and rescue. I want to pay tribute to the outstanding service personnel who have displayed such enduring commitment and bravery in RAF and Royal Navy search and rescue squadrons. The service they have provided for over 70 years has been exemplary and the country owes them all an enormous debt of gratitude. The decision to cease military involvement in search and rescue in the UK was not made lightly. But with the Sea King nearing its 40th year of service, the time has come to change the way the service is provided and the aircraft used.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and its predecessor bodies, has 30 years experience of operating contracted search and rescue helicopter services using civilian aircrew. The existing MCA search and rescue contracts have delivered services of the very highest standards, and highly skilled civilian crews have won numerous awards for their bravery and dedication.
Bristow Helicopters Ltd is a UK company which has 36 years experience of providing search and rescue services in the UK, including 24 years with the MCA. The company has received numerous awards for SAR missions its civilian crews have undertaken, including chief coastguard’s commendations, coastguard rescue shields, the Prince Philip helicopter award and the Queen’s commendation for a mission in which 60 seamen were rescued.
Bristow Helicopters Ltd has completed more than 44,000 search and rescue operational hours in the UK and conducted over 15,000 missions, during which more than 7,000 people have been rescued by their crews.
The new service will operate a mixed fleet of 22 state- of-the-art helicopters from 10 locations around the UK. Sikorsky S92 helicopters will continue to be based at the existing MCA bases at Stornoway and Sumburgh, and at new bases at Newquay, Caernarfon and Humberside airports. AgustaWestland AW189 helicopters will operate from Lee on Solent, Prestwick airport, and new bases at St Athan, Inverness and Manston airports. All bases will be operational 24 hours a day. These base locations are strategically placed near areas with high SAR incident rates and will help ensure maximum operational coverage across the UK while reducing transit times to incidents.
This combination of aircraft and base locations will provide a world-class search and rescue capability. Helicopters will be able to reach a larger area of the UK search and rescue region within one hour of take off than is currently possible, and based on historic incident patterns we estimate that there will be an overall 20% improvement in flying times, with the average flight time reducing from 23 minutes to 19. Presently, approximately 70% of high and very high risk areas are reachable within 30 minutes. Under the new contract, approximately 85% of the same areas are reachable within this time frame.
The new contract will see the creation of over 350 new jobs. The AW189 will be assembled at AgustaWestland’s factory in Yeovil and Sikorsky plans to locate a supply hub in the Aberdeen region that will support not only the UK SAR programme but also Sikorsky’s large fleet of helicopters in the region serving the important offshore oil sector. The contract will have a significant impact on the UK supply chain, providing and sustaining jobs and apprenticeships.
The safety of professional mariners, aviators, all those travelling by sea or air, and all of those enjoying our seas, coasts and mountains for business or leisure is of paramount importance. This new contract, which will match or exceed our existing search and rescue capability, will ensure that this country’s search and rescue helicopter service will be the standard bearer, both in Europe and beyond.
Social Fund Loans Budget Allocation
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to announce that the gross national loans budget for 2013-14 will be £460.7 million.
The national loans budget is funded exclusively by recoveries from existing loan debt and will continue to provide a national budgeting loan scheme until full roll out of universal credit to help those still receiving income support, income-related employment and support allowance, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, and pension credit.
I will allocate the national loans budget in line with the provisions in the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The aim is to control and manage the national allocation while providing consistency of outcomes for budgeting loan applicants wherever they live.
In addition, the Secretary of State’s directions and guidance on the discretionary social fund have been amended with effect from 1 April 2013 to reflect the ending of community care grants and crisis loans and the continuation of budgeting loans. This includes maintaining policy arrangements under which budgeting loan decisions can be subject to a further review following an initial review by an appropriate officer in Jobcentre Plus.
I will place an explanatory note about the 2013-14 social fund loans allocation and a copy of the amended directions and guidance in the House Libraries later today.
State Pension and Benefit Payments (Cyprus)
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I would like to update the House on actions taken by my Department in response to the closure of the Cypriot banking system last week.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) acted swiftly to hold on to benefit and state pension payments to our customers with bank accounts in Cyprus or accounts with Cypriot banks in Greece due to the financial uncertainty and the extended bank closures. In any event, the bank closures mean that recipients would not have received their benefits as payments have not been processed. And when the Cypriot banks do reopen, delays in payment processing are possible.
DWP then took the decision to contact all those with state pensions or benefits affected by the situation in Cyprus. To speed up this process DWP couriered letters to Cyprus to ensure this information reached individuals as soon as possible. Our staff have also been contacting individuals in Cyprus by email and phone.
We are advising customers to change the bank account into which payments are made, for example by nominating an alternative bank account or the account of a “trusted friend” which is permissible under our current rules on benefit payment. This is a practical measure to ensure that payments reach our customers promptly, and we are not advising these customers to close their Cypriot bank accounts.
Customers who do not currently have another bank account may wish to open one. HM Treasury have also worked with Barclays to put in place a process so that individuals can open a bank account quickly if they wish to do so.
The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely from London and Nicosia and attempt to minimise the disruption for those affected.
Customers who wish to change their accounts, or require more information should contact the International Pension Centre, whose details are on the Gov.uk website.
Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
National Curriculum
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash)
My Lords, thank you for the opportunity to debate the Government’s proposals for the reform of the national curriculum in England. As noble Lords know, on 7 February, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education announced a number of proposals to improve the content and design of the national curriculum. These proposals are the product of a painstaking and thorough review which the Department for Education has undertaken over the past two years—a review that was launched with the expressed aims of restoring rigour and high standards, ensuring that all children are taught essential knowledge, skills and understanding in the key subject disciplines, and granting teachers greater freedom to design lessons that meet the needs of all pupils.
The proposals on which we are now consulting are the culmination of extensive analysis of curricula used in the world’s most successful education jurisdictions, particularly in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science, and consideration of nearly 6,000 submissions to our call for evidence. We have also engaged with teachers and head teachers from across the country to learn more about the most effective practice in England, and have worked with subject experts and key organisations across all national curriculum subjects to inform our thinking.
The launch of the consultation on our proposals last month was preceded by a number of other publications of interest. In December 2011, the review’s expert panel, chaired by the respected curriculum and assessment expert Tim Oates, published its report. This set out a series of recommendations for the new national curriculum framework. It formed part of a wider suite of documents setting out the results of the call for evidence and research conducted by the review. This included a summary of evidence gathered about curricula for English, maths and science in high-performing jurisdictions and a research report on subject breadth in the curricula used in other education jurisdictions. The findings uncovered consistent themes that have challenged some of the tenets of our current system, showing, for example, that high-performing jurisdictions set higher expectations in terms of what they believe children can and should master at different ages.
In June 2012, we published draft programmes of study for primary English, maths and science for wider discussion. Since then, we have discussed the drafts with key subject organisations, teachers and subject experts, and have reviewed the content in the light of the feedback we received. These discussions have informed the draft national curriculum that was published last month.
The new curriculum upon which we are now consulting is both challenging and ambitious. It benchmarks our expectations in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science against those displayed by the highest performing education jurisdictions.
It is right to place this debate in an international context and to learn from those who are performing best. These jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, Massachusetts and Singapore, which are shown by international surveys of pupils’ performance to consistently outperform England despite the best efforts of our many excellent teachers, deliberately set out to compare themselves against others, learning from other nations and asking constantly what is required to help all children do better.
Let me set out the scale of the challenge and how we are falling behind. Our performance in maths in the TIMSS study of pupil performance at the age of 10 has not improved since 2007, or at the age of 14. TIMSS science results show a drop in performance—at age 10, our mean score dropped markedly from 542 in 2007 to 529 in 2011, and at age 14 from 542 to 533. Our results in the PISA survey show that we are behind high-performing jurisdictions in reading, with an above average spread of attainment between pupils who do well and those who do not.
In the most recent PIRLS 2011 study, England ranked 11th out of 45 countries in the reading performance of pupils in the equivalent of year 5. Five countries performed significantly better than England: Hong Kong, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Finland and Northern Ireland. In the most recent PISA 2009 study, England ranked 25th out of 65 countries in the reading performance of pupils aged 15, falling from seventh in 2000; 28th out of 65 countries in the mathematics performance of pupils aged 15, falling from eighth in 2000; and 16th out of 65 countries in the science performance of pupils aged 15, falling from fourth in 2000.
Every performance measure reinforces the scale of the challenge that we face. In 2011, 18% of pupils in England left primary school without meeting the current expected standard in English, and 20% in mathematics. Employers and universities have also repeatedly highlighted school leavers’ lack of proficiency in these subjects. In mathematics specifically, England is among the countries with the lowest levels of participation for 16 to 18 year-olds, with fewer than 20% of young people studying mathematics to the age of 18. In most high-performing jurisdictions, the study of maths in this age group is almost universal. The Government have already set out their ambition for the vast majority of young people to study mathematics to the age of 18. It is therefore vital that we act now to create a new national curriculum that gives every child, regardless of their background, a broad and balanced education so that, by the time their compulsory education is complete, they are well equipped for further study, future employment and adult life.
Beyond ensuring that children are taught the essential knowledge in the key subject disciplines, we want to give teachers greater freedom to use their professionalism and expertise to help all children realise their potential. As part of this, it is important that schools and the wider public understand the difference between the statutory national curriculum and the whole school curriculum. All schools must provide a curriculum that is broadly based and balanced, of which the national curriculum is just one part. The school curriculum could be described as the way that schools bring the national curriculum to life and meet the needs of all their pupils. To do so, teachers must have freedom: freedom from top-down prescription and freedom to innovate. That is why there will be no statutory document to accompany this new curriculum telling teachers how to teach the subject content that it defines.
This is a huge cultural shift, but also a massive opportunity for teachers. In providing greater flexibility for professionals, we have considered changes to both curriculum breadth and depth. International evidence shows that high-performing jurisdictions tend to promote a wide range of subjects in compulsory education. We will therefore retain the current subject composition of the national curriculum, with the addition of foreign languages at key stage 2. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we will change the name of the subject currently known as ICT to “computing” to better reflect its new content. We do not believe that further prescription of subjects to be taught at key stage 4 is necessary or appropriate; we are using other measures such as the English baccalaureate to encourage more schools to offer a broad academic education to all pupils—particularly the most disadvantaged—to the age of 16, in line with our international competitors.
I am sure that noble Lords will be interested in some of the detail of the new curriculum. As I have already mentioned, programmes of study in all subjects—except primary English, mathematics and science—have been significantly slimmed down, removing unnecessary prescription about how to teach and setting out the essential knowledge and skills which every child should master. In primary English, maths and science, we have taken a conscious decision to provide a higher degree of exemplification in order to ensure that we achieve the step change in standards that is essential.
In English, there is greater emphasis on reading for pleasure, and greater clarity on spelling, punctuation and grammar. In mathematics, the new curriculum will place a stronger emphasis on arithmetic and will include more demanding content on fractions, decimals and percentages. In the sciences, the programmes of study we have published include greater detail on key scientific concepts and processes. The mathematical aspects of science have been strengthened, and for the first time primary schools will be expected to teach their pupils about evolution and inheritance.
For the first time, and in line with practice in other countries and evidence about children’s cognitive development, there will be an expectation that foreign languages will be taught in primary schools. As well as enhancing the status of languages in the school curriculum, this will provide a better foundation for the teaching of languages in secondary schools, where there will be new content on translation, grammar and vocabulary at key stage 3.
In citizenship, our proposals make financial education statutory for the first time, and similarly propose that practical cooking is compulsory at key stage 3 in design and technology. In music we have balanced performance and appreciation, and in art and design there is a stronger emphasis on drawing skills and on the historical development of art. In history, rather than a disconnected set of themes and topics, we have set out a clear chronological narrative of British and world history. In geography there is a greater emphasis on locational knowledge so that pupils can use maps and locate key geographical features such as oceans, cities and continents.
In PE, there is greater emphasis on competitive sport to build character and self-esteem and to improve teamwork. As well as being valuable in and of itself, this will help ensure that we build on the wonderful legacy of the London Olympics. Finally, as I mentioned, we propose to replace the old ICT curriculum with a new computing curriculum with a focus on the principles of computer science and practical programming skills to ensure that England retains a competitive edge in the growing digital economy that will be key to our nation’s future economic prosperity.
The new curriculum will provide parents everywhere with a clear guide to what their children should know and be able to do in every subject as they make their way through school. It will also provide those schools that are choosing to take advantage of the freedoms and opportunities afforded by academy and free-school status with a reference point for designing their own school curriculum. The consultation exercise on our proposals will run until 16 April and we are keen to hear from everyone with an interest before the new national curriculum is finalised and published later this year. The timing of the debate is therefore pertinent, and I welcome further discussion of these proposals. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, after that very helpful broad sweep I will focus only on design, because its importance has not been sufficiently realised. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his decision to broaden the measures for judging a school beyond English, maths and science to the pupil’s eight best subjects. This enlightened and far-seeing decision leaves room for design to become a subject of choice and for the fostering of centres of excellence, which will be much to our national advantage.
However, the curriculum that is proposed needs some rethinking. Many others think so, not least the 100 professors who wrote to the Daily Telegraph last Wednesday. They pointed out that the skills of problem-solving, critical understanding and creativity are losing out in the battle to raise standards. A proper design curriculum would go far to fill that gap. I should say at the outset that no one wants to lower standards, and that the Secretary of State’s attempt to entrench rigour is well understood. However, the whole of the design community, from practitioners to academics, is united behind wanting a more relevant—in fact, a more rigorous—syllabus. The Design Council has spoken of a “lost design generation” if this element of the curriculum is not brought up to a modern standard.
For a start, there are two syllabi that feature design: art and design, and design and technology. This is confusing. The idea of design in both syllabi falls far short of what design means now. In the art and design syllabus it seems to mean only the use of material and techniques for executing works of craft and art. The design and technology syllabus, too, concentrates on materials and includes cookery, mechanics, maintenance and horticulture. There is nothing about digital technology, one of our most promising design developments, and there is a perfunctory nod to our great national tradition of invention and design. It says that pupils should,
“investigate the rich history of design and technical innovation”.
I wonder what the pioneers and icons of that tradition, Sir Humphry Davy, Watt, Stephenson—or Sir Jonathan Ive—would have thought of their great expertise being exemplified by classes in maintenance and a balanced diet.
Why does this matter? Excellence in design is—at the moment—one of our great national strengths. We export more than £45 billion-worth of design-related goods and services to the EU alone and about £18 billion- worth to Asia and beyond, providing more than 900,000 jobs. Design-related goods and services make for about 4.5% of total UK exports. We have a truly world-class capability in design and it is highly export-facing. None of that will last if we impoverish the design curriculum in schools. It would also betray our historic prowess in innovation to forget, and allow our children to forget, that it was our great tradition of industrial and architectural design which created the economic basis for our place among developed nations and, I would argue, quite a lot of the social and cultural basis too.
How should design be taught? Good model syllabi have been presented to the Secretary of State by the Design Council and professional design organisations. To summarise: design is a problem-solving, multidisciplinary and collaborative process, which places the user’s needs at its centre. Of course it uses materials and techniques, but that is subordinate to developing the capacity to make an idea for solving a problem into a reality. It is a sound intellectual basis for many other capabilities and it fits its pupils to become active citizens and agents of change. Its relation to art is not the technical mastery that artists require to realise their vision, but rather it is the bridge between arts, science and technology, which enables the making of innovatory products and services. The hundred professors might have been talking about design when they concluded their letter by saying:
“Schools in high-achieving Finland and Massachusetts emphasise cognitive development, critical understanding and creativity”.
I urge the Minister to ensure that their message is listened to.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I want to speak as a primary teacher on the primary school curriculum. The clue is in the title: “draft”. It is a draft, and this is the opportunity for us to give our own views. All of us, probably, have been bombarded by different organisations claiming all sorts of concerns. We only have to look back to the 1980s when the only subject that was legally required to be taught at primary level was religious education. Then there was the scandal of the William Tyndale school, and of course Mr Baker—now the noble Lord, Lord Baker—with his national curriculum of core and foundation subjects. It is to his credit that a lot of that is still in place and that many of the subject parts are there.
However, the most important thing of course about a curriculum is that it has to give teachers the opportunity to teach. You can have the best national curriculum in the world but unless you have high-quality inspiring teachers, nothing else really matters. Perhaps we will come to history in a moment, but that reminds me of a quote from Alan Bennett, the author of “The History Boys”:
“Teachers need to feel they are trusted. They must be allowed some leeway to use their imagination; otherwise teaching loses all sense of wonder and excitement”.
I welcome a slimmed-down national curriculum and also the opportunity for education to be broad and balanced. We do not want a curriculum, as currently, of 150 pages but do want the opportunity for teachers to flourish. A slimmed-down national curriculum gives teachers more freedom to adapt their lessons to children in their class and local circumstances.
I said at the beginning that no doubt there will be lots of people and organisations giving their own opinion. Perhaps surprisingly, I want to congratulate the people who put together this draft; they have done a first-rate job. There are things in this that I am very satisfied with. With regard to the core subjects, I like the focus on content and stretching, particularly for achieving pupils. I do not subscribe to this nonsense about, “Why are we insisting that children at age 11 should know their multiplication tables up to 12?”. It is part of mathematics to know your tables. I do not subscribe to this nonsense that perhaps there is too much reliance on spelling and punctuation. My goodness, English is about spelling and punctuation. It is about oracy and being able to recite a poem. It is about reading for pleasure.
Then we look at languages. I have sat on a Select Committee looking at how SMEs can be encouraged to export more, and one of the key parts of that report said that we should be teaching languages in our schools. The best way to teach languages is with young children. There was a pilot in my home town of Liverpool where we started teaching languages to four and five year-olds, and the results were spectacular. Once this curriculum has bedded in, perhaps we could visit that at some later stage. My other concern is that perhaps we are being a bit restrictive on the languages that we are teaching. We need to look at other languages, particularly those of the developing world.
I like the notion of PSHE being there. I am concerned that citizenship should be part of key stage 2 as well. I am delighted that swimming is an integral part of PE, and about music and dance. Using the local environment in science may answer the concerns of the Woodland Trust.
I am concerned about sex education. Why do we have this view that we should not teach sex education to key stage 2 pupils? I do not know. I teach it to key stage 1 pupils. It needs to be natural. Some of the girls at primary school will be starting their periods, and they need to know about sex education. It should not be left until key stage 3.
There has been a lot of fuss about climate change. Actually, I think that climate change is clearly there as part of the mandatory science curriculum, but if there are concerns then let us address them. Then there is history, but I have one minute left to speak so I will come back to that on another occasion.
Teaching cannot be prescriptive. Different teachers use different methods to develop children. If this is a national curriculum, why is it not national? Why are 60% of our schools not going to be using it? I am talking about academies and free schools. If we have a national curriculum, surely it should be national.
My party has argued for years for a shorter, more focused curriculum. We are ambitious for all our children. That is why I believe that our children should have the chance to work on content that is as stretching as those in the best-performing countries. It is our teachers who know the most effective way to teach an individual child in their class. The curriculum respects the professionalism of teachers on the front line by giving them more freedom to do what is best for the pupils in their class.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for making it possible for us to have this debate on the curriculum, which it is not going to be possible to debate in the Chamber because it will not involve any new lawmaking.
Personally, I have no argument with the Government’s policy of basic skills such as reading and writing being improved, nor with maths, science, English and foreign languages being emphasised and standards being raised. However, I am concerned about what the Government have left out. There is a real danger, given that schools’ resources are finite, that if they are told to do subjects A, B and C but no mention is made in the curriculum of D, E, F and G, they are going to concentrate their resources on A, B and C. Of course they are; that is how they will get rewards and a good Ofsted report, and it is what the Government will give them more money for.
I am going to raise only one issue, which is of particular importance to me, but first I should like to make this point. The Government’s position paper speaks eloquently about the importance of clear aims in education policy and the curriculum, but it fails to spell out clearly what those aims are. They refer to the wider definition set out in the 2002 Act of spiritual, moral and cultural development, but even that does not include social values, which I shall talk about in a moment. I can find nothing in the Government’s proposals to suggest that they recognise the importance of the so-called soft skills. Surely the overriding aim of education must be to prepare young people for the challenges, opportunities and responsibilities of adult life. Soft skills play a key role in adult life. They are important for employment and are crucial in establishing and sustaining a family and raising children. Further, they can make a considerable contribution to increasing social mobility in our society. I will not detail what the soft skills are because I might take too long, but I expect that most noble Lords are fully aware of the skills of empathy, emotional literacy and so on.
Recent neurological research shows that a child’s experiences in the first two years of life are a critical factor in that child’s success in school and later in adult life. It is during the first two years that a child learns the crucial emotional skills. It learns that it is safe and valued, and it begins to learn to love and be loved. That is why secure attachments in the very early years to one or two dedicated carers, which Bowlby told us about 50 years ago when no one believed him but have now been proved by biological science, is fundamentally important to a child’s development. The Government have responded to this research by introducing the early years initiatives, excellently presented by Graham Allen MP. I strongly support the programme, but standing alone, in my view, it is not enough. We must do more to prepare all the nation’s young people for adult life by helping them to acquire while at secondary school the soft skills they will need for employment and to form stable families.
Sadly, PSHE has been relegated to a very low priority in most secondary schools. In those schools where it is covered at all, it is often taught by teachers with no specialist training in the subject. To achieve this kind of education effectively, a new and broader PSHE programme should be developed and then delivered by specialist teachers with experience. They should be trained to lead young people in an exploration of and preparation for adult life.
I want to suggest three modest things that the Minister might do to help this along. The first would be to make mention in the current revised curriculum of the importance of developing soft skills. Reference should be made to the importance of these skills outside the narrow curriculum, but certainly in the wider one, or how will schools know what their priorities should be? They have a limited amount of money and a limited number of teachers. The second would be to bring together an expert advisory group to prepare a report on the best ways to give secondary school pupils the opportunity to prepare for adult life, while the third would be to sponsor a pilot project at a major teacher training institution to undertake an experimental course training specialist teachers to deliver such a course interactively, led by young people’s own needs and interests.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the admirable way in his excellent opening speech in which he summed up the issues facing us. This debate offers us all the opportunities that a bran tub presents to a small child—so many possibilities. Part of me wanted to talk, like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about history. Part of me wanted to talk about music, but I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, may do so later. I want to talk about animal welfare and its place in the national curriculum, in particular relating to domestic animals and pets. It is proper for me to declare a feline interest as an owner of a venerable Russian Blue cat, Victoria, who is 17 next month. I had her and her welfare very much in mind while I have been putting together these remarks.
Despite the wonderful work of many animal welfare charities—I think in particular of Cats Protection, which is the UK’s leading feline welfare charity and has helped more than 1 million cats in the past five years—there is still an endemic problem within our society relating to animal welfare. In 2011, the last year for which a full set of statistics was available, more than 126,000 dogs were allowed to stray by their owners, which represents an increase of 30% in three years. In the same year, Cats Protection rehomed and reunited 48,000 cats and kittens. Blue Cross experienced an increase of 57% in the number of unwanted rabbits that they were asked to rehome. Most worryingly, PDSA research shows that of the estimated 22 million pets in the UK, more than 10 million may not be having their welfare needs met.
The reasons behind such shocking and alarming figures are no doubt complex. In some ways they reflect the state of the economy, among other things. However, it is inevitable that education, or indeed lack of it, about animal welfare is one of those reasons. Problems of neglect, cruelty and abandonment often happen because people do not understand what a pet needs and how to care for it. One of the best ways, over time, to tackle this issue is therefore to ensure that children are taught properly about how to care for pets. Children, after all, are the pet owners of the future. Yet, currently only 16% of children are taught about caring for a domestic animal, despite the fact that more than 60% of children will be from homes keeping a pet. This is not a marginal issue but one that clearly relates to the majority of children.
Our animal welfare charities, which so often are unsung heroes, do what they can to train young people in animal welfare issues. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and PDSA delivered education talks to more than 175,000 children in 2011. There is a big appetite in schools for information and training in this area. A survey for the Pet Food Manufacturers Association in 2012 found that 78% of primary school teachers and 70% of secondary school teachers agreed that it was important to teach younger children responsibility through learning to care for pets. The RSPCA ran courses for nearly 4,000 teachers in 2011.
However, there will always be a limit to what voluntary bodies with tight resources, limited manpower and uneven geographical spread can achieve—and here the national curriculum is therefore vital. It is very good that the draft curriculum makes reference to the basic needs of animals within the year 2 primary science curriculum, but this relates only to survival and the need for water, food and air. However, an animal’s needs are not limited to those. There are, in fact, as the Animal Welfare Act 2006 sets out, five basic welfare needs—environment, diet, behaviour, companionship, and prevention of pain, suffering and disease—which contribute to a healthy and happy life for our pets. All need to be learnt.
A new subject does not need to be added to the curriculum to deal with this issue, nor does it cross the vital line that my noble friend mentioned of becoming involved in how a teacher teaches. All that is necessary is for the current reference to basic needs to be amended slightly to allow teachers the flexibility and scope to teach about all five welfare needs, linking them to scientific knowledge and concepts within their lessons. In short, the concept of development needs to be placed alongside survival in the year 2 curriculum. Such a tiny change could bring benefit of real significance, not just to many defenceless animals in the future but to the way in which children grow and develop. Teaching children from an early age about the importance of caring for pets will help them to integrate effectively with others and understand the importance of responsibility, something that has profound benefits for society as a whole.
It is, as they say, a win-win scenario that I urge my noble friend to accept, and one which will not make any greater burden on teachers or require surgery to the draft curriculum. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will undertake to look further at this matter.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I will focus on modern foreign languages and declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on modern languages. The reasons why learning a language is important are clearly not controversial, judging by the Education Secretary’s recent comments. It improves oracy and literacy in English and has all-round cognitive benefits. As Mr Gove put it:
“It is literally the case that learning languages makes you smarter. The neural networks in the brain strengthen as a result of language learning”.
Learning other languages enriches cultural knowledge and understanding; benefits the UK economy and enhances employability.
There will, however, be unintended consequences of the new language curriculum for the system of adequate secondary school accountability unless certain issues are resolved upfront. The Government are quite right to commit to statutory languages at key stage 2. The Language Trends survey, published only last week, shows that 97% of primary schools are doing this already, but this figure masks some critical problems and disparities which could make the policy backfire. Nearly a quarter of primary schools have no staff with foreign language competence beyond GCSE and some are even worse off. Will the Minister tell us what investment the Government will make in the support, training, guidance and recruitment of suitable teachers so that all 18,000 primary schools are properly equipped by September 2014?
The transition to secondary also requires attention. Teachers in year 7 commonly start all over again with languages, because children arrive with such different levels of achievement. This demoralises and demotivates them. Will the Government encourage schools to use either the languages ladder or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages to help?
The Government propose a list of seven languages to choose from, but I fear that this may exacerbate the transition problem. Perhaps key stage 2 should be confined to French, except where an LEA-wide agreement exists between all primary and secondary schools to teach another language. This is the case in Hackney with Spanish and guarantees continuity and progression. In general, however, French is the only language for which there is a realistic hope of finding enough teachers and for which progression to secondary school could be planned and achieved.
This should not stop additional languages being offered at key stage 3—and not just Spanish and German. Other languages identified by the recent British Academy report as important for British international and commercial interests include Cantonese, Arabic and Turkish. Will the Minister look at reinstating the Asset Languages qualifications, withdrawn by the OCR? It is short-sighted to praise the language skills of children who speak what we call community languages, but to deny them the opportunity to turn their casual or domestic level of competence into something more academic and professionally useful.
A rather shocking piece of information was reported to the all-party group the other week by the head teacher of one of the specialist language-teaching schools. She told us that she had met primary heads who were saying openly that they planned to apply for their schools to become academies to avoid the national curriculum requirement to teach foreign languages. I would like to hear the Minister confirm that this is not only undesirable, but wholly unacceptable, and tell us what the Government will do to prevent any school becoming an academy in order to avoid offering modern languages.
Moving on to key stages 3 and 4, the Language Trends survey shows very positive teacher feedback in favour of terminal exams as proposed by the Government. However, the Government should think again about their new secondary school accountability system based on the first eight GCSEs. This would allow schools to get their points whether the pupils take languages or not. The LTS shows that the boost to take-up from the EBacc last year has been sustained, which is good, but it has not increased, despite the Government’s forecast that the EBacc would transform languages’ take-up. Will the Minister accept that, unless languages are compulsory at key stage 4, take-up will never get back to its 2004 level?
Languages are meant to be compulsory at key stage 3, but the survey revealed that one in five state schools disapplies lower-ability pupils. On top of that, a quarter of state schools have shrunk key stage 3 to two years, leaving us with large numbers of children with hardly any language learning at all. What will the Government do to reinforce compulsory languages at key stage 3? They should be spearheading a national languages recovery programme to create a coherent, statutory languages pathway from key stage 2 right through to the end of compulsory education, just as there is for maths. There are some welcome aspects of the proposed new languages curriculum, but it is not yet well enough thought through to provide or sustain the step change we need.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I, too, welcome several aspects of the proposals of the new national curriculum. I welcome the idea of languages from age seven. There is evidence that if a child learns a second language early, he will find it easier to learn other languages later and it is generally advantageous to his cognitive development. Is seven too young? No. Many children in my neck of the woods learn Welsh and English at the same time from day one, and my grandchildren learnt English and Chinese from day one. However, how about including language experience courses in primary schools, rather than just forcing schools to choose from a restricted list of languages? That would avoid many of the problems outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins.
I welcome personal finance in citizenship lessons. At least citizenship is currently statutory, and I hope it will remain so. Also, welcome back to cooking. Cooking is cross-curricular, of course; you can get a great geography lesson out of a good curry.
I welcome computer science to replace IT and its place in the EBacc. Ian Livingstone, the co-founder of the Games Workshop, said recently:
“You know something is wrong when you have a million young people unemployed, and 100,000 jobs vacant in IT”.
Employment in the IT industry is expected to grow at nearly five times the UK average over the next decade, but there is a major and growing skills gap that, unless addressed, will damage the UK economy. So it is great that we are switching to proper computer science.
However, unless at the same time we also address the lack of careers advice about opportunities in the industry, young people will still not choose the subject. Where will the teachers come from? The main problem is a lack of enough teachers with the right knowledge and experience. Here there is good news. Last week I went to a presentation, hosted by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, at which a presentation was made by major players in the industry, and it became clear to me that there is enormous enthusiasm and desire to help schools and universities produce appropriately qualified young IT specialists. The Government must harness this enthusiasm. Indeed, there is no other way of staffing schools and universities to do the job, so there must be a true partnership between the Department for Education, BIS and the industry.
The rest of the science curriculum must also be relevant to the major global issues of our time. Why cut out debate about climate change from geography and put a mere mention of it into chemistry? This aspect of the proposals was criticised by Sir David King, the former Government Chief Scientific Adviser. That is not all, though; food security is mentioned only in passing. Why not include issues about the catastrophic effects of the loss of biodiversity? This serious global problem, usually caused by habitat destruction, is responsible for poverty; the loss of food security, water security and many valuable medicinal plants; the loss of sustainable livelihoods for some of the world’s poorest people; the reduction in the ability of the natural world to adapt to the inevitable climate change; and much else. In other words, it is an absolute disaster, the scale of which we have yet to see but will come to regret, and there is no mention of it in the science curriculum. Neither is there any mention of engineering, which we are told will solve the energy crisis. I hope that creative science teachers will use their newfound freedoms to introduce these enormously important subjects into their teaching. The science curriculum is one that I would have recognised when I was at school more than five decades ago.
I also regret the absence of PSHE. How can a school offer a broad and balanced curriculum and prepare a child for the challenges and opportunities of life without the elements of PSHE? However, at least science is statutory, so it is important that science includes the most important elements of PSHE, including relationship and sex education—and note that it should be that way around. The science curriculum should teach pupils about growing up and cover sex with honesty and confidence. It should adopt clear, open language and a positive tone relating to human reproduction and health, and should include young people from the gay and lesbian community without embarrassment.
Of course parents should be engaged with this part of the curriculum and it should be age-appropriate, but it should certainly be timely. Children should know about puberty before it happens to them—that is, at key stage 2. At key stage 3, the current content on sexual health and disease, contraception and adolescence should be retained and information about hormones and abortion should be added. However, it is difficult to include in science those parts of a good PSHE curriculum that foster self-respect, confidence and the respect for others that cuts down bullying in schools and makes children their own best protectors. Now is not the time to squander the opportunity of ensuring that all children are given the sort of education that will enable them to protect themselves.
Baroness Kidron
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black, for mentioning his cat, since I am going to mention my children. I declare an interest as a co-founder of Film Club, a charity that has a presence in more than 7,000 state schools.
Tim Oates’s review lays out the four pillars of an education as practised across all the high-performance jurisdictions. I found it helpful because one of my children goes to an independent day school and this, broadly speaking, is the education that he is given. In his school the spectre of the EBacc qualification neither reared its head nor receded, as it was declared stillborn, nor did it suffer the decline in music and art teachers as the status of the arts was diminished. The announcement of the history curriculum, decried by academics and at least one of the Government’s own advisers, is not a conversation that will touch these young men. When the dust settles, they will still get multiple A*s on a broad curriculum that sees England as more than an island and develops their intellectual curiosity in a wider world. These children do not have to make choices between arts and science or drama and languages. They have sex education and a broad range of extracurricular activities. Perhaps most importantly, their school’s reputation is judged not on part but on the whole.
By contrast, a year ago I found a young child emerging from a GCSE consultation in tears, not understanding why she was being “forced”—her word, not mine—to take history. There were more tears from a teen in Southampton, unable to get on a vocational course at the age of 16 because it was being reconfigured to start at 17. She was unable to return to school because she did not have the correct GCSEs but was unable to get a job or claim benefits because she should be in education.
What of the eloquent teenager in a council chamber in the north-west, making a case for her student council that was being disbanded, only to hear the councillor say with great regret that he had no jurisdiction over the school because it was now an academy? As the importance of oral learning is finally established across the curriculum and the CBI makes a case for the importance of transferable skills, student councils, a perfect rehearsal for public life, can be dropped in our “flagship” schools with no accountability.
Perhaps worst of all, for me, were the woeful faces of those who missed a grade boundary last summer, their plans in tatters as the goalposts were moved in the middle of the game. These children, unprotected by privilege, are the victims of an ideological tussle played out in our schools by Ministers insisting on targets that distort the allocation of resources and exacerbate the gap between those with access to cultural and financial capital and those without.
The Government have indeed solicited advice from the best educational jurisdictions, which unanimously recommended a broad curriculum, yet we are faced with a proposed system in which some subjects are more equal than others. If we are to help young people to contribute to the life of the nation, why has citizenship been demoted and why are ethics, religion and philosophy not in the academic core, as in the French bacc? If personal development is a cornerstone of good learning, why has there been obfuscation of the language that describes issues of puberty and genitalia in science, while PSHE has been left out of the discussion altogether to fight an uphill battle on an entirely separate battlefield?
The national curriculum review asserts that curricular aims are,
“essentially ethical, moral and political statements, making transparent the values and ambitions to which a nation aspires”.
This process has not been coherent. There is implicit unfairness in setting the rules according to the status of the institution rather than the needs of the child. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, if it is a national curriculum, why not have it in all our schools? In my view, what has been described—I do not have time to go into it in detail—is detailed but simply not ambitious enough, broad enough or deep enough for children who lack privilege in other parts of their lives.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am a great fan of the national curriculum review. It is set out with the right principles underlying it of increasing emphasis on knowledge and on ambition and is well executed. The current consultation is a real consultation. I have had several conversations with departmental officials and found them more than willing to listen. I am hoping that today we shall have an example of a Minister who is more than willing to listen. We shall see. Therefore, I encourage my noble friend Lord Storey to write in and say what he wants to say about sex education. I suspect that some members of the ministerial team live quite sheltered lives down in Sussex and Norfolk. I can tell them—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nash, can—that life in central London is a bit different and that the worst bits of the internet are well into primary schools in year 5, and we want our children to be helped to resist them and overcome them. Leaving things until secondary school is not good enough. However, as I say, I encourage my noble friend and others to write in and say that.
I very much hope that my right honourable friend will resist those of the 100 who want him to change the history curriculum. I am delighted that we have got history away from the academics who think that history is about studying history, and to understand that it is about people—us—our roots and why we are and who we are. I encourage him to get through the whole of British history in the primary curriculum. Simon Jenkins compresses it into 250 very readable pages, which I hope my daughter will get through in six months, or perhaps rather less, at a rate of a chapter a day. History is not a burden to be considered but an essential part of being British. I am delighted to see it back.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, focused on the design and technology curriculum. It has, indeed, been filleted. All that is left is horticulture, cooking and DIY. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will say to his colleague Michael Gove, “Look at what has been done here. This is the most marvellous opportunity. Here we have a subject which has imploded on itself, where, in most schools in the country, the teaching is disconnected from anything else. There is far too much low-quality teaching in craft and design and where we have swept it out of the curriculum let us put something in its place. Why don’t you, Michael, do what you have done so triumphantly in computing and challenge the engineering, design and materials industry to come up with something worth while in this space because technology has now made this possible? You can get, at no great price, decent computers. You can get very good programmes to put on them. You can get lovely machines to stick on the end of both of that—things like 3D printers and computer-controlled routers and laser cutters. You can create quite sophisticated things. Put an end to these useless wooden bookshelves that fall apart on the second day of use and start to create in this space something which should be the foundation for pupils to enjoy engineering and take a real delight in what they can do and create, and a foundation for people who will go on enthusiastically to careers in engineering, design and other such areas”. If we do this, we will find that what emerges in the design and technology space supports what we want to see being done in the main subjects. Mathematics can be brought back at an advanced level. You can take the sort of approach that Conrad Wolfram wants and bring really sophisticated mathematical analysis into how to make something of a particular shape. There is an awful lot of physics in studying how to build something and then control it properly.
Opportunities will arise to deal with the presently separate art and design curriculums because they will be using computers. Schools are being given the opportunity to create real interfaces with business because when they are equipped with this kit, which as I say is not a great price, they will have something that every small and medium-sized enterprise involved in manufacturing will envy and want to come and use out of hours. They will want to co-operate with the school, which means that the school will have access to people in industry. The kit is up to date and what people in industry as well as schools want, and there will be real opportunities for creating the kind of collaboration that we would like to see. Beyond everything else, it would make sense of the opportunities being provided by the new computing curriculum. I hope very much that this is a cause which my noble friend will espouse.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, in view of the points I am about to make, I have to declare two interests. I shall be speaking briefly about Ofsted, so I should declare that I was formerly a Chief Inspector of Schools. I also declare an interest in computing and computer science, so I warmly support the points that have been made, not least about the presence of IT in design. I am the non-executive chairman of a company called Frog Trade which operates in Halifax and employs 90 software engineers, many of whom are recruited locally. The absence of appropriate training in schools will be a difficulty. Frog Trade supplies more than 20% of English secondary state schools with their IT and software, and will be supplying every mainland Malaysian school with IT and software products. That is a sign of the importance of having this discipline embedded in young people’s development. It is there anyway, so we might as well support it in the curriculum.
Let me offer some statistics. I repeat without apology two that were given to us by the noble Lord in introducing the debate. In 2011, some 18% of pupils in England left primary school without meeting the current expected standards in English, while 20% did not meet the expected standard in maths. I shall add two further statistics to those. Some 30% of 16 year-olds do not achieve the expected standards of literacy, and the real shocker is that over half of those who are serving sentences in Her Majesty’s prisons are functionally illiterate and innumerate. We are failing many young people in our society, and that alone is justification enough for looking once again at the priorities that must deliver an education to deal with these problems.
Perhaps I can give some bold and rational advice. Following on from Micawber, if there are 36 teaching hours in a week and we provide material for 37 actual hours of teaching, the result will be frustration and bad education. If there are 36 teaching hours and we provide 35 hours of content, perhaps professionalism and balance in education will be part of our legacy. It means that we have to be careful not to say that everything should go into the curriculum. One of the great heresies is this: if something must be learnt, it must be in the school curriculum. That is a mistake. My grandchildren pick up huge amounts of learning from what are sometimes rather dubious forms of education. Indeed, if I were pushing my special area, I would be arguing that Socratic dialogue should be compulsory for all students at key stages 2, 3 and 4, but I think I might lose.
The national curriculum is one of the three great pillars of our education system. One pillar deals with content, which is the curriculum, one deals with standards in the form of national testing, and the last deals with accountability, which is national inspection. All three play an important part. The danger in this consultation—this is where I differ from the force of the papers that we received—is that we select this one topic, the national curriculum, without looking at the impact on the other two areas, which are significant.
I remind noble Lords of some of the other heresies to demonstrate what I mean. Heresy one is that it is too readily assumed that only the examined in education are likely to be taken seriously or to be of any value at all. We assume that examination is the criterion of importance. This is the head teachers’ heresy. Head teachers who bow to this principle in what they do should be condemned. Heresy two closely follows this—the twin educational sins of teaching to the test and focusing on those students who might be coaxed from grade D to grade C. This is the bad teachers’ heresy. The third heresy, which has been mentioned, is that the national curriculum is to be equated with the school curriculum. This is the lobby groups’ heresy. It is not true that one overlaps completely with the others. The principle behind what we are talking about is that there should be a core—for the statistical reasons that I have given, if no others—but there should be a balanced education.
Accountability takes place significantly through examinations, but it is limited accountability. Ofsted is the other source of accountability and I suggest to the Minister that he takes back to his colleagues the idea that Ofsted be tasked with looking at those areas of the curriculum that are perhaps not in the core but encourage soft skills that deal with PSHE, and with making explicit judgments on schools and their success in providing whole-pupil education in a balanced form. Perhaps that is the stick that is needed, and Ofsted could provide it. I hope that that idea can be taken forward, and I am pleased that there is consultation on accountability as well as on the curriculum.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I warmly welcome the objective at paragraph 1.1 of the consultation to,
“ensure that all children are taught the essential knowledge in the key subject disciplines”,
and the proposal to replace the current ICT curriculum with a new computing curriculum with more emphasis on practical programming skills. I also welcome the recognition that we have a moral obligation to the youth of today to ensure that they have the essential skills and tools to function in an increasingly digital world.
There is a massive IT skills shortage across all industries, due to the decline in numbers of computer science graduates. The UK Council of Professors and Heads of Computing estimates that there is a 15% rise in demand for IT professionals, while the number of students aiming for jobs in the industry has fallen by 50% since 2001. The number of people studying any form of computer science in the UK has fallen by between 24% and 28% since 2002.
In London, IT provides 48,000 digital economy jobs, more than double the number of such jobs 15 years ago at the time of the dotcom boom. This progress is under severe threat by a skills shortage, namely an undersupply of skilled developers and technicians within the UK, and technology firms blame ill designed university syllabuses and a lack of understanding at all levels of the education system. The number of young people studying IT has fallen correspondingly with the standard of ICT teaching from school to university over the past 15 years. Graduates have therefore become ill equipped to enter a competitive jobs market meaningfully, and overseas students are often better qualified. We must therefore recognise that curriculum reform is required in higher education, not just in schools.
Computer science is the fourth science on our educational curriculum, although there does not appear to be any provision to educate primary school teachers in the discipline. As the introduction of this document says:
“No education system can be better than the quality of its teachers”.
There is also a shortage of teachers in computer science in secondary schools, with no incentive for top graduates to enter the profession.
Something else that must be mentioned is the gender imbalance among students of computer science at a higher level. In 2012 the ratio of female to male students was 1:100. Fewer than 300 female students in the whole of the UK take computing A-level each year. Only 18% of graduates from IT-related courses are female. This represents a huge loss of opportunity and potential skilled personnel, which will ultimately leave us less competitive in the long term.
Last week, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, I had the pleasure of hosting an event in this House on computer science education in the 21st century. I met several extremely bright and enthusiastic young female teachers who, it was obvious to me, cared deeply about their subject and their pupils. This makes the loss of opportunity even greater.
Perhaps it would be best if the department facilitated greater engagement and communication between the ICT industry and higher education, to design courses that prepared graduates for industry and made them a great asset to the industry as a whole. Graduates do not and will not always have the perfect skill sets to fit the job. However, employers must be more amenable to offering periods of training to bring new graduates up to speed in areas where they need to recruit, and realise that it does no good complaining about a lack of a competent workforce if they are not prepared to help to fix the problem themselves.
Industry could also become more involved in lower-level ICT teaching, for example in primary and secondary schools. It is important that the Government engage these businesses and use their guidance in shaping the ICT education of our children. It is not just the state’s job to rise to this challenge; it is also incumbent on big corporations and employers. Having reaped the benefits of our educational system and careers in ICT, they have a moral obligation to continue this legacy.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to the report of the SME committee, on which I had the privilege to sit. It is perfectly obvious that exports, businesses and SMEs are damaged by the lack of language skills. That was made very clear in the evidence that we took. It is also clear that there must be a more practical relationship between education generally and industry. What is the point of educating young people for jobs that are not there, when we need to educate them for the jobs that are there? The people who know what the jobs are are the people who need employees, so they should be integrated in the formation of any curriculum.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, with the permission of the Grand Committee I will speak seated today. To cover the national curriculum in under five minutes is an impossibility so I will focus ruthlessly on maths and English, particularly at key stage 4. I remember the launch of the national curriculum. I was a parent, chair of governors of a primary school and a councillor. It seemed like a good idea: a national framework that would help deliver consistent standards and syllabuses. At least initially, it was not too constraining on teachers at the point of delivery, but all that changed very rapidly. Suddenly, reams of papers with strictures, limitations and specified methods of teaching started to arrive.
As I held the education portfolio on Cambridgeshire County Council at the time, I had the pleasure of hosting a French primary education team who came to look at our pre-national curriculum model in some of our excellent primary schools. They were impressed and said: “At least your schools have the freedom to teach what they want. In France, if it is the second Tuesday in March, you know that a 10 year-old will be on chapter 2 of the green textbook”. I fear that in the succeeding decade England has moved too much in the French direction.
The French also liked our philosophy of developing children as thinkers and independent learners. Now, a decade on, too many children are taught to the test, whether or not they have learnt the foundations beneath it. A university lecturer friend told me last week that she despairs of students who come to her and ask what they need to learn to pass. “I just want you to learn to think,” she replies.
The national curriculum should be a guide on the side, not a sage on the stage dictating every detail of what our children must learn. We should focus on pupil and student attainment and give the thousands of excellent teachers the flexibility to deliver it in the professional way that they know best. A minimum curriculum must ensure that our pupils can read and write, are numerate and have the appropriate ICT skills. Without these, they will find it almost impossible to gain meaningful employment in our knowledge-based economy. It has to be true, underlying knowledge as well, not just learnt for an exam.
I talked on Saturday to an employer recruiting graduates in the financial services sector. They had whittled down more than 160 applications to 14 that they could even contemplate shortlisting, on the basis of literacy and presentation in CVs. One candidate, a graduate with a very good degree, had written the paragraph on why they were suitable entirely in capital letters and with no punctuation. Others did not even get that far, leaving this vital personalising paragraph empty. It is no wonder that employers say that our education system is not equipping enough students with the right skills for a working life in the 21st century. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, quoted the statistics for those who have failed to achieve the standard. My concern is that the examples I have just given would have been deemed to have met the standard.
We need a minimum curriculum to ensure that young people get those skills, and we need to broaden the offer at 16 to 19 to make it the norm for all students to achieve a level 3 in both English and maths. This might be applied English or applied maths, as are relevant for their future studies. My son, for example, did statistics in the lower sixth form to go alongside psychology, which he then read at university; that was extremely helpful to him. There could be written English for engineers and scientists, focusing on the sort of reports that they will have to learn to write later on.
The many strengths of the A-level system in depth unfortunately mean that too many students give up maths of English at 16—far too early. We are one of the few OECD countries to allow this. Even Scotland, with its excellent Highers, keeps that breadth of English and maths at 16. For some schools, the international baccalaureate does the same but I am not convinced that the EBacc at 16 to 18 will do it, because of the lack of compulsion.
The proposed key stage 4 curriculums in English and maths are challenging; taught well, they will give students an excellent foundation for later learning, whether in vocational or academic environments. They look surprisingly similar to the American systems, but the difference between our countries is that American students are expected to continue with both. Our system does not, and this explains the low take-up of maths to which the Minister referred in his opening speech. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to broaden the curriculum to ensure that 16 year-olds continue with both maths and English until they leave formal education and training at 18 and/or attain a level 3 qualification in maths and English? Furthermore, will the Minister tell us whether applied maths and English courses will also be approved for those following vocational routes? It is as important for them and questions have certainly been raised about the functional skills courses that have been available in recent times.
Other speakers have rightly focused on the educational elements. The new national curriculum, which should be taught in all maintained schools, has the potential to free teachers from previous constraints, but—and it is a big but—attainment in maths and English is essential to make our young people not just employable but constructive and productive workers who are able to achieve their full potential in the UK.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I find it bizarre that a national curriculum can be so much the product of those—some might say of a single individual—who, in their day-to-day work, have such an overtly political agenda. Surely our country’s national curriculum should be in the hands of an expert independent commission, at arm’s length from Ministers. If the national curriculum still has significance when the voting age is reduced to 16—as I think will happen—there will be an even greater need for the content of national school education to be as free as possible from political interference. Will the Minister tell us whether the coalition would consider taking the planning of the national curriculum out of ministerial hands, and make it wholly independent of politics?
A school education should give students basic information and frameworks in which to work. Beyond that, it should provide them with the wherewithal to think for themselves. At least by their teens, young people should be encouraged to bring their own interpretations and thinking to bear on contemporary issues that should be part of the curriculum, including debates around climate change and gender politics, among others.
Following the theme of individual thought, with reference to the statement on page 5 of the document concerning provision for collective worship, do the Government understand the terms “collective worship” and “assembly” to be the same thing or do they consider the two things to be combined? If that is the case, the atheists and agnostics among us would still have to opt out, which is discrimination.
I agree with those who like to see English read, written and spelt well, and grammar understood. That is also useful for learning other languages. However, basic skills, especially in English and maths, should be sorted out in primary schools. What should not be the case is that the failures which the Government claim are occurring at primary school leaving age are carried by secondary schools. By that point, they should be developing students beyond the basic level.
Despite the arts community being so outspoken about last year’s English Baccalaureate Certificate plans, it worries me that in this draft national curriculum, the arts are still not regarded as being on an equal footing with other subjects such as the sciences. The arts are not asking to be treated as better than sciences, but to have parity. Art, design and music are given some space, but there is a fine balance between inordinate prescription and neglect. Apart from fleeting references on page 7, there is no mention of dance, film and animation, digital media or photography, while drama is mentioned in the English guidance notes. These are holes in the national curriculum. Along with many others, Alistair Spalding, the artistic director of Sadler’s Wells, is concerned that dance is now being left out of the PE curriculum. Perhaps this oversight can be rectified.
In terms of music, many are pleased that the Government are taking some notice. However, on 6 March at the Westminster Education Forum, the chief executive of the Incorporated Society of Musicians, Deborah Annetts, highlighted Ofsted’s own guidance that pupils should be able to,
“appreciate music through active involvement as creators, performers and listeners”.
This principle ought to be emphasised in every area of the arts, including drama. The Government should listen carefully to the recommendation of Josie Rourke, artistic director of the Donmar Warehouse, who would like to see within the curriculum every child being entitled to trips to visit cultural public spaces. One single experience at a concert, a gallery or the theatre can be worth many lessons.
The art and design curriculum has an old-fashioned and absolutist feel. It ignores the idea of critical looking and debate. In their teens, pupils can be engaged with contemporary art, which represents a significant area of modern-day visual literacy. Also, as others have pointed out, the term “great artist” should be replaced by “significant artist”. Who is and is not “great” is a part of the debate, while greatness is itself a debatable term. Will the Government say something about the Arts Council’s projected involvement in the GCSE syllabus for arts subjects? A good and practical arts education should demonstrate as full a panoply of techniques and media as possible, new as well as old. A similar criticism can be made of music, which now lacks a reference to music technology, including electronics, computers and recording.
If, as many increasingly believe, the arts and creative industries are crucial to Britain’s economic recovery, there needs to be a greater sense of urgency from the Government about the provision of an excellent and comprehensive arts education that is available to all. The national curriculum should reflect that.
Lord Quirk
My Lords, there is a great deal that I like in the new curriculum. Of course, not all that I like is new, and not all that is new is to my liking. Let me begin on the cheery side. I like the goals and the direction of travel. I like the way that vocabulary and language development are explicitly spread out across the whole range of core and foundation subjects. I also like the way that two of the core subjects, maths and English, are accorded special status; rightly so, because of their uniquely dual role in education, a point that was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It is my understanding that English and maths will be taught up to the age of 18 in the event that pupils have not achieved a satisfactory level at GCSE. It is vital that we get these two subjects right.
Well, those who designed the maths curriculum seem to have risen to the challenge. We find a well thought out pedagogical progression, step by step, year by year, together with the gradual introduction of the requisite vocabulary. It is just dismaying to compare this with English, where the people responsible seem to have lost their way or never found it. They do not seem, for example, to have taken on board the clear injunction laid down when the review process began in January 2011: namely, that they should study and emulate the corresponding curricula in the world’s most “high-performing jurisdictions”, a phrase that the Minister himself used earlier this afternoon.
People at the DfE could have learnt a great deal from programmes for teaching the mother tongue in countries not as far as Hong Kong or even Massachusetts but neighbouring countries such as France, the Netherlands, and Germany. There is little sign that they even tried. There are many other and more overt defects. The most obvious is the gross unevenness: for example, dozens of pages are devoted to KS 1 and 2 while key stage 3 is dismissed with barely a wave, yet this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, reminded us, is when puberty-fired youngsters are at their most restlessly keen to explore, and when teachers—God help them—need all the supportive guidance they can get.
Then there is the unnerving difference in expertise as we pass from one content area of the English curriculum to the next. By far the most professional is the treatment of spelling, with its formidable and convincing step-by-step progression, laid out in extraordinary detail and at extraordinary length. The treatment of grammar is far less professional, both linguistically and pedagogically. There are, I grant, glimpses of attempts at something more sophisticated than the old preoccupation with a few shibboleths, but such efforts are lost in muddle and inconsistency and dumbed down in a curious diffidence. I am told on the grapevine that the note of nervous apology is because many teachers, and teacher trainers, still hanker after the grammarless “anything goes” days of yore, when standard English was the butt of smear and sneer. Others at the DfE whisper, “No, no, it’s not that—it’s because teachers are frightened of grammar and the arcane terminology”. Well, I just do not buy that. Teachers—in many cases, the same teachers—take in their stride the no less arcane terminology of maths and science with their square roots and quadratic equations, their molecules and precipitates. They happily and confidently explain the difference between sulphate and sulphite and sulphide, so why not the difference between semantic inverses such as imply and infer? If grammar is prescribed diffidently and inconsistently, lexicology, semantics, and the vital matter of vocabulary networks seem beyond the DfE entirely.
There is no sign of linguistic professionalism to help teachers build on children’s hungry interest in naming things and finding better ways of describing them, and no sign of any step-by-step progression in enriching pupils’ word-stock. Yet this is the very soul and centre of language. Like others, I have provided the DfE with detailed criticism and, serious as the defects are, they can be speedily put right if the advice is understood, accepted and, of course, implemented.
But I am left with worries that cannot be so readily dispelled. Getting a good curriculum agreed is one thing; getting it taught across the country is quite another, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said. Are the many thousands of teachers in post willing to teach it and are they equipped to do so? There is much in the curriculum that will be unfamiliar to them. Then there are tomorrow’s teachers. Are our teacher-training institutions willing and—again—equipped to make the big, radical changes in what they must instil into their pupils?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for initiating this debate and for giving us all an opportunity to contribute to the consultation, which is clearly important. We have had a constructive and thoughtful debate and I want to continue in that spirit because, despite the very short timescale for the consultation, we have to hope that this is a genuine exercise and that our views will genuinely be taken into account before the final curriculum is put together.
This is undoubtedly a very important debate, not just among teachers and academics but among parents, employers and young people themselves. It lays the foundations of knowledge and skills for the next generation, and it is amazing how much we are defined by the years in which we were taught at school and by how much we and the next generation take them into our working lives. You can always tell how old you are by what poems you know and what books you read at school. They instantly give you away. The national curriculum creates a national presence and culture in society. There is never a perfect solution, and whatever we come up with, we will always be criticised. There will always be competing views on either side, but it does not alter the fact that we should always have an open and inquiring mind as to how we can get the best out of the curriculum and how it can be improved.
Before I comment on the detail, I should also like to give the Minister the chance to set the record straight on who drafted the proposals. He will no doubt have read the concerns from some of the department’s advisers on the history curriculum that the final draft bore no resemblance to the versions on which they were working as late as January. Can he reassure us that Michael Gove, in a fit of overexuberance, did not personally write the final version of the history curriculum?
I should also be grateful if the noble Lord can address the essential contradiction mentioned by several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, of the national curriculum applying only to maintained schools, of which there will be a shrinking number as more and more schools become academies. If it matters educationally that the curriculum is updated, how much real flexibility are we prepared to give to academies that choose to flout the direction of the Secretary of State? At what point would Ofsted or the department intervene, and what sanctions are available if academies veer off course in a major way from what is prescribed in the national curriculum?
We share the ambitions of the Government that every child should be stretched to fulfil their maximum potential. However, we differ because we also see the immense variety of attributes and learning styles that make each child unique. We therefore reject the hothouse philosophy that underpins these proposals based on every child being crammed full of facts and examined to see how much they have been able to retain. Some children undoubtedly flourish in such an environment but, for others, learning becomes a miserable and frustrating treadmill that can put them off the whole educational experience. This is why we have major concerns about the move to revert back to exams as the sole measure of success. I was surprised to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, had to say on this because, contrary to him, I believe that that takes a lot of teacher creativity out of the system and inevitably leads to teachers being put under pressure to teach to the test. The noble Lord seemed to imply that that was a heresy, but there is probably a lot of anecdotal evidence to support my position.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I absolutely agree that the heresy is actually to follow those principles rather than to accept them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Perhaps this is something for a longer debate but some teachers would say that they are desperate to escape the straitjacket of being forced to teach to the test but are literally prevented from doing so. We can all see the absolute merit of teachers being freed up to inspire and be creative in the way that they teach.
A couple of references have already been made to the academics and professionals who wrote to the Telegraph and the Independent last week. I share a number of the concerns those people expressed. They said that the new curriculum will severely damage educational standards. Without boring noble Lords too much, because I am sure a number have read the letters, I will just illustrate the point with a couple of short quotes. They said:
“The proposed curriculum consists of endless lists of spellings, facts and rules. This mountain of data will not develop children’s ability to think, including problem-solving, critical understanding and creativity”.
They also went on to say:
“Inappropriate demands will lead to failure and demoralisation”.
These themes were illustrated very well by the excellent contribution of my noble friend Lady Whitaker on the significance of design as a creative, multidisciplinary, problem-solving subject, which is really what we are looking for in terms of a progressive education but which is not really captured in the current proposals. Can the Minister comment on the widely held concerns that there is an overemphasis on learning by rote at the expense of deeper understanding and creativity in the way that the curriculum is being designed?
The consultation document also emphasises the need to learn from international comparisons. We absolutely agree that we can learn from high-performing countries and aim to do better in the international league tables. However, there is an increasing controversy about the comparisons and the conclusions that are being drawn from the data. That is why our party has resolved to remove the interpretation of the evidence from politicians and instead set up an independent body, an office for educational improvement, which will verify the research and provide genuinely well informed learning points for practitioners in the field. Can the noble Lord comment on whether he agrees that a greater degree of independent analysis would be beneficial in this regard?
Turning to the specific subject areas, I do not intend to comment on every subject, but will just pick out some key concerns which are symptomatic of our wider concerns. A number of noble Lords have mentioned history but they have not really gone into the detail, so it falls to me to do so. We accept that there is a need for pupils to have a greater grasp of the chronology of events along the timeline. However, we also agree with the critique of Professor Chris Husbands that you cannot address this by starting at the beginning of time with the youngest children and working forward, as seems to be proposed, otherwise, as he says,
“you end up with a seven-year-old understanding of the Saxons, a ten-year-old understanding of the Middle Ages and a fourteen-year-old understanding of the industrial revolution”.
More fundamentally, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, we feel that there is a concern that the curriculum is focused too much on our island history and does not have sufficient material about our global history and our interconnections.
On geography, we share the concerns mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that the debate about climate change has been cut out of the curriculum for children under 14, when many children will stop studying the subject. Young people need to understand the impact of melting glaciers, floods and drought on the physical landscape. Can the Minister advise whether this is a deliberate decision to remove the item from the curriculum?
On mathematics, we welcome the fact that personal finance, budgeting and money management are to be included and we agree that pupils need to understand the basic tools of maths. However, going back to my earlier point, there has to be a way of allowing teachers to be creative and inspiring, so that maths does not just become a memory test of facts and formulas but is something more than that.
On English, we agree that spelling, grammar and sentence construction are important. This was included in the 2007 curriculum. However, we are concerned that the shift to final exams and the removal of controlled assessment risks undermining the teaching of speaking and listening skills, which are critical to the world of work. Perhaps the Minister will comment on how these skills will be assessed in future.
Finally, we share the concerns mentioned by several noble Lords about the long-awaited PSHE review giving so little direction to schools on issues that are crucial to the health and well-being of young people.
We will continue to engage on the future curriculum, but we believe that flawed thinking undermines the proposals. At its heart is the assumption that every child must pursue an academic career. We take a different view. We see the rise of the leaving age to 18 as a great opportunity, so we are developing plans for a gold-standard set of qualifications that test academic, practical, creative and technical learning up to 18. We are taking the time to get these proposals right. This includes engaging with employers.
I realise that my time is up. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord for this debate and look forward to his response.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her detailed comments on design. I very much hope that she will feed them into the consultation. We recognise the concerns raised about design and technology study programmes. We are listening, and working with the subject community and the Design and Technology Association to improve the draft.
I thank my noble friend Lord Storey for his comments, in particular about the primary curriculum, an area in which he is extremely expert. It is a delight to hear someone who has spent so much time teaching children rather than thinking about theories of education talking about what it is appropriate to teach children. I am particularly grateful to him for laying off history today, and for supporting our move to give teachers more freedom.
The noble Lord asked about teaching sex education at key stage 3. Aspects of the biology of reproduction and the human life cycle are included in science in key stage 2. It is up to primary schools to decide whether to provide additional sex and relationship education, taking into account the views of parents. Many schools choose to provide sex and relationship education in year 6.
I am grateful for the comments on soft skills made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. As he knows, I share his views about their vital importance. As noble Lords are aware, the outcome of the PSHE review was announced last week. PSHE remains an important and necessary part of all pupils’ education, but teachers need flexibility to deliver high-quality PSHE and are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils. This will not come from additional central prescription. Therefore, PSHE will remain a non-statutory subject, without new standardised frameworks or programmes of study. My honourable friend Elizabeth Truss wrote to Sir Michael Wilshaw last week, asking Ofsted to draw up a guide to effective PSHE practice.
Aspects of PSHE will continue to be taught throughout the statutory curriculum. In science, pupils will learn about the structure and function of the male and female reproductive systems, and the menstrual cycle. In both science and PE, children will learn about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, including the impact on the body of diet, exercise and drugs. In maths and citizenship, children will receive financial education, including learning about wages, taxes, credit and debt. In designing appropriate PSHE content for school curricula, teachers will be expected to build on content in the national curriculum on drugs, finance and health education, and on the statutory guidance on sex and relationship education.
All schools today have to focus more on PSHE. With the collapse in many areas of family life as a result of the high incidence of absent fathers, the absence of religion in many children’s lives and the prevalence of gang culture, the only constant in many children’s lives—the only brick—is their school. All children in the modern world face a variety of issues and schools have to do much more on what was called the pastoral front than they used to. This is meat and drink to good schools and we expect all schools to emulate what the good ones do. We trust teachers and head teachers to adapt what they do to their own particular circumstances. We are not arguing about the necessity for PSHE, and no one feels more strongly about the need for it than I do, having seen the effect at first hand of what really good pastoral, inclusion, behaviour and raising aspirations programmes, which of course include PSHE as a part, can have on disaffected children. However, we do not feel that it is appropriate to legislate for it. We should leave teachers free to teach what is appropriate to their circumstances. However, we have asked a specific question in the consultation about our proposed aims for the national curriculum and we will take all views into account before finalising them.
My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood commented on animal welfare. It is not the role of the national curriculum to prescribe everything that might valuably be taught to children. We are slimming down the national curriculum to focus on essential knowledge in core subjects. The draft primary science curriculum requires pupils to be taught about the needs of animals, including food, water and so on, and the care of animals is something that we would expect all good schools to cover in their wider curriculum as part of the soft skills. However, we will look further into this matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, talked about languages. The evidence shows that we have a strong basis on which to build the new expectation that foreign languages will be taught in primary schools. A recent survey conducted by the CfBT Education Trust, the Association for Language Learning and the Independent Schools’ Modern Languages Association found that 97% of primary schools are already teaching a language, and that more than 80% are reasonably confident about meeting the statutory requirement for 2014. Evidence, including some from other countries, shows that children benefit from being taught languages at an early stage. They can inspire children with a love of language that will stay with them throughout their secondary education and beyond. For this reason, we are opening up the choice of languages beyond European modern languages by including Mandarin, Latin and Ancient Greek. It is right that we give our pupils this opportunity and provide a better foundation for the teaching of languages in secondary schools.
We will not be making languages compulsory at key stage 4 because we are conscious of the need to slim down the curriculum and allow schools the freedom to meet their pupils’ needs. However, to support the introduction of the new key stage 3 second language education, the Teaching Agency is facilitating an expert group chaired by a leading primary head teacher for languages and bilingual education. The group is meeting at the moment to develop the signposting of resources and the identification of high-quality teaching materials that are freely available and is looking at ways in which initial teacher training in schools can best prepare for the introduction in 2014. On schools becoming academies to avoid language teaching, we welcome schools becoming academies, but we are not encouraging them to do so for this reason. The national curriculum should be a benchmark for all schools. Academies would have to justify to their communities if they chose not to teach what all other maintained primary schools do at key stage 3.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley made a point about language experience courses in schools, which of course they are free to run. I am also grateful for her comments about cooking and IT. On IT careers advice, we expect all schools to engage with their local business communities for careers advice in IT and other industries.
I turn now to the subject of climate change. It is not true to say that climate change has been cut out of the curriculum. It is specifically mentioned in the science curriculum and both climate and weather feature throughout the geography curriculum. Nowhere is this clearer than in the science curriculum for 11 to 14 year- olds, which states that pupils should learn about,
“the production of carbon dioxide by human activity and the impact on climate”.
This is explicit coverage of the science of climate change. It is at least as extensive and certainly more precise than the current science national curriculum for this age group, which states only that:
“Human activity and natural processes can lead to changes in the environment”.
In addition, the Royal Geographical Society has said that the draft geography programme of study will provide,
“a sound underpinning of factual knowledge to prepare, at GCSE and A level, for pupils to study the topics that confront us all, globally, as citizens and which are inherently geographical, such as climate change, pollution, ‘food, water and energy’ security and globalisation”.
On academies not teaching the national curriculum, it is true that they have the freedom to vary any part of the national curriculum that they consider appropriate. However, even in a school system where more and more schools are moving towards greater autonomy, there is still a need for a national benchmark to provide parents with an understanding of what progress they should expect and to inform the content of core qualifications. Of course, academies and free schools must prepare their pupils for national exams and will be judged in part by destinations.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for his comments, particularly on the importance of the broad sweep of history and the opportunity now facing us with design and technology in schools.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for his Mr Micawber-like comments on the need not to crowd the national curriculum. On his point about Ofsted, I have already talked about the PSHE review. Ofsted inspects for a broad and balanced curriculum and for progression. Without good PSHE, progression can be difficult for some pupils. However, Ofsted is the sharpest tool in our box and I undertake to discuss this further with Sir Michael Wilshaw.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, commented on the lack of incentives for computer science graduates to enter the teaching profession. We are providing a £9,000 bursary for computer science graduates. The British Computer Society-Chartered Institute for IT is offering scholarships of £20,000 to exceptional candidates. The UTCs and studio schools programme is about encouraging more young people into the technical industries.
I thank my noble friend Lady Brinton for her comments about the inadequacies of the current system. On maths and English post-16, students who have not achieved at least a GCSE grade C in English or maths at the age of 16 will be required to continue to study mathematics post-16 from September 2013. We also want to encourage schools and colleges to provide opportunities for students who have already achieved a GCSE grade A to C to continue with the study of mathematics at level 3 as part of their post-16 programme. We are developing new courses for this cohort, and work is under way with Ofqual, mathematics sector bodies and awarding organisations to determine the most appropriate format for these new core mathematics qualifications.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his comments about primary schools. He is quite right that education often goes wrong in primary schools. That is why we are focusing on the most underperforming primary schools. On trips to cultural places, that is something we expect all schools to do.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, for his comments about teachers. He raises a very good point. All schools will have to focus on training their teachers for the delivery of the new curriculum. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her opening comments about how one can never get a draft of a curriculum that pleases everyone. On the authorship of parts of the history curriculum, as the noble Baroness knows, the history curriculum was drafted with the input of a great many experts in the field. We were very pleased to see 15 eminent historians, including David Starkey, Niall Ferguson and Antony Beevor, endorse our approach in a letter to the Times on 27 February.
On academy freedoms and the national curriculum, academies were allowed under the previous Government not to teach the national curriculum. If the Labour Party wants to change that, I would be interested to hear about it. On plans for an office for educational improvement, of course we agree with the principle of evidence-based policy. That is what we have been doing, and plenty of evidence is available. However, we are not convinced that the noble Baroness’s approach of setting up a new quango—no doubt at great cost—is necessary.
Turning to the content of the history programme, I reiterate the importance of giving our pupils a clear chronological narrative of British and world history rather than a disconnected set of themes and topics, often repeated, as is the case currently with for instance Nazism, over the course of their school careers. It is right, too, that the teaching of history should cover significant individuals who have helped shape the history of Britain and the world. Those names listed in the programme of study are just some of the individuals we expect schools might cover. It is not a definitive list, and teachers are free to teach about any other individuals or aspects of the history of other countries and cultures as they see fit to meet the needs of their pupils. It is clear that the history curriculum generates a wide range of views about what pupils should be taught, and it is right to have that debate. I also acknowledge that others might have made different choices, but that is why we are consulting on the programme at present and welcome responses from all parties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made a comment about vocational education. One of the Secretary of State’s first acts was to commission the Wolf review, which we have implemented in full. We also commissioned Doug Richard to look at apprenticeships and are taking his proposals forward.
I must comment on the rather sensational latter which was recently written by 100 academics. They are of course right that we want our students to learn higher-order thinking skills, but those academics, I am sure, would acknowledge that to progress to that level, students need a basic grounding in lower-level skills and in knowledge. Sir Michael Wilshaw has—
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
I just wonder whether the Minister has noted that my noble friend Lord Quirk and I have both chaired meetings with more than 100 professors in them. They were called senates and they did not always fill us with confidence that the judgment coming out was the right one.
Lord Nash
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for that comment and have to say that I rather sympathise with Sir Michael Wilshaw, who has encouraged people like that to get out there and see what is happening in many of our classrooms. Once you have done that, only then can you appreciate how vacuous the content is that is being taught in many of our schools and how we need to improve the national curriculum in order for pupils to progress to a higher cognitive level.
As I outlined in my opening speech, the draft national curriculum on which we are consulting is based on careful analysis of the world’s most successful school systems. That showed that our curricula, in particular for the core subjects, focuses insufficiently on key knowledge and is less demanding than in other jurisdictions. The new national curriculum will change this and will also give schools more freedom over the curriculum and teaching, not less. The new national curriculum acknowledges the vital role of knowledge in education and is based on up-to-date, cutting-edge research about how the brain learns. It lists the important knowledge pupils need to know within clear subject taxonomies. To quote the leading US cognitive scientist, Dan Willingham:
“Data from the last 30 years lead to a conclusion that is not scientifically challengeable: thinking well requires knowing facts, and that’s true not simply because you need something to think about. The very processes that teachers care about most—critical thinking processes like reasoning and problem solving—are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is in long-term memory (not just in the environment)”.
Indeed, how interesting would debates in your Lordships’ House be if noble Lords did not have huge reservoirs of factual knowledge stored in their long-term memories which they use to display high-order skills such as argument, reasoning, analysis, comparison et cetera? The curriculum does contain lists of facts but these facts are not opposed to higher-order thinking and the skills of analysis and creativity; rather, these facts enable such skills and provide a framework of understanding.
In every field of human endeavour it is accepted that you must know the rules of that field before you can produce anything of worth within it. Great artists and writers know their rules before they break them. Great scientists and mathematicians know the work that has gone before them. This curriculum provides the foundational knowledge that will stand our future artists, writers, scientists and mathematicians in good stead, while also allowing all pupils to appreciate the great achievements of the past.
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this important debate. As I mentioned earlier, the consultation on the draft curriculum will close on 16 April and we welcome responses from anyone with an interest. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we then plan to publish the final curriculum in Autumn 2013, to allow time for schools to prepare for the first teaching in September 2014.
EUC Report: MiFID II
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on MiFID II: Getting it Right for the City and EU Financial Services Industry (2nd Report, HL Paper 28).
Lord Harrison
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on the report of the European Union Committee entitled MiFID II: Getting it Right for the City and EU Financial Services Industry. This report was based on work undertaken by the Sub-Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs, which I have the honour to chair. The report was published in July 2012, and was based on evidence received from a number of practitioners and experts in the operation of financial markets. The committee was also assisted in its work by Professor lain MacNeil, Alexander Stone Chair of Commercial Law at the University of Glasgow, who acted as specialist adviser for the inquiry. I thank him and all the witnesses who contributed so richly to this report.
This proposal for a directive and regulation on markets in financial instruments is a complex legislative package, as our seven-page glossary indicates, but it is also extremely important. The original MiFID package, which came into effect in November 2007, is the foundation of the EU regulatory framework for investment firms. These firms encompass a wide range of activity such as global investment banks trading complex securities, fund managers investing pension funds, stock-broking firms and small high street financial advisers providing financial advice to the general public. The Commission’s objectives were to open up trading in securities to competition, to apply equivalent regulatory rules to different market models which perform similar functions and to enhance, standardise and harmonise investor protection across the European Union.
The new proposal, known as MiFID II, seeks to respond to deficiencies in the MiFID I regime exposed by the recent financial crisis. It focuses in particular on addressing problems that have arisen from the expansion in over-the-counter (OTC) trading, including the transparency of such trading. It seeks to shift trading from the more opaque OTC market to more transparent organised markets, in line with the September 2009 G20 commitment to tackle the less regulated and more opaque parts of the financial system by the end of 2012.
The committee’s starting point was to ask whether a review of MiFID I was even necessary. We found that it was, particularly given the technological advances that had taken place since it came into force. Some witnesses told us that the Commission’s proposals were a “good starting point” for negotiations. However, we warned of the damage that would be created by hastily or poorly drafted legislation. These concerns were heightened by the evidence we heard that, while some of the proposals were based on sound principles, there were significant flaws in the Commission’s draft. We identified six such central flaws.
First, we warned that the proposal for a new category of organised trading facility risked creating an overly complex regulatory framework which did not distinguish clearly between organised venues and OTC. We feared that the implications of the proposal had not been fully assessed. We were particularly concerned about the proposal for a ban on “own capital”—that is, the ability of the trader to use his or her own resources to trade on other people’s behalf—and the amount of detail left to delegated acts.
Secondly, while the post-trade transparency provisions held much merit, the pre-trade transparency proposals did not take into account the markedly different characteristics of each sector of the market, particularly in terms of liquidity. The requirement for disclosure could compromise the ability for competition to flourish. We warned against a one-size-fits-all approach to transparency that could have a negative impact on bond markets. We called for a more flexible approach that, while recognising the benefits of transparency, would allow the market to operate effectively.
Thirdly, the Commission also proposed to regulate algorithmic and high-frequency trading. HFT remains a deeply controversial activity and there is a wide spectrum of views about its utility. We recognised the case for circuit breakers, but were concerned that the scope of the proposals was too broad and did not adequately differentiate between algorithmic trading and high-frequency trading. In particular, we warned that the proposal to require algorithmic trading strategies to be in place throughout the trading day was likely to have a detrimental effect on financial markets.
Fourthly, the Commission’s proposals on third country access were deeply flawed. They created a risk that third country firms could find themselves locked out of EU markets, creating the spectre of regulatory retaliation. Such effects could have a particularly damaging effect on the City of London. At the very least, lengthy transitional regimes for existing third country firms were required.
Fifthly, the Commission proposed a number of steps to strengthen investor protection and corporate governance, yet the proposal to restrict the ban on inducements to independent advisers was in our view unworkable, since advisers would simply take steps to avoid being classified as independent. Likewise, the Commission’s proposals on corporate governance were overly prescriptive and did not take account of the diverse size, capacity and business models of the range of market participants.
Finally, we found that, while the European Securities and Markets Authority had a vital role to play in co-ordinating regulation of financial markets across the European Union, there was less consensus about the degree to which it should engage in direct regulation of the financial markets, as suggested in the Commission’s proposals for ESMA to take on product intervention powers. In the light of these flaws, we urged the UK Government, the Commission, the Council and indeed the European Parliament to take all the steps necessary to ensure that the legislation was fit for purpose before it came into force.
What has happened in the nine months since our report was published? The Government’s response, received in October, expressed sympathy with many of the points raised in our report, and we are grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right honourable Greg Clark MP, for keeping us updated on negotiations in the months since. We are aware that negotiations have moved forward, and that significant amendments have been advanced. For instance, progress has been made in Council on improving the provisions on third country access, although we understand that the European Parliament continues to take a contrary view. Perhaps the Minister might tell us a bit more about that. We are grateful to City UK for sending us extra material that will be valuable to us in our thoughts on third country access.
What update can the Minister give us on the progress of negotiations in relation to the six areas of concern that I have identified? What is his understanding of the European Parliament’s position on these issues? To what degree does he believe that the concerns that we raised, and which the Government have said that they share, will be addressed in the redrafted legislation? In relation to HFT, what is his assessment of the findings of the Foresight project, published in October 2012? On a personal note, I am still considerably worried about HFT, although the Foresight group took a much more relaxed view. What is the Minister’s view?
It has also become clear from the Minister’s correspondence that the timetable for agreement had been pushed back, with the scheduled agreement in Council repeatedly postponed. We understand that the Irish presidency decided not to take MiFID to general approach at ECOFIN on 5 March because a number of issues remained open. Which issues remain contentious, and what update can the Minister give us on when agreement on the package will be sought?
MiFID II’s impact on European financial markets, not least the City of London, will be considerable. The Government and their European partners must do all that they can to ensure that the financial markets, and the economies that rely on them, are strengthened rather than undermined by these provisions. However, MiFID II must not be viewed in isolation. There are other pressing issues whose impact on the City, the UK and the EU as a whole are just as great, if not greater.
Last year my sub-committee also conducted an inquiry into the Commission proposals for a financial transaction tax. Contrary to the opinion of many so-called experts, the idea has not died but remains very much alive, in the form of a proposal by 11 European Union member states to introduce a tax under the enhanced co-operation procedure. Only last week, witnesses to my sub-committee told us that the political will in the EU behind this proposal had been underestimated. Indeed, I recall that the CBI spokesman Richard Woolhouse told us that there were now stirrings of recognition in the City that the FTT in its enhanced form could indeed come about.
Do the Government share the complacency we identified? What steps are they taking to ensure that a full and effective analysis of the effects of such a tax on the UK will be conducted? The Minister might like to know that, this afternoon, I talked about this with Mr Lidington, our Minister for Europe, and I tried to sound the alarm bells. As an expert on the City, he will know of some of the new elements introduced in the issuance principle which mean that those trading in, for example, Volkswagen shares in two non-participating countries could be subject to the tax. London could have a much greater responsibility in terms of collecting the tax, perhaps for participating countries.
The euro area crisis has not, of course, gone away. In February, my sub-committee wrote to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, reporting on the assertions of some experts that the worst of the crisis was over. We were sceptical. We warned that,
“the biggest enemy in the current climate is complacency, whether it be that of European leaders that the euro area has definitively turned a corner, or whether it be that of observers in the UK that the implications of these developments for the United Kingdom can be safely ignored. Positive signs of progress there may have been, but there remains a long way to go before the euro area crisis can be judged to have come to an end”.
I regret to say that recent developments in Italy and, more particularly, in Cyprus have borne out our judgment. The inconclusive Italian election results were a clear demonstration of the political and social pressures to which the euro area crisis is giving rise. More alarming still is the crisis over the Cypriot bailout. The way in which this issue has threatened to spin the entire currency zone back into crisis mode is a clear demonstration of the perils of complacency.
These issues demonstrate the vital importance of the UK Government remaining at the heart of EU discussions, whether it be on the euro area crisis, proposals for a financial transaction tax, or the MiFID II package. The Government may not agree with all the proposals, nor wish to participate in them, but the UK is not immune to the effects that overspill on to us. On MiFID II, as on all these issues, the Government must remain at the negotiating table, ensuring the best possible outcome not only for the City and the UK, but for the EU as a whole. We need to find friends in Europe to be able to do that important and sometimes desperate task. I beg to move.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, made reference to the technical advances mentioned in our report, and the problem is that, as we all know, technology moves on. I am absolutely sure there is going to be another financial crisis, possibly as big as the one we have just seen; I am absolutely convinced that we cannot anticipate today what it is going to be. One of the weaknesses of regulation and moves such as those that have been made by the EU is that they definitely involve closing the stable door. You can always guarantee that the next financial crisis will be different from the ones we have seen in the past. I suspect that, if we are looking for a solution to this, we have to look to very agile national supervisors, because I do not think that the EU is in a position to stop this sort of thing happening in future.
I would like to move on to the slightly wider issues which the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, touched on, namely the financial transfer tax. Students of the Bible will remember that the Pharisee used to get up in the morning and say, “Thank God I’m not like other men”. I get up every morning saying, “Thank God I’m not a Europhile”. If I were, I would feel that the European Union was letting me down extremely badly. Its attempt to deal with a financial crisis has been so ham-fisted that it really makes one doubt its capacity to run anything at all.
The reality is that the financial transfer tax will be incredibly damaging to the eurozone and the financial institutions within it. It will reduce liquidity in eurozone companies; clearly, if you are going to tax transactions in shares, people will just not buy and sell those shares as much as they otherwise would. It will make it attractive for a number of them to relocate to markets elsewhere in the world where they do not have to pay the tax, and it will make it much more difficult for the EU to raise money. It defies all credibility that it should want to do this.
Mr Bergmann, the deputy to the Commissioner who deals with all this in Brussels, came to see our committee and said that when 11 countries entered into this agreement, they would set an example to others that would then follow. If you believe that, you will believe anything. The fact is that the United States would never follow down the road of having a financial transfer tax, and I very much doubt that Hong Kong or Tokyo would either. There is therefore never going to be a global financial tax; all that you might ever have is one or two more countries within the EU joining in with it.
One of the issues that came up during our discussions on this today was the big question of whether companies in the City of London would be forced to collect the tax on behalf of the European countries that were involved in the shares that were being traded. We were left completely confused because Mr Bergmann told us categorically that there would be no question of City firms collecting this tax, but on the other hand it seems that there is serious evidence that the plan is that it should be collected on behalf of other Governments. I know that the Minister cannot reply on that now, but it would be nice if he could search that out for us and try to get a definitive reply on where we stand on it; it is a fundamental question for the City of London.
Another reason why I am glad I am not a Europhile is the whole management of the economic crisis, which has been absolutely abysmal. It is now more than 12 months ago that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that what Europe should do was get a big bazooka to solve the problems facing the eurozone. Chancellor Merkel was adamant: she was not going to expose the German taxpayer to picking up all the liabilities of the Club Med countries and the others that the Germans consider have not got their act together at all. A year to 18 months later, that is precisely what happened: the ECB got authorisation from the Germans to buy bonds in the secondary market across the whole of the eurozone. The result was that the crisis that there had been in funding government debt across the eurozone was completely stabilised overnight. It is quite interesting that to date the ECB has not had to buy any bonds in the secondary market of the eurozone, yet that stability has been brought about.
So what has happened in the mean time in the intervening 12 to 18 months? Chronic insecurity has spread across the whole of the eurozone, and people who might have made investment decisions have sat on their hands and done nothing. The result is that we have seen a much severer recession in the eurozone than we would have seen if that decision had been taken earlier. No doubt there were a whole mass of political reasons in Germany as to why Chancellor Merkel could not move quicker, but the fact remains that if that nettle had been grasped earlier, the eurozone would not have had as severe a recession as it has seen just recently. That recession has even spread as far as Germany as well. It is quite possible that Germany may pull out of it quite quickly but the fact is that the inactivity by Germany actually put that country into recession, which it has not seen for quite some time.
Now of course we see the Cyprus crisis being dealt with on the basis that the Cypriots themselves should pay a very serious price for the trouble that their country has got itself into. An amazing scheme was originally produced that said that all deposit-holders in banks in Cyprus should pay a tax. It had to be described as a tax because, as everybody knows, the EU has been working for some time on a deposit insurance scheme that means that people holding up to £100,000 in a bank will have that money secured. Somehow, when the whole country goes bust, your deposits are at risk, but if your bank goes bust your savings are secure. Come on—people are not going to sit there and say, “This raid on my savings is quite legitimate because it is a tax”. That decision has now been reversed and we are going to see deposit-holders above €100,000 maybe being taxed at 40% on their holdings.
What effect is this going to have on many of the other very unstable Club Med countries in the eurozone? Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who is the president of the Eurogroup, although I gather he has not been there for very long, came out with an incredible statement only yesterday, I think, saying that what had been done in Cyprus was a template for all the other countries in the eurozone. Can you imagine a more crass and stupid remark than to say that this was a template to be applied elsewhere? What it immediately does is put the frighteners on absolutely anybody—any company or any individual—who holds a bank account with money in it in any country such as Spain, Portugal, even Italy and certainly Greece. Greece is completely unstable. It is completely recognised that it is unsustainable as it is and that it cannot go on. The reason why nothing has been done about Greece is because German elections are coming up on 22 September. After that, they will want to restructure the whole debt of Greece. They will have to do it yet again and the Greeks will have to take another massive haircut. Any Greek who is standing around at that point with money in a Greek bank needs to have his head looked at. You are actually better off taking the money out and stuffing it under the mattress than you are leaving it in a bank account, where they can impose a tax on it.
This is absolute lunacy. Once again, I hate to say it, but this is why I am so glad that I am not a Europhile, because it strikes me that these people cannot run anything competently whatever. The choice for the future of the eurozone is quite simple. It can go mutual so that the rich countries have to guarantee all the poor ones, but the Germans are flatly refusing to do that and, if they do not, it is going to break up. As night follows day, the weak countries are going to go, and then eventually it will get to the centre and some of the stronger ones will go as well.
If the Germans did decide to underwrite all this, with some eurobond or something of that sort, then of course you have a future made up of fiscal transfers from the rich countries to the poor. We have seen a bit of that already with the so-called bailouts and so forth. They are bitterly resented by the Germans, who have to pay them; and because of the conditions with which they arrive in Greece, say, they are bitterly resented by the Greeks, who get the bailout.
With fiscal transfers, you will only have that continuing but writ large. This then of course encourages extremism in places such as Greece and very nasty parties start to crop up. If we go on like this, the whole of this system will just not work. The best thing that could possibly happen would be if the Germans pulled out of the eurozone and created, with other sensibly run countries within the eurozone, a strong currency which can actually survive. If we go on the way we are now, chaos beckons.
Viscount Brookeborough
My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee A, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I pay him due credit for producing this report on such a complex issue. I also commend the clerk and our policy adviser who have managed to produce a document that, although complicated, is just readable by those who are fairly fanatical about it.
During the past 25 years, I have served on several EU sub-committees, including those on agriculture, environment, industry and transport. Controversial and tricky subjects they may be, but they are nothing like as complicated as those that we are dealing with in Sub-Committee A on economic and financial affairs. As our chairman pointed out, although it may not have been in his draft, you have only to look at the glossary at the back to see what we all need—seven pages of unheard of and unspeakable letters and descriptions. I joined the committee only last year and, after attending my first meeting, I left feeling numb and as if my brain had been scrambled. The subject was incomprehensible and it took me a while to get my head around it. I am afraid that I still lag somewhat behind.
Simply put, MiFID II is about two things, regulation and transparency. The latter includes greater understanding of the markets by everyone; but, most importantly, it relates to those who invest, insure and trust others with their funds. There are perhaps two groups. First, there are the very large pension funds, corporate businesses and plcs, among others. Then there are individuals—Joe public. During the past 40 years, millions of people have become small shareholders, encouraged by government privatisations, including those of the rail industry and BT. In addition, availability of private health insurance and private pension plans have become the norm. Some of these people can afford brokers and have access and the ability to understand the working of the financial markets. However, the majority numerically are small investors—private individuals ranging from those in lower income groups to the wealthy.
I should like to consider them for a moment, especially those who use independent advisers rather than City brokers. It is most important that this is a reliable and easy-to-understand service for those who cannot afford anything else. For one moment, I will assume that Christian Krohn of the Association for Financial Markets in Europe was correct when he said that MiFID I provides adequate small-investor protection.
However, I should like to discuss the proposed ban on inducements and commissions to independent advisers alone. Guy Sears of the Investment Management Association questions the effect of the proposal, and I am inclined to agree and, indeed, report that we do not think that it is workable. In addition, I am not quite sure that the inducement/commission is important, providing that the product is genuine and the client knows that he or she may go elsewhere to compare prices and, most importantly, compare potential outcomes. Surely the commission is no more important to a client whether he or she is buying a financial product or a car. It is the results of the deal as a whole as they appear to him or her that count. When you buy a car, you decide on a product, shop around and get the best deal, which may include free servicing or whatever. You do not ask the salesman what his bonus is or what margin the garage is making. It may be that it remains a cheaper or better option to buy from him, even though his bonus and margin are higher than that of the garage next door. Banning inducements or declaring them in every case may upset the market—the only market available to the group of people of whom I am talking. It is a people’s market. If this market fails or becomes more difficult to access, where will ordinary citizens in the EU, including the majority of the 70 million individuals in the UK, be able to go for this service? We must be conscious of this. We know that the national pension schemes and provision of healthcare will be insufficient with our increasingly aged population. Our Government must focus on this and the future problems arising from it.
The problem with much financial services business is that it is so complicated and, unlike other businesses, takes place in the ether, rather than in the practical trading of normal products such as grain, mining products or manufactured products. Those involved work on, oblivious to the fact that the industry is incomprehensible to most people outside their world. Europe adds bureaucracy to this and thinks that “one size must fit all” means that Germany’s size is the one that must fit.
The magic word seems to be “harmonisation”—do it my way rather than compromise and use delegated regulations. Look at the financial transactions tax. We had Herr Bergmann, the director of the EU tax department, in front of our committee the other day. When asked what the main objectives of the FTT were, he said, first, harmonisation and, secondly, raising money. They are hiding behind the soundbite of harmonisation; it would be good for us all, they say. Surely the first objective of any tax before you can even think of harmonisation is to raise money. That is the next stage, papering over the cracks later on, but they have put it first because of the way that it sounds. The initial deal for the Cyprus bailout just demonstrates how confident and secure one of our nations feels to put such a proposal on the table. Next they will call for the harmonisation of this tax—and where next? Incidentally, as a colleague of mine said, the only people who have taken money out of the bank in that way were the IRA in Belfast. Charles Moore wrote in the Telegraph yesterday:
“Cyprus is only the first victim of a one-size-must-fit-all-policy that is made in Berlin”.
In conclusion, my impression after being on the committee for a year is that this area is highly complex and few people outside the City could begin to understand it. In other committees that I have sat on, witnesses invariably feel that they have the right answers. In our deliberations, however, our witnesses have said that they hope so, they do not know the full answer for sure or, “This will not necessarily stop a future crisis”. It is pretty unnerving to listen to experts in that frame of mind.
The City of London, one of the big three, is crucial to our nation. Our invisible earnings are such a high percentage of our GDP, yet my impression is that the City is too busy keeping up with the speed of its trading and recession management to look forward to the unintended consequences of developments in Brussels. Yet the Government seem far too relaxed and are doing little to fight London’s corner. In contrast, I am delighted to see that the Government are putting £2 million towards aerospace research and development at Bombardier in Belfast, but surely they must wake up and get cracking on the financial world and support it as they should. I have not asked specific questions but our chairman has done so, and I look forward to the answers.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Since this is the last report from the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, to be debated this Session, I should start by paying tribute to him. I have learnt a great deal from serving on his committee. We have benefited from his huge experience, linguistic skills, total impartiality and unfailing good humour. One of the reasons why it has been rather a productive committee is that it has been extremely well chaired, and I thank him. I also thank our clerks, Rose Crabtree and Stuart Stonor, the latter a man of astonishingly fertile mind, deserving of congratulations on his output.
On the matter that we are discussing today, I thank the Government for maintaining a civilised dialogue with us. The government response to our report was a serious point-by-point reply, and at all stages the discussion with the Government has been informative. I hope that what we have said has proved helpful. I contrast the Government’s response with that of the Commission, which always replies to our reports but in this case sent a particularly deadpan response. The Government sent a very interesting and helpful one. Why am I saying this? To make a point, of course. On this matter, the Government have maintained a dialogue with us, but on the matter which has been raised by all previous speakers in this debate because it worries us the most, the financial transactions tax, there is a complete dialogue of the deaf with the Government. We are unable to persuade Mr Greg Clark to engage with us. Our correspondence with him is wholly unsatisfactory, and he has still to address the key point we raised in our report—a much larger and more substantive report than the MiFID report—exactly a year ago.
I would like to take advantage of this debate by putting six questions to the Government about the financial transactions tax. First, do the Government agree that the enhanced co-operation of 11, if implemented, will damage the European Union? Secondly, do they agree that the enhanced co-operation of 11, if implemented, will damage the London market? Thirdly, if so, why did the Government abstain at the January ECOFIN? Why did they not oppose the proposed enhanced co-operation? Fourthly, did they seek before then, and are they seeking now, to construct an alliance against the enhanced co-operation of 11 among our natural allies not participating in it—the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, the Poles, the Finns, the Irish and the Luxembourgers? It is not Britain against the rest; we have a majority on our side. Are we making use of that? Is there any active diplomacy?
Fifthly, did we seek and are we seeking legal advice on whether the conditions laid down in the treaty for permitting enhanced co-operation are met, given that these conditions include the need not to prejudice the interests of non-participating member states? Sixthly, why did the Prime Minister at the European Council this month merely take note of this pernicious proposal? According to its conclusions, the European Council noted it. I do not know how well briefed the Prime Minister was. Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister is fully briefed on the damage that the FTT proposal could do to the European Union and to the United Kingdom?
Now, to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I am going to revert to my usual bonhomie and to the subject of this debate. MiFID II is the grandson of the original 1993 investment services directive, on which I was one of the negotiators. Our aim was and still is to create a single market in financial services, which is of course massively in the UK’s interests since the UK is the principal EU provider of such services; they are our largest export; and our share of the EU market has grown as the internal barriers have come down. That is what we hoped, and it is what has happened.
The particular purposes of MiFID II are to create greater competition in trading in securities in order to reduce costs for investors, to apply equivalent regulatory rules to different market models and to enhance and harmonise investor protection—all plainly worthy aims that are beneficial to the EU and the UK. However, the devil lies in the detail. As our report shows, and the Government have agreed with us, we need to be in there fighting. I believe that on this subject, unlike the financial transactions tax, the Government have been in there fighting and that UK negotiators have done very well. It is very important that UK negotiators have been present. Let us suppose for a moment that we were in the nightmare situation of Norway. Let us suppose that we were country members of the single market and we had to take the rules, written in Brussels in the sort of process that we are talking about today, from the fax machine when they had been completed with no say in what they said.
As I say, the Government have done well and the chances are that MiFID II is going to come out okay. However, I have a two-part question for the Government and a comment. My particular concern about MiFID was with the provisions for third-country access, as discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. The committee thought that they were deeply flawed, and the Government agreed. The proposal was that third-country firms would have to register with the European Securities and Markets Authority and could trade in the EU only if authorised to do so by ESMA, which would be required to certify that these third-country firms came from countries whose home-country jurisdiction imposed requirements equivalent to those in MiFID II and provided equivalent reciprocal recognition of EU firms. Try selling that on Wall Street. It would not fly there, and the effect would be to restrict third-country access into our markets, which would be damaging to them and to us. Clearly, this amounted to a significant risk of shrinking the EU market and hence the London market, since it is the premier location for third-country firms and their branches.
The Commission, which, as I have said, replied to our report, was a little bland on this point. It said:
“The Commission’s objective is to ensure that EU financial markets remain open but are safe for investors … The Commission’s proposal is, therefore, mindful of the need to achieve the correct balance between open access with minimal duplication of administrative and other requirements on the one hand and investor protection on the other hand”.
Yes, Sir Humphrey, I would have been proud of that 20 years ago. The fact is, though, that the balance was not correct. The Government have since told us in their helpful reply to our report that the requirements for equivalence and reciprocal access have been eliminated in Council discussion, one of the reasons why I feel like congratulating them. However, I need to ask a question: is that still the case? Is there a stake through the heart of these third-country provisions? Has the Commission dropped its emphasis on equivalence? If not, and if the Commission is still going on about it, will the right-minded, such as the UK Government, hold firm in Council?
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, what about the Parliament? Compared with my days in Brussels in the early 1990s, the Parliament has—rightly, in my view—much more power than it had then. Sadly, though, our Government have rather less influence than they had, which may be the inevitable consequence of the Conservative Party choosing to distance itself from the EPP in Brussels and Strasbourg, thus sharply reducing its chances of obtaining senior and influential positions in the Parliament, and of course removing a principal opportunity for influencing and alliance-building with like-minded Members of the Parliament. How confident are the Government that a good deal in Council—if it is a good deal, which I think it probably is—will not unravel in co-decision procedures with the Parliament? Are the Government acting on the first point that we made in our report when we said,
“we particularly urge the Government to ensure that they liaise with and pay due attention to the European Parliament in its consideration of the MiFID II proposals”?
Are we, in alliance with our friends in Council, lobbying hard in Strasbourg? Are Ministers going to Strasbourg specifically to talk about MiFID? Are all British MEPs, of whatever party, fully briefed on the importance of this directive for the City of London and the risks to us in the United Kingdom if it all goes wrong?
That is nearly all I want to say, but since the debate has ranged a little beyond MiFID, I will make one final point. As eurozone Ministers, along with those aspiring to join the eurozone, get together more and more closely—in the past fortnight they have been meeting a great deal—to discuss banking union, FTT, bail-outs and bail-ins for Cyprus, it becomes more important, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out, that we in the UK try even harder to stay alongside the debate or, ideally, at the heart of it, among the same people on the EU financial services legislation that is so important to this country. There will be caucusing among eurozone and eurozone-plus members. There is nothing we can do about it because it will happen informally. The Commission will try to prevent it. If in the end we wanted to go to the Court, we would obtain valueless rulings on our side. Caucusing is wrong but it will happen. And “les absents ont toujours tort”.
The best way of limiting the risk and mitigating the damage is to be as active as we can in making the European case for open markets. We should bring other countries’ Ministers, officials, European Parliament Members, journalists and opinion-formers to look at the City and understand the benefit that it represents for the EU as a whole—that of having a great global market on EU territory. This grows more important with every passing month and I hope that the Government, who I know do not agree with me on a number of things, agree with me on this and will try very hard.
I will say one last thing. Given the identity of the two speakers who are to follow me, I will quote from one of my heroes, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. George Thomson was one of our two initial commissioners. In 1999, talking about 1973 and the experience of going to Brussels with Christopher Soames, he wrote:
“I recall the remark of a wise Dutch Commissioner … ‘My dear George,’ he said, ‘there are now two countries in the Community who are stubborn about defending their national interests, France and Britain. But a word of advice … France always describes opposition to her position as a betrayal of Europe. Britain makes it appear as if Europe is betraying Britain. Not the best way to get results!’”.
It was not the best way then, and it is not the best way now.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, before I begin I should say that the think tank that I chair, Policy Network, has received funding from the City of London Corporation.
I will make three points in introducing what I have to say. First, I agree with the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and with his tribute to my noble friend Lord Harrison and his fellow committee members—that should go on the record—for the excellent work that they do in bringing informed debate to the House.
Secondly, I will avoid the considerable temptation offered by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, to engage in the debate about the euro that he has so richly offered. I will just say—this is not meant to be a cruel point—that he has been making the same speech ever since I was privileged to join the House in 2010, and the euro has not collapsed yet. Even in what I agree was the mismanaged Cyprus crisis, the Cypriot Government decided that they would prefer to take the pain and stay in the euro rather than leave it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does the noble Lord accept that the pain has not even started in Cyprus yet?
Lord Liddle
They knew perfectly well what they were doing by signing up to the deal that they did. Perhaps I may make another aside. The idea that taxpayers should always pick up the bill for the irresponsibility of bankers is offensive. A lot of people in Cyprus have enjoyed the benefits of relatively high interest rates, which pensioners in Britain have not enjoyed over the past few years. The idea that they made these investments in a noble way that should be protected by the European taxpayer is, I think, offensive.
Thirdly, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that the issues raised in this report are very complicated. I am certainly not in a position to talk about the details. Instead, I want to focus on the Government’s political strategy for handling these financial services questions. This is not a party point; it seems to me that as a nation we have a real difficulty here. A number of propositions form the approach on this side of the Room. The first is that we need a healthy financial services sector; I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on this. Yes, we need to rebalance our economy. My noble friend Lord Mandelson was right to say that we have had too much financial engineering and not enough real engineering, but the financial services sector is a huge overseas earner for us and we cannot do without it. It is a vital national interest where we have a comparative advantage. However, we have to acknowledge that things have gone wrong in the City in the recent past. Grave reputational damage has been done as the result of the LIBOR scandal and the scandals around mis-selling. Risks were taken that should never have been, and as a result we need to rethink the way we regulate the City.
The second proposition that should inform government policy on a national strategy in this area is that the City benefits hugely from being the financial centre of the European single market. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right to say that what Britain achieved in the 1990s and the early 2000s—I was slightly involved in the 1999 Financial Services Action Plan—was tremendous. It opened up the market and ensured that London got a larger share of it. What happened, though, was that we had liberalisation without putting in place proper cross-country regulation, and we have to acknowledge that that was a UK mistake. It was a UK consensus that we should have light-touch regulation and we got it wrong. The Turner report that was published at the start of the financial crisis said that we have to choose between European regulation and being part of the European market or going back to national regulation, and that is basically right. I think that both the then Labour Government and the new Conservative/Lib Dem coalition have accepted that we are part of a properly regulated European single market in financial services.
However, the result of all this is that on the Continent there is now a great suspicion of UK motives in this field. I sense this an awful lot as I travel around to various meetings. Therefore, the third objective we have to set ourselves is to accept that we need re-regulation at the European level, but that it has to be done in a proportionate and sensible way. I have some sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about shutting the stable door and things moving on so that the new regulations will not cope with the new circumstances, but we must recognise that we have to put a national effort, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, into getting our regulatory strategy right.
We face big problems here. There are some basic asymmetries that put us in a difficult position. We had very strong support from what you might call the northern liberals for the positions that we took in the 1990s and 2000s but I am not sure to what extent that support is as solid as it once was, which I think is one of the reasons why the coalition on the financial transaction tax that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, wants has not occurred. There is an asymmetry of expertise. People complain about the bureaucracy of the Commission, but when you look at the thousands of people employed in the regulatory agencies in London and the dozens who are dealing with these matters in the Commission—a very small group of people covering a very wide brief—it is not surprising that sometimes the proposals that come forward are flawed in key respects. The Commission tries to listen and amend in the light of representations made to it.
Another major asymmetry, which is a very serious one, is that there are euro-ins and euro-outs. We are among the euro-outs, and that is the way it is going to be, but we have to recognise, as a euro-out, that financial regulation is fundamental to the financial stability of the eurozone. If they are going to do whatever it takes to stabilise the euro then they will be prepared in the eurozone to adopt whatever financial regulations they believe are necessary to stabilise their currency.
In this situation, the national strategy clearly has to be to go out of our way to win friends and influence people. That is where the Government—or perhaps only one part of the coalition—has got it so badly wrong. There is a difficult environment for us in the European Parliament. They think bankers are to blame for the crisis and that Britain is, in part, to blame because we pushed a deregulatory agenda. How do we deal with that? Not by going in with the Thatcher handbag, nor by doing what David Cameron did at the December 2011 European Council in circulating a paper—which, incidentally, has never been disclosed to Parliament, although we have seen it and know what is in it—that had “unanimity” written at the top and which, to anyone who looked at it, would look as though the British Government were basically seeking to reverse qualified majority voting on a large number of financial services questions. It was a disastrous strategy: how could you expect the eurozone to agree to surrender sovereignty over their currency to Britain through our having a veto over financial regulation? We have to argue from a position of qualified majority, and we have to win friends and base our position on reason and good argument.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we have to point out to people the advantages of London being the global centre of the single market and all that that brings. At the same time, though, we have to acknowledge the criticisms of the City that have been made and demonstrate that we are prepared to see them tackled. That is basically the question that I put to the Minister: how are the Government going to do that? What is their political strategy for dealing with these questions, which are of vital national importance, even though they are of great complexity and difficulty for many members of the committee?
Lord Newby
My Lords, like other speakers, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and his committee on producing such a comprehensive and thoughtful report on such a technical subject. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I start by dealing with some of the technical issues that the report covers before I get on to some of the broader issues that we have discussed.
As noble Lords have accepted, since it came into force in 2007, MiFID has had a major impact on how EU financial markets operate. This in turn has fed through to a significant impact on the wider economy. The directive has been instrumental in reducing barriers to trade in financial services and increasing competition in trading services. To build on these benefits, the Government agree with the committee that a review of MiFID I was necessary. The Commission’s proposals for a new directive and regulation broadly seek to address three areas where problems have arisen: negative side-effects resulting from the implementation of the original legislation; technological developments in how financial markets function; and issues exposed by the financial crisis.
There is much to welcome in the proposals. For instance, the creation of a new category of trading venue, called the organised trading facility, will capture virtually all organised multilateral trading. Another objective of the review—greater transparency in financial services—should help to protect investors and generally lead to greater efficiency in price formation. A policy of open access between trading venues and clearing houses will remove an important obstacle to competition, helping to create a more competitive single market in clearing and trading services. However, the policies contained in the MiFID review must be extremely carefully designed. The Government’s primary focus is ensuring that the measures contained in the review meet their objectives and do not damage competition or the efficiency of financial markets.
First, the Government share the committee’s concerns over the design of the organised trading facility. The Government continue to work hard in negotiations to try to ensure there is sufficient detail in primary legislation so that the proposals achieve their purpose.
Regarding the Commission’s proposal to extend the rules on market transparency to non-equity markets, the committee rightly notes that we must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, as trading characteristics can differ significantly across asset classes. As the committee also observes, without proper understanding of these issues there could be an impact on liquidity and the cost of capital. The Government agree with both these points and continue to prioritise these issues in negotiations.
The proposals also increase transparency for so-called systematic internalisers. The Government believe that the systematic internaliser model has a role to play, but we acknowledge the committee’s comments that this category has not been heavily utilised and that some clarification of the purpose of the regime may be helpful.
As a consequence of recent technological advances in financial markets, the Commission has proposed new rules governing the operation of high-frequency trading. As the committee recommends, the Government’s position is that measures applied to algorithmic and high-frequency trading should be firmly grounded in evidence about its real impact. The Government note the welcome contribution that the Foresight report has made in this regard.
The Commission’s proposals also introduce an EU-wide third-country regime. This would harmonise the rules under which investment services can be provided by non-EU firms into the EU. Although we believe that there would be an economic rationale in extending the benefits of the single market to third-country firms, we fully agree with the committee’s comments on the global nature of financial markets. Our prime objective is to ensure that the UK, and indeed the entire EU, remains open to trade in financial services worldwide. The UK has worked hard in Council to amend the proposal and we believe that the current compromise will avoid the disadvantages and difficulties that the committee has identified.
While we support greater transparency in commodity markets, the Government agree with the committee that price volatility in these markets is dependent on a range of factors. In particular, in 2011, the G20 commodity study group was clear that fundamentals—in other words, supply and demand—have been driving commodity prices. The Commission’s proposed rules for commodity markets did not recognise this, placing undue emphasis on a particularly rigid regulatory regime. However, we are satisfied that the current compromise in Council provides for a suite of position management tools that will ensure that commodity derivatives markets are properly regulated throughout the EU.
Turning to the powers granted to ESMA under the MiFID review, the Government agree with the committee that ESMA has a strong coordinating role to play. However, it is important to ensure that powers assigned to EU agencies are in accordance with the treaties and relevant EU case law. The outcome of a legal challenge on certain powers conferred on ESMA in the regulation of short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps will inform our long-term approach on this issue.
Finally, the Government believe that the Commission’s proposed measures to improve investor protection could be strengthened. However, there is considerable pressure from other member states to not implement an inducements ban at EU level. Therefore, the Government’s main objective in the remaining discussions is to ensure that the UK is still able to implement tougher measures domestically under the FSA’s retail distribution review.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, talked about inducements. Our view is that the evidence suggests that inducements are being shown time and again to bias advice. Mis-selling, as we have seen many times in the UK, is an extremely serious issue and we must protect people against future scandals. It is relevant that research for the European Commission by Synovate suggests that as many as 57% of investment recommendations in Europe are unsuitable. We cannot ignore this very serious and ongoing issue.
I will say something about where we have got to in the negotiations. Our current expectation is that the Irish presidency will try to seek political agreement in May, although no firm schedule has yet been confirmed. There are still a few areas of outstanding disagreement. The main obstacles are the open access provisions, which Germany and a group of member states oppose, and the equity transparency regime, where France and some others want to see a uniform standard of transparency across all venues. On both these issues, the Government’s objective is to ensure that the regulatory framework does not impose unnecessary costs on the end users of financial services and supports growth in the real economy. We continue to work constructively on these high priority areas in Council, with the aim of reaching a compromise.
Questions were asked about the European Parliament and whether we are trying hard in both the Council and the Parliament. The Parliament compromise was agreed in September. As it stands, it is likely that the biggest difference between the Parliament and the Council will be the third-country regime. Although the Council has deleted much of the regime, Parliament has broadly opted to retain it, but with some positive amendments. However, in many other areas the Parliament and the Council texts are broadly aligned. We have been lobbying hard in Strasbourg and are working extremely hard in the Council to ensure that we get the best possible outcomes.
I turn to some of the broader comments which have been made. It is fair to say that they have occupied the bulk of this afternoon’s deliberations. There has been a lot of discussion about the financial transaction tax and where we are on it. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked me six questions about that tax. As he knows, the proposals are relatively recent; some aspects of them are relatively unclear and the Treasury is, at the moment, analysing the proposals and seeking to understand them in greater detail.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I have tremendous respect for the noble Lord, but that is the kind of answer we have been getting for a year on the financial transactions tax. The Council made a decision in January, with the UK—absurdly, in my view—abstaining. The point of principle is whether we agree that they may go ahead with levying a tax among 11 countries but requiring the rest of us, including the UK, to collect the tax for them and send it to them. Do we agree to damage our market? Do we agree that they have the right to do that? The key question is whether our interests are adversely affected. If so, they do not have the right to do it. Why did we abstain?
Lord Newby
We agree that they have the right to do it. The question which the noble Lord asked about whether this measure would damage the EU and the UK is not one to which there is a simple or straightforward answer. There are two completely different views about the impact of this tax on London. To a certain extent, we will not know, until it is implemented, which of these two views is correct. One view is that London will benefit significantly because we are out of it. If you look, for example, at what happened in Sweden, which had a transaction tax, the bond market collapsed totally and Sweden had to abolish it. If you take that view, a financial transaction tax is good for London.
Other people take a completely opposite view. The modalities of collecting the tax, and exactly how those will work, are clearly, from everything that the Commission has said, a work in progress. It is not, I believe, a unique suggestion within EU law and practice that member states will collect taxes that revert to other member states. I do not think it is a matter of principle; it will be a matter of practice and whether it is possible to put in place a practical solution.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Surely, the complacent school of thought that says all the business will flow to the United Kingdom, others will damage themselves and we stand to gain, does not still exist in Whitehall. Surely, Whitehall has now persuaded itself that putting more grit in the cogs of the London financial markets is a bad thing, as is trying to persuade two American banks doing a transaction in London that, according to an instrument which originated in Germany, we should collect from both banks not for the British Exchequer but to send the money to the Germans. Surely, Whitehall has decided that that scenario is mad because the American banks will not trade in London if we apply this absurd regime. Surely, Whitehall is clear that we are approaching a crossroads and that we do not know which road to take. What are we going to do? Are we going to sit at the crossroads?
We have to decide what to do on the balance of the evidence. Surely, the balance of the evidence is overwhelming that this measure is a bad thing for the EU and a bad thing for the UK. Eleven countries do not agree, but I guess that 15 or 16 other countries do agree with us. Are we trying to construct an alliance with them or have we, as the noble Lord, Liddle, said, such a pariah status that we cannot construct an alliance? I do not believe that. I still think that this situation could be remedied. Are we going to go to law? We need legal advice on who is right. I believe that if we could be damaged by this measure, and the chances are that we will be, it is not permitted under the treaty. Therefore, I do not understand why we abstained and I do not understand why the Prime Minister was silent.
Lord Newby
My Lords, if I did not know the noble Lord better, that speech would seem to me to typify the attitude that gets us into difficulty. He asserts with absolute certainty that the French do not know what is best for them, the Germans do not know what is best for them and the other nine who have signed up to this tax do not know what is best for them as he believes that it will be very damaging.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am sure that none of my friends or none of the noble Lord’s friends would do this but it is just possible that some people in France would like to damage the London market.
Lord Newby
I am sure that some people in any country will want to do virtually anything, but the question I was addressing was whether the 11 countries that have signed up to this tax can be dismissed as not knowing what is best for them, even though we are deeply sceptical about it and are not going to sign up to it. We have had a number of debates in your Lordships’ House about Greece, for example, in which some noble Lords seem to have known what is best for Greece. It is just that the Greeks have not agreed. We have to let other member states move forward with this within the rules because they are keen to do so.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does my noble friend accept that at one stage the Germans were very much against this proposal and then they changed their mind? Was it that they did not know what was best for them originally and then they did know subsequently, or did they get it the other way round?
Lord Newby
I think that my noble friend should ask them because I have not the faintest clue what was in their mind, but they have now formed a view. If the German Government have a settled view, even if I do not agree with it, I would not write it off as a mad one. I am sure that we will come back to the financial transaction tax, but it is not unreasonable to say that an extremely complicated tax using very difficult mechanisms to make it work should necessarily be capable of instant analysis in terms of how we are going to deal with it. We are looking at it. We have had the proposal for only a few weeks, and my right honourable friend Greg Clark, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out, is actually one of the better Ministers in any Government in terms of working with Parliament and, indeed, across the EU. I am sure that in due course he will come back with a full description of our response.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am testing the Minister’s patience, but we are now past the point where we can affect it. The only question remaining for us is whether we can overturn it. After the January ECOFIN it is now up to those who participated in it to devise the tax as they think is best for them. We cannot affect that, but we will be obliged to collect it. I am not clear what we are working hard on at the moment. What are we trying to do? We are not in the room any more. I would say that we ought to try to derail this exercise by going to law. We need to mount a legal challenge. We must create a political alliance and mount a legal challenge.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am conscious of the time. Much as I would like to go on until eight o’clock on this subject, I think that we are going to have to return to it.
I shall turn to some of the other points that have been made in the debate. I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that one person’s harmonisation is another person’s single market rules. Sometimes harmonisation works very much to the benefit of the UK and sometimes it does not. We have to take this on a case-by-case basis, but let us remember that by common consent the single market has been very beneficial to the UK. If we can, we want to strengthen it even if, as inevitably will be the case, some of that strengthening includes common rules.
Viscount Brookeborough
I did not say that harmonisation was not a good thing, rather I looked at the way this tax is being brought forward. They were talking about harmonisation before they started raising the money. They did not like to talk about why they were raising the money and doing it only over a certain number of countries.
Lord Newby
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about the benefit of the EU to the City as a whole, and both whether the Government recognise that and whether are doing anything to promote it. There is no doubt in my mind, having watched the Government in action, that they absolutely understand the role of the City and how having a strong financial services sector is immensely valuable to the UK and to the EU. The Government themselves are working very hard, as noble Lords have said, on this directive and others to make sure that we end up with proposals which are compatible with the ongoing success of the City.
One of the frustrations I felt before I was a Minister and which, to a lesser extent, I still feel, is that the City is not always its own best advocate. Although things have improved considerably with the formation of TheCityUK, and there is now a much wider recognition that the financial services sector needs to get its act together, as it were, to promote itself, there is still some way to go. Although the UK Government are active in the Council and in the European Parliament, they need the UK financial services sector to be independently active in those institutions as well. There was a period when a lot of senior people in the City felt so battered with the experience that they had following 2008 that they were not willing to put their heads above the parapet and make the arguments. I think that that phase is over, to a certain extent at least, and the Government are encouraging them very much to do that. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for quoting Lord Thomson of Monifieth. He, of course, was from that great tradition of canny Scots who could fully understand the benefits of engaging with the EU.
I will make just two points before I finish in response to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. First, he talked about asymmetries. There are a number of asymmetries. Looking at the future of this directive, we are talking about the possibility of making considerable progress while Ireland still has the presidency. However, the amount of financial services expertise which Lithuania is going to bring to the party in the second half of the year is relatively limited. It is a terrible burden on the officials and Ministers from small member states who have to grapple with what, by common consent and as anybody who has read the report knows, is an immensely technical subject. Virtually the only people other than members of your Lordships’ committee who understand it are the people who work in it every day. The truth is that there are not many of them in small member states, which is an asymmetry. Clearly, there is also an asymmetry between the Commission and the UK. There is one asymmetry that we can benefit from by using our expertise. I was extremely interested that, despite the fact that we are not in the euro, a group of Treasury officials went to Cyprus at the weekend in order to help sort out that problem. It will be very interesting when they get back to see what they have learnt from it.
The final point is about how we exercise influence in an environment where we are not part of the euro-in group. In my view, the model—which I have seen in operation—is that adopted by my colleague in another place, Ed Davey, when he was in BIS, who established something called the “like-minded growth group” for promoting the single market. At every point, Mr Davey carried in his pocket a little laminated piece of paper which showed the voting strength of every member of the 27, and he was forever working out how you got that qualified majority or majority. He worked very hard, and succeeded, at getting a majority of member states, both euro-ins and euro-outs, to co-operate to promote the single market. That is a model that I think is still pursued within BIS. We have got to, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, be very active working out where we can form alliances, which we can do on many things. One of the ironies about the current financial circumstances is that we, as a euro-out, have much more in common with some of the northern European countries that are trying to impose fiscal discipline. For good or ill, we are now something of an expert on that in this country and we need to make the most of it. There are no permanent alliances; you have to rebuild and refresh them. One of the challenges for the Government—or any Government—is to do that as best they may.
Finally, reverting to the splendid report that we have been discussing this afternoon, the Government welcome it and agree with all the points it raises. We accept, as I have attempted to explain, that the devil is in the detail. The Government will continue to negotiate carefully so that MiFID II does, indeed, get it right for the City and, most importantly, for the users of financial services.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, I am minded to say that never in the field of markets and financial instruments has there been so interesting, so sexy and so stimulating a debate as has taken place here this evening. I thank all who have participated in it, especially the two Front-Benchers, but also my colleagues such as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I would particularly like to thank our officers, Rose Crabtree and Stuart Stonor, for the work that they do for us behind the scenes, which is very considerable.
I was going to end on a humorous note, saying that I wake up every morning and thank the Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is not like other men. That has been well demonstrated. In fact, he reminds me of the story that William Hazlitt tells in one of his essays about going for a walk with Coleridge. He says that he set off with Coleridge down a Somerset lane. He, Hazlitt, would walk in a straight line; Coleridge was forever diverting, off up on the left, off up on the right, forward and backward and then eventually coming back to join his friend Hazlitt. This debate has been a little bit like that. I began to puzzle why it strayed off the beaten path of MiFID in the way that it has. I think that it was for an important point, and I know that the Minister does not have the opportunity to come back.
I hope that the Minister takes away the intensity of feeling that those of us who were posted away to Committee Room 3 to look at some of these difficult and brain-tingling matters are getting with a greater and greater sense of urgency. This country is not recognising some of the real confrontation that is being borne in upon us by having adopted what I understand to be a negligible position—that of the head in the sand— where we say that these things can be decided by others, but we must progress and let them progress in the way they so wish, and it will not have an effect on us.
I will finish on this one point about Mr Bergmann, who was referred to several times this evening. It was quite clear to us that the defence that the Commission mounts—that this is wholly legitimate under subsidiarity and in other ways because it does not infringe the single market—is simply wrong. It does infringe the single market, and it infringes not the gang of 11 who are going forward, but the gang of 16, who are not participating. If we as the UK are not alert to that and if we are not very careful, we will lose our goose that lays a golden egg. In losing that golden egg of the City of London, we will lose it not just for the United Kingdom: we will also lose it for the European Union. That is why we must take such care. We are in conversation with the FST, Greg Clark, and I was in conversation with David Lidington this afternoon. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will take it upon himself, with his deep knowledge of the City of London that he has demonstrated so often, to express the urgency and concern that has caused this debate on the narrow subject of MiFID to spill over into the other dossiers that are before us which cool and chill our hearts.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho
Syria: Refugees
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make representations to the European Union and the Government of the United States about the long-term humanitarian implications of the increasing number of refugees escaping from Syria into neighbouring countries.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this month marks the second anniversary of the crisis in Syria. Recognising the significant challenges that this protracted humanitarian crisis presents, the UK remains in contact with the United States, the European Union and other international partners regarding how best to support Syrian refugees in the short and longer term.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
Does my noble friend accept that while Britain, the United States and Germany have given generously to aid agencies to help alleviate the plight of more than 1 million Syrian refugees who have fled to neighbouring nations, according to the United Nations a very large part of the more than $1 billion pledged by 32 countries has not yet been delivered? Does she agree that it is time for those who have promised funding to act and that, as the Secretary of State for International Development has so wisely said, warm words are not enough?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend is right. States made very generous pledges in Kuwait earlier this year to the UN appeals for Syria and the region. However, not all pledges have yet been translated into actual contributions. Given the scale of the challenge— 4 million people are in need, of whom 2 million have been forced to leave their homes—that is extremely worrying. We call on donors to expedite the transfer of funds without delay and are actively encouraging that.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, does the Minister accept that providing lethal weapons, as the Government appear to want, to the deeply divided Syrian opposition can only exacerbate the civil war in Syria and lead to a further deterioration of the appalling humanitarian crisis which is affecting both Syria and her neighbours?
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord speaks with great wisdom. He will know that there are already huge dangers of instability in the region and that any action, or inaction, can promote further instability. We have no current plans to send arms to any groups in Syria, but, as again he will know well, others are arming groups in Syria. As the noble Lord will also know, nothing is off the table, but we are doing our very best to try to bring about a diplomatic resolution to that, which I am sure everybody would welcome. In the mean time, DfID’s key aim is to assist in relieving the humanitarian disaster that has come into existence there.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, not only is the issue one of current spending but the situation is deteriorating speedily. Funding so far has been allocated up to 30 June. Obviously aid agencies need to plan for the future as well. It is important that the Government not only deal with current need but look at future need. Another issue is that the clear majority of refugees in Jordan are women, children and the elderly. In representations to the European Union and the United States, will the Minister highlight the plight of female refugees and the support they will be given to cover basic living costs?
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord is right on both counts. The $1.5 billion that was pledged in Kuwait will last only until June and only about 20% of that so far has been forthcoming. There is a major challenge there. We welcome the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal that was launched in the United Kingdom on 20 March. The United Kingdom is third at the moment in its contribution in this regard and we are keenly aware of the situation with women and girls. We are supporting them in particular in the countries around Syria. We are well aware that they are very vulnerable in this situation and have targeted support at them.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, on a previous occasion I asked the Government for an assurance that our humanitarian response to the situation on Syria’s borders would ensure that adequate provision was still given to the survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. In being given that assurance, I was also assured that more would be done to document these abuses so that the perpetrators might be brought to justice in due course. Can the Minister say what is being done to carry that commitment forward?
Baroness Northover
The right reverend Prelate is right. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has promoted the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict initiative, which supports women particularly in Syria but also in Jordan. Local health professionals are being trained in how to respond to reports of sexual violence with the objective of improving the prospect for future investigation and potential prosecution, which the right reverend Prelate rightly identifies as very important.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, on previous occasions I have sought assurances from Her Majesty’s Government that we would concentrate our attention on humanitarian aid, particularly to Turkey and Jordan, which have huge burdens of Syrian refugees, and also to Lebanon and Iraq. Given the recent remarks of our Prime Minister and President Hollande of France, can I press my noble friend to assure us that whatever others do we will not be engaged in military support, other than giving proper support to our front-line ally Turkey, but that we will concentrate on humanitarian aid?
Baroness Northover
Following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wright, I reiterate to my noble friend the risks of action and inaction. We take very seriously the points that he makes. I would point out that the United Kingdom has already pledged almost £140 million in humanitarian relief. It has committed £22 million in terms of non-lethal equipment and practical support for the Syrian opposition and civil society. That is separate from our humanitarian support, but the noble Lord will note the difference in the sizes of those figures.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, should we not be looking to some of the oil-rich nations, such as Saudi Arabia, to do much more to help in this tragic situation?
Baroness Northover
At the conference in Kuwait, a number of the Gulf States made very generous pledges. For example, the UAE pledged $300 million, as did Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia $78 million. We are concerned that they now deliver on those pledges. We were encouraged that they made them and now hope to see them implemented.
Armed Forces: Autonomous Weapon Systems
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy on the deployment of autonomous weapon systems by United Kingdom Armed Forces.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to Lockheed Martin, although not on its defence business. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, the United Kingdom does not have fully autonomous weapon systems. Such systems are not yet in existence and are not likely to be for many years, if at all. There are currently a limited number of naval defensive systems that could operate in automatic mode, although there would always be naval personnel involved in setting the parameters of any such operation. I must emphasise that any type of weapon system would be used only in strict adherence with international humanitarian law.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is it the view of Her Majesty’s Government that there is a world of difference between a drone operated remotely from several hundred or thousands of miles away and one that is automatic and involves no human intervention before it discharges? In that context, will he tell us a bit more about the Mantis development by BAE Systems, which I understand is supported and funded by the UK’s Ministry of Defence, which the BAE Systems website describes as,
“Able to fly by itself, able to think for itself”?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. As I said in the original Answer, the UK complies fully with its obligations under national and international law, and that applies to autonomous weapon systems. However, although technological advances are likely to increase the level of automation in some systems, just as in non-military equipment, such as cars, the MoD currently has no intention of developing systems that operate without human intervention.
As for Mantis, the MoD initiated a jointly funded advanced concept technology demonstrator in 2008, which led to flight trials in 2009. The MoD has no current involvement in BAE Systems’ Mantis advanced concept technology demonstrator.
Lord Lee of Trafford
Does my noble friend agree with the comments of a senior RAF officer who said very recently that come 2020 the Royal Air Force would be something like 50% manned aircraft and 50% VAV or drones?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, remotely piloted aircraft systems are likely to form part of the future force mix, as they may offer advantages in endurance and range. However, the dynamic complexity of fighter-versus-fighter-type missions does not favour remote control. Therefore, a wholly unmanned force is unlikely to be achievable or desirable in future. Studies suggest a likely combat air force mix of two-thirds manned and one-third remotely piloted in around the 2030 timeframe.
Lord Rosser
There is a perception that unmanned technology is shrouded in secrecy. Although the rules of engagement for unmanned aerial vehicles are the same as those for manned aircraft, there is surely a case for the United Kingdom taking the lead by considering having a code on the context and limitations of usage of UAVs to clarify the rules, given the significance and spread of this technology. Is this a point that the Government are considering or will consider?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I shall certainly take that question back to my department and get back to the noble Lord. We always make sure that equipment is used appropriately. Even after a weapon system is declared lawful, its use will still be subject to stringent rules of engagement governing its employment in the context and specific circumstances of the operation in question. Those rules of engagement as well as addressing legal issues can, as a matter of policy, be more restrictive than the applicable law.
Lord Hylton
Are unmanned aircraft and weapon systems included in the arms trade treaty now under negotiation? Is there not a great danger of proliferation?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot answer the first part of the noble Lord’s question, but I will write to him about that. As I said in my original Answer, these issues are very carefully considered, and what the noble Lord suggested is unlikely to happen.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, the Minister slightly confused me with one of his answers. Will he confirm that for anti-missile, close range anti-aircraft, and anti-torpedo reaction systems, there is considerable merit in going for an autonomous system, even if it has a manual override? From what he said it sounds as though we are not continuing to develop that capability. Is that correct?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, in essence, an automatic system reacts to a limited number of external stimuli in the same way each time, just as automatic transmission changes gears when a car gets to a certain speed. Fully autonomous systems rely on a certain level of artificial intelligence for making high-level decisions from a very complex environmental input, the result of which might not be fully predictable at a very detailed level. However, let us be absolutely clear that the operation of weapons systems will always—always—be under human control.
Lord Tanlaw
Can the Minister say whether these machines contradict the first law of robotics in the sense that they identify and kill human beings? They are open to malfunctions, like any other machine, so is there not a great danger of this occurring at some future time?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I said in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the United Kingdom complies fully with its obligations under both national and international law.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, in responding to my noble friend and to other noble Lords who have raised this Question, because it is so important will the Minister place copies of his answers in the Library?
Scotland: Referendum
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Scottish Government regarding the arrangements for the referendum on independence.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
The United Kingdom Government had a number of discussions during 2012 regarding the arrangements for the referendum on independence. These discussions led to the details set out in the referendum agreement on 15 October. As with the agreement, we continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a legal, fair and decisive referendum on Thursday 18 September 2014.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Have the Minister and his colleagues had time to consider the request from the First Minister of Scotland for the Prime Minister to appear in face-to-face debates on television in the run-up to the referendum? Will he confirm that this request will be completely rejected and that the United Kingdom Government will make it clear that if anyone from the UK Government takes part it should be the Secretary of State for Scotland, his deputy or the Advocate-General?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I have indeed heard the First Minister’s call for a head-to-head debate with the Prime Minister. I also recall the First Minister warning London-based politicians such as the Prime Minister to keep out of the referendum campaign, so he cannot have it both ways. While I accept the challenge and would be delighted to take part, one might also ask whether the First Minister will go head-to-head with the leader of the Better Together campaign, Mr Alistair Darling, who at least has a vote in the referendum, unlike the Prime Minister. However, let me make this clear: the Prime Minister will argue very vigorously for Scotland’s continuing place in the United Kingdom.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, will my noble and learned friend acknowledge that the Prime Minister is not a London-based politician? He is Prime Minister of the whole of the United Kingdom. Will he not agree that the referendum on independence for Scotland is clearly a matter for Scotland? However, if we were to move to devo-max or some form of federalism, that would be a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, which would need to be settled by a referendum that involved everyone in the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I certainly agree with my noble friend, and I think I made it clear that the Prime Minister believes in the integrity of the United Kingdom. I believe it was others who suggested that he was a London-based politician. I also hear what he says about so-called devo-max, which is a brand without a product at the moment. I also recognise that that has implications for the other parts of the United Kingdom and that, were we to go down such a road, it would be very important to secure buy-in from those other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, will the Minister please confirm that the conduct of the referendum in Scotland is now entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament, and one for which this place has no responsibility?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, we agreed to a Section 30 order under the Scotland Act in January of this year, which transferred powers to the Scottish Parliament to determine the nature of the referendum. A Bill has been brought in for a referendum; indeed, another Bill has been brought in to determine the franchise for that referendum.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, it is not the first time that ballot papers have not been made available in good time for those entitled to a postal vote. Could the Minister, when he next meets the First Minister, ensure that the printer gets the ballot papers to the returning officers so that those who are entitled to postal votes get them?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord makes an important point. That would be overseen by the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board for Scotland. Unlike elections, where candidates are often not nominated until the last minute, we now know what the question is, so there is no reason why these ballot papers should not be prepared well ahead of time.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Will my noble and learned friend indicate how the Scotland analysis programme is progressing, particularly with respect to monetary arrangements and the employment of citizens from either country, to enable the facts to be assimilated by the whole country and to inform the pre-referendum debate?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they wish the referendum debate to be well informed. That is why we have embarked on the Scotland analysis programme. The first paper on the legal implications and the legal basis of independence was published last month. There will be future papers, including one on currency and financial regulation, which we hope will be published in the near future. It is important that we have a well informed debate, and certainly the United Kingdom Government, through these papers, are determined that we should have just that.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, the SNP Government have claimed that there will be an increase in oil tax revenues post-independence. However, today we hear from the Centre for Public Policy for Regions that, contrary to what the Scottish SNP Government claim,
“to suggest some sort of new oil-tax revenue boom is about to emerge is not readily supported by the evidence”.
Does the Minister agree that the Scottish SNP Government need to be straight with the people of Scotland about the facts of the decision that they have been asked to make in 2014, so that we can get on with making the case for why Scotland is “better together”?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I entirely endorse what the noble Lord has said about the importance of getting clear facts. He is right. I have seen the report published today by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, which makes the point about the uncertainty of the oil revenue. That uncertainty was underlined by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its report last week. We hear representatives of the Scottish Government telling us that we are on the cusp of another oil boom, but in the Cabinet paper that the Finance Secretary presented to the Scottish Government last year, he said that there is a,
“high degree of uncertainty around future North Sea revenues, reflecting considerable volatility in production and oil prices”.
It would be useful if they said in public what they say in private.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, it is this side.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
On the question of eligibility to vote, can my noble and learned friend the Minister inform this House whether the millions of Scottish-born and Scottish people who presently live in England will be permitted to vote?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as I indicated, the franchise is being determined by the Scottish Parliament. However, there was agreement that it should be based on the local government franchise, which means that it would include those registered for local elections in Scotland. Therefore, it would exclude people of Scottish origin living in other parts of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government’s legislation would also seek to extend it to 16 and 17 year-olds residing in Scotland.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the date of the referendum coincides with the centenary of the Battle of Loos, where many brave Scottish soldiers gave their lives—my great-uncle, Matthew Lawrie, included—for every part of the United Kingdom? What reassurance can the noble and learned Lord give this House that Scottish men and women currently serving in the British Armed Forces will have the ability to vote in the referendum?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, that is an important issue, which we considered and reflected on during our debates on the Section 30 order. There are a number of ways in which service personnel can register to vote; many Scottish servicemen and servicewomen who are posted outside Scotland will remain entitled to be registered at an address in Scotland, either because they are resident there or because they have a service declaration for such an address. I understand that the Ministry of Defence does an annual advertisement of the service declaration, but I can assure your Lordships’ House that we will encourage the ministry to redouble its efforts in that advertisement in the run-up to, and for registration for, the referendum.
NHS: Out of Hours Service
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure high-quality out of hours GP medical care is in place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, people are entitled to expect high-quality health services at any time of day or night. All out-of-hours services must be delivered according to national quality requirements, and local providers have a legal requirement to make sure that high-quality out-of-hours care is in place. If this is not happening, we expect action to be taken immediately to improve services.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The publication of the Patients Association survey and the comments from the BMA highlight that many GP practices are struggling to cope with a rising workload as resources are falling. Does the Minister agree that, with many other changes taking place across government on 1 April, we are in a dangerous and worrying period for people who find themselves in need of health and related services?
Earl Howe
My Lords, of course, the results from the Patients Association report are a matter for concern. We are absolutely committed to improving access to GPs and, from 1 April, responsibility for making sure that that happens will pass to the NHS Commissioning Board. We have outlined a clear set of objectives around patients’ experience of local primary care services in the mandate to the board; we have launched marketing campaigns in each of the new NHS 111 areas, which we are confident will facilitate better access to out-of-hours care; and we will publish information regularly, so that patients can see how their practice is performing and feed back to their practice when it is not performing.
Lord Ribeiro
My Lords, at a time when nurses are being urged to wash their patients, is it not time that the GP contract was renegotiated so that GPs can be responsible for the out-of-hours care of their patients and, in doing so, perhaps relieve the pressure on our A&E departments?
Earl Howe
Increasingly, this is likely to happen, because our changes to the GP contract this year are bound to make sure that GPs think more about long-term integrated care for their patients. The recommendations from NICE underpinned the new arrangements in the GP contract, and my noble friend is absolutely right that that has to remain very squarely in the sights of all GPs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register. The Minister mentioned the NHS 111 service. Is he aware of reports up and down the country of a shortage of staff and long waiting times to get through to the service? Is he also aware that the system is increasing pressure to close walk-in centres? Combined with a poor-quality out-of-hours service, is it any wonder that acute hospitals are under such pressure? Will the Government look at this again?
Earl Howe
I am aware of teething problems in two particular areas of the country, but we know from the pilots of NHS 111 that there is a high rate of patient satisfaction with the service. As noble Lords will know, NHS 111 is designed to put the caller through to the right service first time around, whether it is a nurse, a doctor or an ambulance, if that is required. There are bound to be teething problems, and rolling out a service like this across the country is, of course, a major task. But the concept of increased flexible access to healthcare and advice is absolutely right, and we are determined to see the service work very well for everybody.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, in his Answer to the original Question, the Minister said that action would be taken if the service failed. Who will actually take the action under the new system once the Act becomes actionable next weekend?
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, in some parts of the country confidence has been lost in out-of-hours services. The NHS Commissioning Board takes over next week, so what can it do in terms of commissioning smartly to regain the public’s confidence in these services?
Earl Howe
We have known that out-of-hours care has been in need of reform for some considerable time. The much strengthened commissioning arrangements that we have put in place, including the national quality requirements that I mentioned earlier, will enable that to happen.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
The noble Earl will, I am sure, recall the discussion we had just a few days ago about the inspection of patients at home. That discussion was about ensuring that patients at home who were poorly in the evening did not end up in hospital. My noble friend has just indicated the tremendous pressure that all hospitals are under in terms of length of stay because of older people arriving and staying in hospital. If this GP out-of-hours service worked well, we would prevent that. We need to ensure that the accuracy and rigour of that service permeate throughout the whole country.
Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL]
Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Inquiry
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the Government’s response to the Francis report. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Government’s response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. I congratulate my right honourable friend and predecessor on setting up the public inquiry, and on the many changes that he made foreseeing its likely recommendations. I would also like to pay tribute to Robert Francis QC for his work in producing a seminal report which I believe will mark a turning point in the history of the NHS.
Many terrible things happened at Mid Staffs in what has rightly been described as the NHS’s darkest hour. Both the current and former Prime Minister have apologised, but when people have suffered on this scale, and died unnecessarily, our greatest responsibility lies not in our words but in our actions—actions that must ensure the NHS is what every health professional and patient wants: a service that is true to the NHS values, that puts patients first and treats people with dignity, respect and compassion.
The Government accept the essence of the inquiry’s recommendations and we shall respond to them in full in due course. However, given the urgency of the need for change, I am today announcing the key elements of our response so that we can proceed to implementation as quickly as possible. I have divided our response into five areas: preventing problems arising by putting the needs of patients first; detecting problems early; taking action promptly; ensuring robust accountability; and leadership. Let me take each in turn.
To prevent problems arising in the first place, we need to embed a culture of zero harm and compassionate care throughout our NHS, a culture in which the needs of patients are central, whatever the pressures of a busy, modern health service. As Robert Francis said, ‘The system as a whole failed in its most essential duty: to protect patients from unacceptable risks of harm and from unacceptable, and in some cases inhumane, treatment that should never be tolerated in any hospital’.
At the heart of this problem, the current definitions of success for hospitals fail to prioritise the needs of patients. Too often, the focus has been on compliance with regulation rather than on what those regulations aim to achieve. Furthermore, the way that hospitals are inspected is fundamentally flawed, with the same generalist inspectors looking at slimming clinics, care homes and major teaching hospitals—sometimes in the same month. So we will set up a new regulatory model under a strong, independent chief inspector of hospitals, working for the CQC. Inspections will move to a new specialist model based on rigorous and challenging peer review. Assessments will include judgments about hospitals’ overall performance, including whether patients are listened to and treated with dignity and respect, the safety of services, responsiveness, clinical standards and governance.
The Nuffield Trust has reported on the feasibility of assessments and Ofsted-style ratings, and I am very grateful for its thorough work. I agree with its conclusion that there is a serious gap in the provision of clear, comprehensive and trusted information on the quality of care. So in order to expose failure, recognise excellence and incentivise improvement, the chief inspector will produce a single aggregated rating for every NHS trust. Because the patient experience will be central to the inspection, it will not be possible for hospitals to get a good inspection result without the highest standards of patient care.
However, the Nuffield rightly says that in organisations as large and complex as hospitals, a single rating on its own would be misleading, so the chief inspector will also assess hospital performance at speciality or department level. This will mean that cancer patients will be told of the quality of cancer services, and prospective mothers the quality of maternity services. We will also introduce a chief inspector of social care and look into the merits of a chief inspector of primary care in order to ensure that the same rigour is applied across the health and care system.
We must also build a culture of zero harm throughout the NHS. This does not mean that there will never be mistakes, just as a safety-first culture in the airline industry does not mean that there are no plane crashes, but it does mean an attitude to harm which treats it as totally unacceptable and takes enormous trouble to learn from mistakes. We await the report on how to achieve this in the NHS from Professor Don Berwick.
Zero harm means listening to and acting on complaints, so I will ask the chief inspector to assess hospital complaints procedures, drawing on the work being done by the Member for Cynon Valley and Professor Tricia Hart to look at best practice.
Given that one of the central complaints of nurses is that they are required to do too much paperwork and thus spend less time with patients, I have asked the NHS Confederation to review how we can reduce the bureaucratic burden on front-line staff and NHS providers by a third. I will also be requiring the new Health and Social Care Information Centre to use its statutory powers to eliminate duplication and reduce bureaucratic burdens.
Secondly, we must have a clear picture of what is happening within the NHS and social care system so that, where problems exist, they are detected more quickly. As Francis recognised, the disjointed system of regulation and inspection smothered the NHS, collecting too much information but producing too little intelligence. We will therefore introduce a new statutory duty of candour for providers to ensure that honesty and transparency are the norm in every organisation, and the new chief inspector of hospitals will be the nation’s whistleblower in chief.
To ensure that there is no conflict in that role, the CQC will no longer be responsible for putting right any problems identified in hospitals. Its enforcement powers will be delegated to Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, which it will be able to ask to act when necessary.
We know that publishing survival results improves standards, as has been shown in heart surgery. So, I am very pleased that we will be doing the same for a further 10 disciplines: cardiology, vascular, upper gastro-intestinal, colorectal, orthopaedic, bariatric, urological, head and neck, thyroid and endocrine surgery.
The third part of our response is to ensure that any concerns are followed by swift action. The problem with Mid Staffs was not that the problems were unknown; it was that nothing was done. The Francis report sets out a timeline of around 50 warning signs between 2001 and 2009. Ministers and managers in the wider system failed to act on these warnings. Some were not aware of them; others dodged responsibility. This must change. No hospital will be rated as good or outstanding if fundamental standards are breached. Trusts will be given a strictly limited period of time to rectify any such breaches. If they fail to do this, they will be put into a failure regime which could ultimately lead to special administration and the automatic suspension of the board.
The fourth part of our response concerns accountability for wrongdoers. It is important to say that what went wrong at Mid Staffs was not typical of our NHS and that the vast majority of doctors and nurses give excellent care day in, day out. We must make sure that the system does not crush the innate sense of decency and compassion that drives people to give their lives to the NHS. Francis said that primary responsibility for what went wrong at Mid Staffs lies with the board. So, we will look at new legal sanctions at a corporate level for organisations that wilfully generate misleading information or withhold information that they are required to provide. We will also consult on a barring scheme to prevent managers found guilty of gross misconduct finding a job in another part of the system. In addition, we intend to change the practices around severance payments, which have caused great public disquiet. In addition, the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the other professional regulators have been asked to tighten their procedures for breaches of professional standards. I will wait to hear how they intend to do this, and for Don Berwick’s conclusions on zero harm before deciding whether it is necessary to take further action. The chief inspector will also ensure that hospitals are meeting their existing legal obligations to ensure that unsuitable healthcare support workers are barred.
The final part of our response will be to ensure that NHS staff are properly led and motivated. As Francis said:
“All who work in the system, regardless of their qualifications or role, must recognise that they are part of a very large team who all have but one objective, the proper care and treatment of their patients”.
Today I am announcing some important changes in training for nurses. I want NHS-funded student nurses to spend up to a year working on the front line as support workers or healthcare assistants, as a prerequisite for receiving funding for their degree. This will ensure that people who become nurses have the right values and understand their role. Healthcare support workers and adult social care workers will now have a code of conduct and minimum training standards, both of which are being published today. I will also ask the chief inspector to ensure that hospitals are properly recruiting, training and supporting healthcare assistants, drawing on the recommendations being produced by Camilla Cavendish. The Department of Health will learn from the criticisms of its own role by becoming the first department where every civil servant will have real and extensive experience of the front line.
The events at Stafford Hospital were a betrayal of the worst kind—a betrayal of the patients, the families, and of the vast majority of NHS staff who do everything in their power to give their patients the high-quality, compassionate care that they deserve. However, I want Mid Staffs to be not a byword for failure but a catalyst for change: to create an NHS where everyone can be confident of safe, high quality, compassionate care; where best practice becomes common practice; and where the way in which a person is made to feel as a human being is every bit as important as the treatment they receive. That must be our mission and I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement.
The NHS is now 65 years old and if it is to be ready for the challenges of the future it has to learn from what happened at Mid Staffordshire. The NHS was founded on compassion; Mid Staffordshire was a betrayal of all it stands for and, rightly, apologies have been made. Now, however, it is time to act and to make this a moment of change. Robert Francis delivered 290 careful recommendations after a three-year public inquiry. The Prime Minister promised a detailed response to each by the end of this month. Although we welcome much of what the noble Earl has said today, it falls short of that promised full response. I ask him to be a little more precise about when we can expect the full response to be made.
There are serious omissions from the Statement on four flagship recommendations and I would like to press the noble Earl on those today. First, I should like to deal with the proposed duty of candour. We from the Opposition welcome the move to place a duty of candour responsibility on healthcare providers and believe that it could help bring the culture change that the NHS needs. However, the noble Earl will know that the Francis report goes further in recommending a duty of candour on individual members of staff. Will the Secretary of State say more about why he has only accepted this recommendation in part and not applied it to staff? Has the noble Earl ruled this out, or is he prepared to give further consideration to it?
On providers, will the noble Earl assure the House that that duty will apply equally to all providers of NHS services, including private providers? The Statement was rather vague on that point. The logic of a fair playing field, which I think has been the subject of a report published today, must suggest that anyone providing services to the NHS must come within the same regulation. I refer the noble Earl to the experience in Cornwall where there is a private sector provider and a weak primary care trust which the National Audit Office has commented on. Would that provider come within the terms of what the noble Earl has said?
I was interested in the Statement referring to new legal sanctions in general at a corporate level for organisations that wilfully generate misleading information or withhold information they are required to provide. Can the noble Earl confirm that that sanction will apply to Ministers, the Department of Health, the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor, the CQC and all the other public regulators and those who have authority over the NHS? It would be grossly unfair if this was simply to apply to parts of the National Health Service and not to those organisations that have so much power over the NHS. I would be grateful for a response on that.
I turn to the other issue in relation to private providers. Is it not the case that we will not get full transparency unless provisions of freedom of information apply to all holders of NHS contracts and the information cannot be withheld under commercial confidentiality? I remind the noble Earl of the regulations in relation to Section 75, which are absolutely apposite to this question of a level playing field.
I turn to the question of a patient voice. The Government have announced new chief inspectors of hospitals and social care, which was not a Francis recommendation. Is there not a risk of top-down regulatory structures reinforcing the wrong culture, looking up to Whitehall and not out to patients and the community? Surely the noble Earl will accept that regulation alone will definitely not prevent another Mid Staffs. What might prevent it is a powerful patient voice in every community that is able to sound the alarm if things go wrong. In that context, I have a question about local Healthwatch? We know that one-third of local authorities have said that their local Healthwatch will not be up and running by 1 April. We also know that there are wide variations in structure and membership. I wonder whether the noble Earl will accept Robert Francis’s recommendation of a consistent basic structure for Healthwatch throughout the country, before it is too late and before they go their separate ways. The importance of the proposal is that these bodies can give a very powerful voice to patient concerns about the quality of care in their locality.
My third area of concern is regulation and training. Mr Francis has made a very clear case for a new system of regulation of healthcare assistants to improve basic standards. The noble Earl does not need reminding that many noble Lords are concerned on this point. Unfortunately, I did not hear in his reading of the Statement any reference to the statutory regulation of healthcare assistants, and it is disappointing that the terms of reference for the Cavendish review do not include consideration of that matter. Have the Government now rejected that recommendation; are they still considering the regulation of healthcare assistants; or have they decided after all to support the principle?
We support the move to rebalance nurse training to include more hands-on experience. Does the noble Earl accept that hospitals need to be given much more authority in the training of nurses and the balance between what happens in hospitals and what actually happens within universities? Does he acknowledge that student nurses already spend 50% of their time in clinical practice and also face significant financial barriers when completing training? In the light of the announcement, can he assure the House that the requirement for a year on the ward will not increase the financial barriers to young people entering nursing? If more trainees are to be on the ward, will he ensure that there are enough staff with the time to train the extra students? In that light, will the Government encourage the appointment of supervisory ward sisters to allow more time for leadership, training and support of those student nurses? I should have declared an interest in making this response to the Statement. The noble Earl will be interested that my own trust, Heart of England, has announced this week a £1.4 million investment in the introduction of supervisory ward sisters to do just that. Will he encourage other hospitals to do likewise?
I listened with care to the Statement when it referred to the creation of a culture of zero harm throughout the NHS. Such an objective must be right. We know from previous statements that the Secretary of State is keen to follow the example of the airline industry and note that Professor Don Berwick will report to the Secretary of State on those matters. However, does the noble Earl not think it rather ironic that the Government abolished the National Patient Safety Agency, which was set up to mirror what has happened in the airline industry and encourage staff to raise concerns about patient experiences? Does he not see that although the national reporting and learning system has been retained, placing it under the control of the NHS Commissioning Board is completely at variance with the philosophy in the airline industry of giving people absolute safety in reporting incidents to the system? Will the noble Earl reconsider this matter?
I have real concerns about the decision that the CQC will no longer be responsible for putting right any problems with quality identified in hospitals. I do not think that that is the right decision. How on earth can the decision be taken to give Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority—which, as far as I know, has no clinical expertise whatever—the power to deal with issues which the CQC has raised? Other than the thought that they are relying on health and competition economists—which Monitor is stuffed full of—to do this, does it mean that Monitor will now have to employ lots of clinicians on its staff? Can the noble Earl explain why this rather puzzling decision has been made?
The fourth major issue concerns staffing, which is the most glaring omission from the Statement. The culture will never be right on our wards if they are understaffed and overstretched. The CQC has recently reported that one in 10 hospitals does not have adequate staffing levels. Indeed, last week, workforce figures showed that there had been a reduction of 843 nurses between November and December. Does this not sound the clearest of alarm bells that some parts of the NHS are in danger of forgetting the lessons of its recent past by cutting the front line? Do we not need objective benchmarks so that staffing levels can be challenged on wards?
Last week, we learnt that the Department of Health has handed £2.2 billion from last year’s NHS budget back to the Treasury. Would not that money be better used to bring nursing staffing levels up to standard? I wonder whether the noble Earl and his ministerial colleagues are in denial about the pressures on the health service at the moment. The system is under horrendous pressure. Primary care is faltering. We heard earlier about the appalling standards in many out-of-hours services at the moment. The 111 service is problematic in some parts of the country. There have been huge cuts in local government adult social care spending. Yet the system—Monitor and the NHS Commissioning Board—carry on oblivious to this, obsessed by their target culture. I ask the noble Earl whether Ministers really understand what is happening, and whether they are now prepared to look again at the way the system will be managed in the future.
Finally, I return to Mid Staffordshire hospital itself. Monitor has recommended that this hospital is placed in administration. We should not forget that the future of the hospital will cause real concern to the people of Stafford. After all they have been through, surely we can all agree that they deserve a safe and sustainable hospital. I hope that the noble Earl will soon be able to set out a plan to achieve it.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his comments, and for the support that he was able to give to a number of the proposals that the Government have made. I will attempt to answer as many of his questions as possible. First, he asked why the Government’s response does not address all 290 of Francis’s recommendations. This report, which comes seven weeks on, is not and I think could not be a full response to each and every one of those recommendations. Francis himself notes in his report that:
“Some recommendations are of necessity high level and will require considerable further detailed work to enable them to be implemented”.
That work we will most certainly do. We accept most of the recommendations in Robert Francis’s report, either in principle or in their entirety, but I emphasise that there is much more to do. To rush ahead would mean that we would not give the full and collective consideration to the report that is clearly needed. It would also limit the clinical engagement and the patient and public involvement that is so important. Our response today is designed to be an overarching one, setting out our key early priorities.
The noble Lord asked me about the duty of candour. We recognise that attaching criminal sanctions to key areas of public service delivery can send an important message to the public about the expected standards of care and duty. That is why we will consider the introduction of additional legal sanctions at a corporate level where organisations wilfully generate misleading information, or withhold information that they are required to provide. I cannot be more specific about the extent and scope of that, but we do think there is an issue to be addressed there. I will take the noble Lord’s points on board as to how widely that should go.
However, we are concerned that the introduction of criminal sanctions on individual staff who provide NHS services could run counter to the creation of an open and transparent culture. It could instead create a culture of fear that could lead to the cover-up of mistakes, which is the very opposite of what we seek to achieve. That of course could in turn prevent lessons being learnt and could make services less safe. However, we agree that where staff are obstructively dishonest action will need to be taken to ensure that the quality of patient care is not jeopardised. We are asking the NMC and the GMC to look at how they might be able to strengthen professional standards and disciplinary measures to address those kinds of case. Registered clinical staff are, of course, already placed under a duty to be open through their professional regulators, but we will consider whether is a need to add to that duty in the light of the Berwick review on safety.
Turning to healthcare support workers, as I have frequently said in your Lordships’ House, the Government’s mind is not closed to statutory regulation, but regulation as such is no substitute for a culture of compassion and effective supervision. Putting people on a national register does not guarantee protection for patients, as was sadly seen at Mid Staffs. Instead, we have decided to tackle this issue at its root, focusing on making sure that healthcare support workers have the right training and values and, most importantly, support and leadership to provide high-quality care.
As I repeated in the Statement, we are today publishing minimum training standards and a code of conduct for healthcare and care assistants. In addition, all healthcare support workers work under registered professionals who are responsible for the care provided to their patients. Camilla Cavendish has been asked to conduct an independent study of healthcare and care assistants to ensure that they have not just the right training but the right support to provide services to the highest of standards. She is due to report in May. We will consider further action following that review. Health Education England is working with employers to improve the capability and training standards of the care assistant workforce. Its strategy will feed into the Camilla Cavendish review.
As regards nurse training and the idea that every prospective nurse should have bedside experience before undertaking formal training, we believe that that idea should be piloted. The charge that we have heard for so many years that some nurses are too posh to wash must be got rid of. We must ensure that we are training nurses who have an aptitude for the role and who know what it is like to have hands-on experience as a healthcare assistant before committing themselves to training. Starting with pilots, every student seeking NHS funding for nursing degrees should, we believe, first serve for up to a year as a healthcare assistant to promote front-line caring experience and values, as well as academic strength. The current first-year dropout rate for nurses alone is 25%. For that reason also, it is important to ensure that we have the right sort of man and woman as a nurse trainee. We recognise that the scheme will need to be tested and implemented carefully to ensure that it is cost-neutral. Of course that is a consideration and the noble Lord was right to raise it. We will explore whether there is merit in extending the principle to other NHS trainees.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions about the chief inspector. We think that having a chief inspector as part of the senior team of the CQC will provide us all with an expert judgment on the part of those who have walked the wards, spoken to patients and staff, looked the board of directors in the eye and made a rounded judgment of an organisation’s health, and thereby give true quality assurance, as opposed to what I fear that we have seen all too frequently, which is a tick-box approach. It will be a powerful role and it is very important that the data on which the chief inspector relies are representative of quality. That is a job of work that needs to be done.
The noble Lord also asked me about the National Patient Safety Agency. We continue to believe that it is absolutely right to place the national reporting and learning service within the Commissioning Board if we are to learn from safety incidents and near misses and to enable that information to be fed directly into commissioning behaviour. It is obviously important that we do not lose the expertise that the NPSA has built up. I hope and believe that we will not and that this is the right model. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is right to flag up that we need to learn from experience and we will do that.
As regards the CQC’s responsibilities, the noble Lord may be aware that the Health Select Committee of another place recently reported on the role of Monitor. One of the key criticisms that it levelled against the current system was that it is, in many senses, ambiguous. Sometime the roles of Monitor and the CQC appear to overlap and sometimes there appears to be a gap as to exactly who is responsible for what. Having thought very carefully about this issue, our judgment is that it is important to be crystal clear about who is responsible for what. The CQC’s powers, in terms of warning notices and improvement notices, will remain, but should the CQC find that there is an intractable case of quality failure in a provider organisation, it should not be the CQC’s job to sort that out. There should be a single failure regime triggered by Monitor, which is the body currently responsible for triggering the financial failure regime. The details are yet to be worked out, but clarity of roles is vital in this area.
I am aware that there are one or two questions that I have not covered, but I undertake to write to the noble Lord on those.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am sure that many noble Lords will welcome, in due course, a full and spirited debate on this issue. Will my noble friend clarify which of the recommendations that are being adopted will require primary legislation, what the timescale might be and what the mechanism might be for that?
We welcome my noble friend’s remarks on the duty of candour but, as with all these things, the devil is in the detail. My question is about the chief inspector regime in general. We are going to have a chief inspector of hospitals so it would seem sensible to have a chief inspector of social care. Will we then need a chief inspector for public health and another one for mental health? Is that the way to have all the bases covered?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is a little early to say what legislation we will need, but I can tell my noble friend that we can deal with the duty of candour by secondary legislation. It may be that many of the follow-up actions to Francis can be done without any legislation at all. However, primary legislation would appear to be the obvious route when statutory roles are to be changed.
With regard to the chief inspectors, the only firm decisions we have taken so far are to appoint a chief inspector of hospitals and a chief inspector of social care. We are looking at the merits of a chief inspector of primary care but we need to make sure that there is a genuine issue that needs to be addressed by way of a chief inspector role rather than leaving the CQC to perform its role in the normal way. Further details will be forthcoming at an appropriate time.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, I would like to mention nurse education. The suggestion of having some front-line experience before entering university is, philosophically and practically, very good if it can be worked, but it raises all sorts of questions. I spoke to a healthcare support worker a few weeks ago who said that all the students who come on to her ward tell her, “I wish we had had this experience that you are getting before going into training”, so there is evidence that many of them would like to have that kind of experience. However, this raises the question of their supervision during that time. Will there be adequate numbers of trained staff to supervise the continuing support workers as well as those who are pre-nursing apprentices, or whatever?
The logistics of this are going to be important to work on. We need to know whether the Government will look at minimum staffing levels. Where there are enough registered nurses and the minimum is stated, there should be means whereby registered nurses will be available whenever demands on patient care escalate, such as during a time of winter problems, rather than abusing and misusing the support workers. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done on that.
There is also the role of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which has responsibility for regulating the pre-nursing standards. I hope the Government will ensure that the council takes an active part in this pre-nursing experience, because that will be important. I urge Ministers to have this minimum staffing looked at, if that is possible. I am extremely disappointed that the Government are not prepared to take on the regulation of these support workers because I fear that we may find ourselves having similar problems as in the past, unless we have some regulatory system.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that brief questions only are called for after Statements, and that the briefer they are, the more colleagues will be able to get in.
Earl Howe
I reassure the noble Baroness that all the concerns that she rightly raised are very much in our sights, not least the need for proper supervision of nurse trainees and the practical aspects of having the right level of support on the ward. This is why we believe that this idea should be piloted first, so that lessons can be learnt. Yes, we will involve the NMC, and indeed the Royal College of Nursing, in these plans. As regards ratios, having the right staffing in terms of numbers and skills is clearly vital for good care, but minimum staffing numbers and ratios, if laid down in a rigid way, risk leading to a lack of flexibility or organisations seeking to achieve staffing levels only at the minimum level. Neither of those is good for patients. However, I do not dismiss the general concept. It is ultimately up to local organisations to have the freedom to decide the skill mix of their workforce, based on the health needs of those on the wards.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, the principle of putting the needs of patients first will be welcomed by every Member of this House. However, does the Minister agree that this means looking at care in an integrated way, since the patient experience is very rarely one of either hospital or social care but a mixture—sometimes a very haphazard mixture—of the two? Can the Minister therefore give the House more detail about how the government proposals will facilitate the integration of care services across health and social care, particularly as there will be two separate inspectors and as the ability of the CQC to put the shortcomings right is apparently going to be passed to Monitor?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the main drivers and levers for increased integration will come from other directions, such as: the systems we are putting in place at local authority level and health and well-being board level; more sophisticated tariffs; better commissioning arrangements between the NHS and social care; and the financial imperative that all commissioners and providers now face. That will mean an imperative to ensure that resources are not wasted and are deployed to the best effect of patients.
We must also remember that the NHS outcomes framework will be the benchmark by which the success of the service is judged, just as the social care outcomes framework will act in that sphere in an equivalent way. The major domain in both areas is the patient experience. If we believe that integration is above all to be defined by reference to the patient’s experience, we can expect commissioners across the piece to address commissioning in a way that avoids disjointed care.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people in Staffordshire will welcome this report but will wonder whether the present chief executive is the best person to oversee the implementation of the many recommendations to which my noble friend has referred?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it was a signal feature of the Francis report that he consciously avoided pointing the finger at individuals. The chief executive of the NHS did not have the finger of blame pointed at him. The House may be interested to know that I regard Sir David Nicholson as a truly outstanding public servant who has done an enormous amount of good for the NHS since becoming chief executive.
The benefit of hindsight is wonderful but we must remember that in the years in which these dreadful events took place the National Health Service was held to account by reference to two main indicators: access to care and waiting times, and finance. Above all, it was the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, as a Minister and the Secretaries of State whom he served that saw the transformation of the NHS from an organisation that was concerned just about numbers into one that really appreciated that quality matters. Therefore, to accuse those with positions of responsibility with regard to Mid Staffs of overlooking the fact that quality was poor is to place a wholly unfair retrospective expectation on them.
Lord Patel
My Lords, a great deal of importance and emphasis is being placed on introducing zero harm with regard to patient safety. I am delighted that the Government have asked Don Berwick to advise them how to do this. Do the Government intend to have zero harm in the NHS as a concept or as a requirement? If it is the latter, what legal framework will make that happen?
Earl Howe
It is much more a question of culture than anything else. However, the noble Lord will be aware that Robert Francis recommended that we look at the concept of fundamental standards below which care should never fall. We are determined to do that. Defining a fundamental standard is something for wide discussion. However, we take this recommendation very seriously. Robert Francis was clear that if individuals or an organisation were found guilty of breaching fundamental standards, serious consequences should ensue.
On a more general level, it is impossible to expect human beings never to make a mistake or never to fall down on the job. The point here is to create an attitude of mind in all those who work for and with the NHS that puts the patient’s well-being at the centre of their daily lives and thinking. That is where we want to be.
Lord Bilston
The recent pronouncements of Monitor seem to ignore the vast majority of the people of Stafford, who, as my noble friend Lord Hunt indicated, require a range of safe, sustainable and comprehensive health services rather than the delegation of a range of services, including elective surgery, to other hospitals such as New Cross in Wolverhampton. That hospital is already under considerable pressure and has inadequate facilities in many areas, including a very restricted site with inadequate car parking. Will my noble friend comment on that, because there is great concern and anxiety in Wolverhampton that many thousands of people will be allocated to New Cross and that it will be unable to respond that heavy need? As always in these cases, the balloon will burst and we will quickly find that New Cross Hospital itself sinks into the abyss and then has difficulty responding to the health needs of the people of Wolverhampton.
Earl Howe
I understand the noble Lord’s concerns and those of the people of Stafford. Unfortunately, this trust is losing a substantial amount of money. That is not a situation that anybody can be relaxed about, which is why Monitor has taken the action that it has. One of the tests by which any trust administrator’s report will be judged will be whether the solution offered delivers high-quality care and the prospect of good health outcomes to the patients of the area. This is not just a pounds, shillings and pence exercise; it is an exercise that is necessarily looking at services across the piece to see how they can be better and more cost-effectively configured to ensure that high-quality care is maintained.
Baroness Browning
My noble friend will be aware that the Mental Capacity Act was not mentioned or used at Winterbourne View and that we have seen one too many reports from Mencap about the deaths on hospital wards of young people who have a learning disability or autism. In the next 12 months, this House will carry out post-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Capacity Act. Will my noble friend ensure that his department is not just a passive observer of that process but communicates with those on that committee to ensure that people on hospital wards who lack capacity, albeit a fluctuating or temporary lack of capacity, are not only spoken to but treated like any other patient?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right to raise this issue, and I pay tribute to the work that she has so consistently done to improve the lot of those with autism. I undertake to write to her about this, but I can give her the general reassurance that the Department of Health will certainly be involved in the scrutiny of these measures, as will the NHS Commissioning Board. I want to ensure that we learn the right lessons from the actions already taken.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, does the Minister not think that, with the duty of candour, those who make mistakes should take responsibility and be accountable for them? Otherwise people will not learn from those mistakes and they will continue. I also want to ask about the 10 disciplines. I was very surprised that respiratory conditions are not included as nearly all death certificates have pneumonia on them.
Earl Howe
I undertake to look at the latter point made by the noble Baroness. The 10 disciplines were selected as ones that could reasonably and readily be subject to the kind of assessment process that we are looking to achieve. I will come back to her on that.
As regards the duty of candour, individuals should certainly take responsibility for their actions and be encouraged to do so. We fear, however, that criminalising individuals’ behaviour within an NHS organisation could risk doing the opposite of what we all want to see: a much more open culture, one that has made the NPSA and its work so successful; a no-blame culture, where people take responsibility for when things go wrong but do not feel that the heavy hand of authority is going to descend upon them at the merest mistake. However, it is important that people are held to account if they are dishonest or deliberately withhold information, and that is a different set of issues.
Lord Walton of Detchant
The appalling failings highlighted in the Francis report clearly demonstrated that the managerial virus—an obsession with meeting targets—infected many of the medical and nursing staff in Mid Staffs and diverted them from their primary standards of providing a high quality of patient care. Many of the proposals set out in the Statement are essentially welcome.
I learnt only last week of the new assessment method, PLACE, and I would love to hear where that fits in to the programme. Having said that, will the Government take note of the fact that there is a danger in creating a superfluity of regulatory authorities that would divert doctors and nurses from their primary bedside responsibilities? Is it not better to make certain that regulatory authorities function much more efficiently and effectively in controlling standards?
Earl Howe
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord. One of the concerns at the back of our minds as we have considered Robert Francis’s report is the need to ensure that we do not create oppressive additional regulation to cure the problems that Francis has identified. Indeed, we need to look at doing the opposite: how can we lift regulatory burdens and ensure that the culture Francis spoke about can thrive? The NHS Confederation is advising us on this. It is looking specifically at burdens placed on NHS providers and organisations, and we shall take its recommendations to heart.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
17:24 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 1 agreed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, this is another occasion on which it is my duty with regard to some Bills to signify the Queen’s consent in the normal manner.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment 1
“Development orders: development within the curtilage of a dwelling house
(1) Section 61 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (development orders: supplementary provisions) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) insert—
“(4) Any development order or amendment to an existing development order made after 1 January 2013 that grants planning permission for development within the curtilage of a dwelling house shall not apply within the jurisdiction of a local planning authority if that authority has resolved that it shall not.””
Lord True
My Lords, I declare an interest as leader of a suburban local authority that is also a planning authority. I thank the leaders of many other local authorities, along with the Local Government Association, who have given this amendment strong support.
This is Third Reading, so I will not go over all the arguments heard before on this issue, but I hope the House will allow me some indulgence, as this is the first time after nearly 40 years of service to my party and 20 years as an elected representative that I find myself contemplating dividing against my party. Your Lordships’ debate on Report in which Peers from all sides spoke was a devastating rejection of the Government’s wish to impose this idea, and I agreed with all that was said.
I had great sympathy for my noble friend Lady Hanham that day. I respect her hugely, as she knows, for the way she has handled this Bill. We all know that she did not cook up this idea. Indeed, I am pretty sure that if, when she was leader of Kensington and Chelsea, some bright young councillor had come to her and said, “Hey Joan, I’ve got a great modernising idea. Why don’t we take away the rights of neighbours to object to big extensions?”, that clever young man would have been sent away with a flea in his ear by his leader, yet that is the extraordinary proposition that I draw to your Lordships’ attention today.
Before the dust had settled on our debates on localism and the NPPF with the sensible liberalisation of planning therein, out popped a big new idea to sweep aside the newly entrenched localism and use Whitehall diktat to double the amount of back gardens that could be built over without planning permission and take away the rights of immediate neighbours to have a say or to object. That was not in any manifesto or in the coalition agreement. All those documents pledged to protect back gardens, and I, and perhaps others in this Chamber, looked people in the eye in 2010 and made that pledge on doorsteps. For my part, as an elected representative, I propose to stand by it.
My amendment is modest. It is a compromise. I think the Government are wrong to want to take away a neighbour’s right to comment on an extension that could be 50%, or technically in some cases a little more of a small neighbouring garden in a terrace. Back gardens are an important reinforcement of mutual value and of the character of an area. My amendment does not block the Government’s wish to do that. I say to my noble friends on coalition Benches that no one who votes for my amendment today, if I press it, will be preventing the Government from making such an order, nor would they be stopping anyone applying for an extension. It merely moderates a one-size-fits-all approach and allows local decision: localism. It states that if a local authority thinks that extending permitted development in gardens to this extent is not appropriate for its area, it may opt out. What is it about this small thing on which this great Government will not compromise? Do they not understand how people live cheek by jowl in the suburbs? I am beginning to wonder whether someone who had an extension refused got stroppy with some Minister or a top civil servant over dinner.
I did not press a similar amendment on Report for two reasons. The first was because I still hoped that the Government might listen, but late yesterday I received a letter from my noble friend making clear that they would not. Secondly, our debate on Report left open a number of questions about what in the jargon is called an Article 4 direction. My noble friend very kindly provided material on this in her letter. Having read it, I remain unconvinced that it provides a sensible answer to an unnecessary question.
I also remain puzzled by the logic of the Government’s position. My noble friend implies in her letter that Article 4 directions are quite easy and normal and can readily be used if councils do not want to extend permitted development. That might be read to imply, although crucially she does not say so and did not say so when asked directly on Report, that all such local directions to opt out would be supported by the Government. Then her bosses handed a file to my noble friend marked “resist” on an amendment that allows a faster, simpler route to the same opt-out point as Article 4 would offer. It simply does not add up. I fear that the truth is that someone deep in Whitehall, while singing the song of localism, wants to keep a hold over local authorities to modify or cancel an Article 4 direction at any time, in which case on this matter Article 4 would be mere fool’s gold.
I do not wish to detain noble Lords with detailed debate on Article 4, because the small print is a diversion from the main principles of localism and householder rights that are engaged here. I must point out that my noble friend’s letter did not mention the complication arising from rights to compensation that may come with Article 4 directions when planning approval is approved. Leeds City Council alone has calculated that its potential exposure in relation to one aspect of policy is between £1.5 million and £3 million. Nor did it mention the lost planning fees—perhaps £250,000 a year in my authority alone, according to my officers—and there will be no less work to be done, for you can be sure that time saved on planning control will be time increased on building control, as neighbours who have not had opportunities to comment on proposed extensions will ask the building inspectors to look at whether the work is being done properly. Of course, even on my noble friend’s best-case presentation of Article 4 directions, it is a process that takes many months.
When the Government commend Article 4 against the faster, simpler approach to local choice that I and my noble friends propose in this amendment, it is as though a man had stopped his car and asked for directions to a town. Instead of saying “Oh, it’s just there, over that hill—it’s about half a mile away”, a bystander deliberately points him around 10 miles of byways, consuming quantities of petrol on the way, with a possibly impassable ford lurking on the route. It seems wasteful and pointless. Every argument the Government make that Article 4 is a good way to opt out is an argument for the simpler, faster route proposed in this amendment.
I return to the fundamental arguments. The Government have suggested a world where in close suburban neighbourhoods people can put up a six or eight-metre back garden extension, and people living in the house to which they may be attached have no right to a say in this or to object. It is not hard to imagine the shock and dismay that some people will feel if they ever find out that it is happening to them. They will feel powerless and angry.
This proposal is not about growth; it is ludicrous to argue that a few back garden extensions would kick-start the economy. It is not about localism and community; it denies localism and avowedly reduces community rights—Ministers say that it does. It is not about new housing; not a single new upstairs bedroom will be built in Britain as a result of this proposal. It is not about making it easier for people to improve their homes; they have every right to do so now and still would if my amendment were passed. It is not even about property rights, for it transfers power and rights from those who lose most directly from any development and adds to the gain of the richer and more assertive, who would gain anyway.
This proposal takes away a neighbour’s right to have a say on a big and potentially overbearing extension shoved up outside their back door. What is more, it removes that vital process of moderation and conciliation that the local planning system provides in these matters. How often do those who have been upset by a planning proposal next door go away finally satisfied if a small condition is added, a modification made, or just by the simple expedient of being able to have their say before the local planning committee? Paradoxically, at this micro-level, a planning hearing can be an enabling process that allows arbitration and reconciliation, without which, in those small, precious, suburban communities, neighbour would be set against neighbour in perhaps lasting resentment.
For those who have worked hard and striven to buy and maintain a home, it is the most precious possession they have. Restricting their right to have a say in what so directly affects it will strike at their most basic instincts of what ought to be secure and what they see as fair. Good policy should surely have a sense of how things work at the human scale, and it is at that level that this proposal so conspicuously fails. To me, there is a principle of equity here, and it is on just such matters that your Lordships’ House has always been a voice of wisdom and held out a hand of protection for the rights of a citizen to come before a tribunal, as a planning committee is, and be heard. I ask your Lordships, in so close an interest for every homeowner, to consider that civilising and reconciling right.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord True, feeling as strongly as he does and with as much sadness as he has expressed. Like him, I am a councillor in an outer London, suburban authority. Indeed, I am a former leader of that council. Like him, I have campaigned and been elected many times on the commitment to preserve back gardens, which is a crucial issue in most suburban authorities and no doubt elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord True, spoke very eloquently and very fully on the issues here. I shall try not to take so much time or to repeat too much of what he has said. He referred to the origins of this proposal last summer. It seemed a good idea when government circles were scratching around trying to find anything that would stimulate growth and this proverbial young Kensington councillor to whom he referred came up with this jolly wheeze. Frankly, it would have been much better had they listened at that time to the strong and unanimous reaction right across all parties, across local government and, indeed, across the country pointing out what a silly idea it was. Sadly, that did not happen. People somewhere in government dug in on it. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, we went to a hastily contrived consultation lasting six weeks, ending on Christmas Eve. At Report, the Minister told us that there had been 1,000 responses. It has been 13 weeks since that six-week consultation ended. We have no idea today, and I suspect that we will have no better idea by the end of today, what those 1,000 replies said. Surely somebody somewhere could simply have divided them into for, against and not quite sure. We could at least get some indication of what that response is, unless we have no indication. If we get no indication in the reply to this debate, we are forced to conclude that a very substantial number of those 1,000 replies have been put in the against pile. For what other reason have we had no indication in the 13 weeks since the consultation closed?
I share the affection of the noble Lord, Lord True, for the Minister. We were London borough council leaders together for many years, and I know very well what her views are, even if she is not allowed to tell us from her present position. At Report, she said that the proposals were to,
“extend the localism rights”.—[Official Report, 12/3/13; col. 197.]
The only rights that are being extended here are to home owners—the right to do as they wish. It may well have sounded good when it was first suggested, but the rights being taken away are the rights of the neighbours to those home owners to have their say on those proposals—and usually there are rather more neighbours than there are home owners. So, in fact, more people are losing rights in this alleged extension to localism than are gaining them.
Among the rights being taken away is the right to have a say. The Minister expressed a hope, which we would all have, that neighbours would talk to each other. Of course that happens, and we would all want it to happen. Quite often, those discussions take place and can be resolved in an amicable way between neighbours; that is what we would all desire. But we all know that, outside that ideal world, it does not always happen that way. The rights being taken away are the rights of the neighbours to be able to appeal for arbitration from a local planning authority, and to ask the house owner who wishes to extend the property properly to take into consideration the interests, wishes and concerns of their neighbours. If they know that they do not have to apply for planning consent, there is no incentive to do so other than to wish to be a good neighbour. If they think that their neighbour is reasonably or unreasonably going to object to their plans for the extension, it is unlikely that they will voluntarily submit to such consultation.
The Local Government Association and the Minister have commented, I am sure correctly, that 90% of such planning applications are currently approved. That is a very good record, which suggests that there is not too much wrong with the present system. But why is there such a high approval rate? It is simply because of the need to have planning consent, and the opportunity that is given to neighbours to have their say and for the applicant to know that the neighbours will have their say, as well as for the role of the local planning authority not just to be able to arbitrate but to be able to mitigate, negotiate and, one hopes, to resolve any outstanding concerns.
This proposal comes as part of a Growth and Infrastructure Bill, and is supposed to incentivise growth—and I think that, to be fair, everyone would agree that it does so in a relatively small way. Presumably, it would do so not for the major developers of the land but for the small builders. I have the good fortune quite often to talk to or, more usually, to be talked at, by quite a number of small builders in my role as a councillor. When I ask them—although I do not usually need to ask them—what they wish the Government would do to make their business more successful, or indeed to keep them in business, not once have any of them said, anywhere in the list, that they wished that the Government would remove the requirement for planning consent. It simply does not happen. If you ask any small builder what they want, there is a whole range of things they would want—VAT is usually mentioned—that would come long before the need to remove the requirement for planning consent.
Are the Government seriously suggesting that somebody considering an extension to their property refrains from doing so simply because of the added cost of a planning application? I do not think that anybody is suggesting that; it would be ludicrous to suggest that the planning application fee is a serious inhibitor to going ahead with the extension to a home.
Article 4 is then pleaded in aid by the Government, who say that it can be used as a way to get around this. My noble friend Lord True has dealt with that very well and very fully, and I am not going to repeat those arguments. But I, too, had the letter from the Minister yesterday, for which I am very grateful, which dealt at some length with unanswered questions from Report about Article 4. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord True, has dealt with many of those, but it also gives us the figures for the use of Article 4, which some of us had said was little used. Well, these terms are relative. I will interpret the figures in the letter in a different way from what was intended. They show that barely one-third of local planning authorities have used Article 4 directives at all in the past three years, and that those that have done so have used them less than once in each of those three years. I would suggest that Article 4, by common consent, is not heavily used. Why? Because it is slow, bureaucratic, ineffective and inefficient, and again using the illustration of the noble Lord, Lord True, it can prove very costly in terms of compensation.
If an increasing number of local planning authorities start to use Article 4 directives when these proposals come in, will the Secretary of State continue to refrain from intervening, as he has up until now? Will he actually be content to see local authorities using Article 4 in effect to get around the proposals that the Government have just introduced? I would suggest that is highly unlikely.
As the noble Lord, Lord True, has said, today’s amendment provides a truly localist way of allowing the Government to introduce these proposals, if they are determined to do so, but also allowing local planning authorities to recognise that one circumstance does not fit all. Of course, different areas have different circumstances; the situation in rural Lincolnshire may well be very different from that in suburban Richmond or Sutton. It gives the local authority the right to choose what they do in terms of their local circumstances.
The Government proposals will set neighbour against neighbour, they will take away people’s rights to object and get a hearing, they take away the local authority’s power to arbitrate and mitigate, and they do absolutely nothing for growth. This amendment enables local authorities to decide how best to deal with these issues in accordance with their local circumstances. I am very pleased to support it.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I, too, willingly added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord True. I stand before your Lordships as a technician, not a politician. As a practising chartered surveyor with a specialised involvement with boundary matters, and as chair of my professional body’s panel on this matter, I can speak with some knowledge of what happens in practice. The professional panel I chair deals with boundaries, party walls, land registration and rights to light. I, too, thank the Minister for a very useful explanatory letter and a copy of the Article 4 procedural guidance. She referred to a condensed version, if I may put it that way, which the Government are intending to bring out. I have not seen that, but no matter because I shall stick with what the Minister has sent me.
The first point is that the desire to deregulate, however objectively beneficial it might seem, should not equate with no oversight whatever. That is the risk the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tope, have identified. It may be populist, but it is not good government.
The second point is that back garden space is an important mutual asset that underpins value and market appeal. We cannot get away from that. Of course, the situation varies according to location, as the noble Lord, Lord True, has said, so a one-size-fits-all approach does not really work. Rural village properties are totally different animals from those in London boroughs in terms of the built and human-scale environment.
The policy of deregulation does not guarantee a positive net present value, if I may use a piece of valuer’s jargon. One poor extension can blight neighbouring properties, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord True. Moreover, poor design and poor positioning are potent sources of neighbour disputes, and that is where people like me get drawn in. They produce serious stress not only between neighbouring householders but within families. I have seen families almost taken apart by the stress that has been occasioned. Such disputes often lead to expensive legal battles, in which I have to say the only gainer is the legal profession.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, you have only to go the Republic of Ireland to see that what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just said is absolutely right. I believe we are well served by our planning laws in this country. I do not want to detain the House for more than a few moments but I remember so often, as a constituency Member of Parliament, finding constituents particularly aggrieved by specific applications. However, there was a way of sorting them out. I also remember the great leylandii problem, when we had to bring in legislation to protect people from these overpowering hedges.
My noble friend Lord True and those who have supported him have laid out an extremely powerful case, backed by technical competence and knowledge from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If ever there was a case for your Lordships’ House saying to another place, “Think again on this one; you have got it wrong”, this is it.
Lord Deben
My Lords, my great difficulty with the amendment is that, in the terms in which it has been proposed, what I believe to be a heresy has been expounded, which is there is an equality of rights between ownership and the right to have a say. The fundamental right is that of ownership and the protection of property; that is essential. That is why, when the Quality of Life report looked at this issue, we came up with a way out of the problem with which your Lordships’ House is faced. We said that this kind of issue was a matter not of planning but of neighbourly relations. Why not take it out of the planning system and have a situation in which people could normally do what they wanted, but if neighbours objected the local authority had the right to decide that such an objection was important enough to appoint an arbitrator? It is not a matter of planning most of the time; it is a matter of arbitration between the interests of the owner and those of his neighbours. The arbitrator should work within a context in which the owner would normally be judged as having the right to do what he wanted with his own property, but that if the neighbour’s rights were so intruded upon the arbitrator could make the decision that in this case it could not be done.
My problem with this situation is that the amendment reinforces the concept that through the blooming local authority is the only way in which the locality can have its say. I am not sure I believe that about local authorities; indeed it seems to me to be one of the issues. Localism is not “local authorityism”—it is localism. I note that very often those who speak about these issues talk as though the only way in which the locality can express itself is through the local authority. Frankly, I have seen far too much of local authorities’ fiddling powers, as they try to tell people the best way to do their developments. I remember having an argument with a charming lady on the subject of what sort of window Teulon would have put in a house that Teulon had built. The difficulty was that she was from the authority and I knew about Teulon, which is a difficult situation to be in. I recognise that there are problems of this kind.
I say to the Minister that it is not possible to support this amendment because we are still in this difficult area. I share the assessment of my noble friend Lord True of the Minister’s ability and her heart in these circumstances, so I say this delicately. She has not been enabled to give the House the kind of way through that exists—a balanced way, given by the recommendations of the Quality of Life report. Can she explain why the Government seem not to have taken that moderate path but have moved to this one? On balance, this one is better than the amendment but it has the great difficulty that if there are many cases of the sort feared by my noble friend Lord True, we will be back here legislating to put the thing back. It is a worry. Can she explain why, on this occasion and, I am afraid, all too regularly, the Government have not sought to find a way that might ameliorate the problem and lead more of us more happily through their Lobby?
Lord Marlesford
I support my noble friend Lord True. I speak from the grass-roots point of view, which will, I hope, answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Deben.
The role of the parish council is crucial in these issues. It is the grass roots of democracy and government. My noble friend Lord True is right about the need to have proper arbitration and consideration in the way his amendment will allow in the council areas that wish to take that route. My noble friend Lord Deben talks about having an arbitrator appointed by the local authority in due course. That seems a little circular, because frankly we are talking about making these matters subject to local arbitration.
My own parish council in the small village in Suffolk in which I live, which I chair, at the moment has two cases of people who wish to extend their houses. They will be considered at the grass-roots level by people who know everyone and they will both be settled very amicably. This is known. However, if you get people who are not prepared to take account of local considerations, preferences and feelings, you will soon run into frictions that could so easily be avoided.
It is for that reason that I will support my noble friend Lord True if he decides to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord True, has been clear and consistent on this matter, and he has our support. I am delighted that he also has: the support of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said that, given the statistics, there cannot be much wrong with the current system; the authoritative support of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, as a distinguished technician; and the support of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that we are not in the place that he describes. Is it not better that a local authority engages with communities and tries to get the balance that these kinds of issues throw up rather than the Secretary of State? Local authorities might not be the fount of all knowledge, but I would rather have local authorities involved in local decisions than the Secretary of State. I think that is also the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
The noble Lord, Lord True, has argued his case on the basis of localism, the lack of proper consultation, the insignificant effect on growth, the riding roughshod over neighbourhood engagement, the unpicking of the hitherto planning balance and the inadequacy of the Article 4 remedy. However, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, as others have said, for the further information that she has provided, particularly on the Article 4 direction.
The Government, of course, have a wider agenda around permitted development rights, and like other noble Lords who have spoken we deprecate the fact that the Government have not yet felt able to publish their response to the consultation, which closed in December last year.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True, is very specific and modest. It applies only to permitted development within the curtilage of a dwelling house, and it disapplies those rights only when a local planning authority resolves that they do not apply. Unless and until that happens, the permitted development rights endure. If the permitted development rights do not apply, any proposed development has to go through the normal planning process. It is, as the noble Lord said, about equity.
Of course we acknowledge the role that the construction sector can play in generating employment and growth, but that is not to say that it should be gained by tearing up sections of the planning system. We can tell from the noble Baroness’s letter that the Government will cling to the Article 4 defence. The Minister’s recent letter suggests that the process of getting an Article 4 direction is straightforward. It records that the Secretary of State has not exercised any powers of intervention since the change in 2010, which only required directions to be notified.
If in practice the Secretary of State is hands-off, why not, as the noble Lord’s amendment suggests, just leave it to the local planning authorities in the first place? Let them decide whether permitted development rights of the type described should run. However, on reading the guidance it is clear that matters are not quite as straightforward as the Government argue. We have all read the LGA briefing, which spells out why Article 4 directions are ineffective, particularly on compensation issues and loss of planning fees, as has been mentioned.
It is to be hoped that the Government will find themselves able to accept this amendment, and we look forward to the Minister’s reply. But if the noble Lord, Lord True, does not get satisfaction, we will join him in the Lobby. I believe it is right that we should seek to settle the matter today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who contributed to this debate, and for the measured way in which they have considered the amendment. I know very well that my noble friends, who I have called noble friends for a long time, are very committed to what the noble Lord has put forward.
I will not be able to accept the amendment. I say that at the outset so that it is quite clear. It has been generated by the Government’s proposals, on which consultation has taken place, on the changes to permitted development rights in respect of single-storey extensions. This was never meant to be part of the Bill. Noble Lords have asked why the consultation has not been published. We normally publish the results of consultation when we are about to take the matter further, and I have already made it clear that the consultation will be available as the regulations come forward. As I say, that aspect is not part of the Bill.
Our proposals, which are not part of the Bill, will make it easier for thousands of families to undertake improvements to their homes. In bringing forward these changes, we have looked across England and recognised that many people want to enlarge their homes, not by much but sufficiently to create more living space and to provide the best possible home for their family without the cost of having to relocate.
We also consulted on changes for commercial premises. Noble Lords have not really referred to this, and I say only that the proposal is that businesses will also be able to improve their premises and expand without having to relocate. This means that they can quickly respond to and capitalise on market conditions. We believe that the proposed changes will help promote economic growth and generate new business for local construction companies and small traders. That is not the full rationale behind this, but it is an important matter that we keep local businesses going. It is fair to say that approximately 30 jobs are supported for every additional £1 million spent on housing repairs and maintenance.
Permitted development is the recognition by the Secretary of State that certain types of development and their impacts are generally acceptable across the country. It accepts that a requirement to make a planning application is not always proportionate to the impacts of development. This is an important principle. We have consulted, as I have said, on the changes that would apply across England. We did not consult on a proposal whereby a local authority could just choose whether or not to adopt what has been promised to all householders across the country. That is what the noble Lords who support this amendment suggest.
We have not consulted on anything like that. We have been clear in working out the proposed changes that the planning system for permitted development rights needs to strike a balance, to which noble Lords have referred, between the rights of the homeowner and the rights of their neighbours. We consider that that is what our proposals do.
We have had reference to the National Planning Policy Framework. To be clear, there is no weakening of it. It is aimed at preventing what I believe from discussion on the Localism Bill is technically called garden-grabbing for new development. We do not believe that the proposals that we have put out to consultation will affect that. No more than 50% of the curtilage of a dwelling can be built on, providing substantial protection for rear gardens, particularly in terraced properties. Also, the building regulations and the Party Wall etc. Act, to which my noble friend Lord Lytton referred, must be complied with in the usual way, and the right to light is unaffected.
My noble friend Lord Lytton took me up on my point about the right to light being statutory. I will be pedantic, if I may. The operation or prescription of the right to light is set out in statute, although the right arises under common law, as he suggests. Between us, we have probably come to the right conclusion, which is always helpful.
To give a local authority the power to opt out of the national permitted development, as the amendment does, would establish an unwelcome precedent. It removes the certainty that the Secretary of State promises in bringing forward a new right, and makes what is intended to be a national deregulatory measure apply only on an optional basis. That is particularly so when a mechanism for responding to concerns in individual areas exists.
My noble friend Lord Deben suggested that some of the problems could be solved by setting up a local arbitration arrangement. He and other noble Lords will know that many councils already provide a mediation service, and of course they would be perfectly entitled to do so under the regulations proposed. I agree that those issues can be appropriately resolved without the formal intervention of the planning system. It just requires a bit of good will.
There are already arrangements in place to deal with some of the circumstances raised in respect of some individual local authorities, where the new rights might impact adversely on a local amenity. Many have commented on the Article 4 directions, on which I have relied as an alternative to what my noble friend suggests. Boringly, I shall make some of those comments again. There has been difference of view about how the Article 4 directions work. It has been suggested that the Article 4 direction process is very difficult to pursue. The Local Government Association briefing contends that. As has been cited and as I said in my fairly long letter, which may have been helpful in some ways, more than 270 Article 4 directions have been notified to the Secretary of State from 122 local planning authorities over the past three years. This does not suggest to me that local authorities will not introduce Article 4 directions if they think they are appropriate. A number of local authorities will.
In its briefing, the Local Government Association set out three core reasons why it believes that Article 4 directions are ineffective. Some of those reasons have been raised by noble Lords. The first focuses on the need for councils to give 12 months’ notice of an Article 4 direction proposal. Local authorities have powers in respect of householder-permitted development to make immediate directions to withdraw the permitted development rights with immediate effect. Article 4 directions that have been put on at once must then be confirmed by the local planning authority following local consultation within six months. It in effect lays down what an Article 4 would do but in a very short timescale, so you could really halt a development or the extension of a development.
Lord True
My Lords, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for the characteristically courteous and thoughtful way in which she has responded. My difficulty is that the response has been a response in style and that she has, unfortunately, not been permitted to respond on the substance of the matter. I did not create this situation. A pronouncement came from the Government that they intended to withdraw the rights of neighbours to object to extensions on this scale and thus oust their right to go to a tribunal, which is the planning committee. The planning committee process acts as a mode of reconciliation in itself. Compromises are made and often the matter never goes to a formal hearing. It is a way in which neighbours are reconciled in these situations.
Of course, I hear what my noble friend Lord Deben said. Arbitration is used. I certainly do not claim that a local authority is the beginning and end of all wisdom. I spend half my time as a local authority leader trying to involve local people and local communities in taking decisions for themselves. I am absolutely convinced that a local authority will have rather more knowledge of what is acceptable and appropriate in its local area than a Minister sitting in Whitehall pronouncing an order of this kind. That is my difficulty with what my noble friend said.
I am extremely grateful for all the speeches that were made so very supportively. I thought that they made a compelling case, taken together, for the Government to listen to the arguments we are putting forward. With some modesty, as a policy-maker in the past, I think that at some point Governments gain in authority when they show that they have the grace and wisdom to listen sometimes on small things.
I will not detain the House further. The Minister said that it was worrying that local authorities might wish to opt out of a pronunciamiento about planning—to have a different view. How recently it was that we debated at such length the principle of localism. While I do not contend that local authorities have the whole answer, I do not think that Whitehall having the answer is necessarily right. The House can decide only on what it has before it. I have had the temerity to raise this issue because it is clear that we have not seen the results of the consultation and it has been confirmed that the Government intend to plough forward to regulations, which are unamendable. I have had the temerity to put this before the House partly because it is a matter of great importance to people who live in small properties, cheek by jowl in the suburbs of this country, partly because Members of Parliament, who are elected and responsible to those people, as I myself am, might have a view on this matter and partly because I do not think that the Government have the full answer, any more than local authorities do.
I repeat what I said at the start. It is with the greatest reluctance, sadness, difficulty and regret, after 40 years working for my party, representing it in elected chambers and now having the great honour to be here, that I say I cannot accept the advice of my noble friend. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley)
If Amendment 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 3 for reasons of pre-emption.
Amendment 2
“(4) Sections 106BA, 106BAA and 106BB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and subsection (5) of this section, are repealed at the end of April 2016.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4) so as to extend the time being specified in that subsection by up to 24 months.”
Lord Tope
My Lords, the amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley. We have debated this clause extensively, under its former guise of Clause 6, at every stage of consideration of this Bill so far and it is certainly not my intention today to reopen debates on the many issues that the clause raises. They have been fully debated; I think that views still differ but, as I have said so often, we are where we are.
On Report, the Government, having listened to at least some of the concerns that were expressed, introduced a sunset clause to bring the clause to an end on 30 April 2016. I welcomed that sunset clause and the evidence that the Government had at least listened to those concerns. However, the government amendment on Report also gave the Secretary of State power to extend the provisions, if judged necessary, for in effect an unlimited period. My amendment today therefore seeks to limit any such extension, should it be deemed necessary, to no more than 24 months.
I am sure that the Minister will say that the clause was introduced in recognition of the current economic circumstances and in the expectation that they would not continue for ever. Indeed, in introducing the sunset clause for April 2016, the Minister was at pains to express that that date had been chosen not arbitrarily but because that was when it was suggested and expected that—I hesitate to say the boom would begin—circumstances would recover.
I am sure that it is the Government’s intention that these provisions should cease to exist on 30 April 2016, but concern is rightly felt that there could be circumstances—after a general election, there will be a new Government of whichever hue—in which the provisions could carry on indefinitely, which many of us feel to be wrong. Our attempt, therefore, is to limit the clause to two years. By that time, under the National Planning Policy Framework, all local authorities should have drawn up their local plan—70% have already published one—and those up-to-date plans will ensure that every planning requirement is viability-tested, which should in turn render this clause redundant.
I should like to think that the Government are able to accept the amendment. If they are not, I hope that the Minister will express her sympathy and support for its intentions and put that on record. While that is not as good as its being in the Bill, it is at least some reassurance for now and for the future. I hope that, in doing so, she will also indicate that any future Government, if they are minded to extend the provisions of this clause, will come forward with robust evidence that proves that affordable housing obligations are routinely stalling developments. I am not sure that we are convinced of that now, but, if there is to be any extension, it will certainly be incumbent on the Minister of the time to provide the evidence to convince both Houses of Parliament that it is necessary, and both Houses of Parliament should have the opportunity to decide on those matters.
I do not think that I need to detain the House any longer. The purpose of the amendment is quite clear. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 3, which is intended to have the same effect as Amendment 2. If it is pre-empted by Amendment 2, I would be more than happy with that outcome.
At the moment we have a sunset clause that is in rather an unsatisfactory situation. Effectively we have the right for developers to renegotiate affordable housing obligations on which the sun indeed may never set. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, now is not the time to revisit our broader concerns about these provisions. On Report the Minister justified the three-year primary period of the sunset clause by quoting evidence from the OBR that showed that investment in housing is expected to stabilise in 2016, yet she argued the need for a pragmatic power to extend this if prevailing market conditions justified it.
This is a hard argument to maintain unless the Minister is anticipating a further deterioration in the housing market. By 2016, developers will have been negotiating affordable housing obligations in circumstances of recession, or of zero or little growth, for about eight years. The amendment allows for a possible further two years, so it would then have been for a full decade. Perhaps the Minister can be more specific about the nature of the catastrophe that she considers might beset the housing market that would justify retaining residual powers beyond 2018.
The March 2013 OBR report does not seem to help, as it comments on the variety of housing measures that the Government have promulgated, noting that overall, together with the Funding for Lending scheme, the measures should support significant growth in property transactions and residential investment at levels that we forecast for the next two years. The Government may have got something right; is the Minister saying that the OBR has got it wrong?
The justification for a possible two-year extension of the sunset clause is pretty thin. The opportunity to keep Clause 7 in being beyond this is not justified, unless it is intended to be held up as some sword of Damocles to ensure that future affordable housing obligations are depressed. We agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Tope, that a maximum of two further years of the sunset clause is okay but not more than that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, we hope that the Minister can reassure us on that so that we do not need to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we have discussed this extensively at all stages of the Bill and I hear the arguments that have been made again today. Since Report, I have also had the opportunity of discussing this with representatives of the National Housing Federation and that has been helpful.
I am pleased and always have been that the principle of a sunset clause to repeal the clause in April 2016 is generally supported. However, these amendments focus on the power given to the Secretary of State to extend the provision by order beyond 2016. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has referred to the date of April 2016 in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s market forecasts as a sensible and justified sunset date. We do not know whether things will have improved by then and I am sure that the noble Lord does not either. One can only hope that they will have. If they have not, we would want to retain an option to extend the measure if market uncertainty remains. We have hoped that we would dig ourselves out of the economic crisis over the past couple of years but it has not been possible. One cannot say with total confidence that 2016 will see us out of the doldrums but we expect and hope that it will.
The issue at stake is not the sunset clause, which has already been agreed, but how any future extension should be constrained. I sympathise with the wish for certainty and I hope it is reasonable to expect that there will be economic stability by 2018, and that consequently there will be little need for extension of the provision. However, while I agree that 2018, as proposed by my noble friend, seems a reasonable limit for this clause, it is as arbitrary a date as any and would limit future flexibility.
To retain flexibility is prudent. With flexibility by order the matter could be taken forward. If it had to be, the Government would have to come to both Houses, because it would be an affirmative order. My noble friend asked what evidence they would have to bring: I suggest that it would have to be the best evidence that they could find, which would presumably at least refer to the amount of affordable housing that still needed negotiation. Both Houses would have to consider this in the light of any evidence that the Government had at that stage.
I am also wary of having a fixed date of 2018, or a fixed extension period, because the clause introduces a new application and appeal process. Viability alone and not policy requirements or scheme merits is the subject of the application and appeal. The on-the-ground impact will not be known until the clause has been in operation for a little while and we have seen how the viability process works. It is essential, therefore, that we maintain flexibility to understand the impact of the measure over a little time. Along with more certainty in market conditions, this would give better ground for assessing the merits of any extension during 2015 when consideration would have to begin as to whether the extension to 2016 should be made.
The clause is drafted so that the order must insert “a later date”. It does not allow for a permanent provision. This wording reflects our intention that this clause will operate only for as long as it is required. Its intent is to be temporary. A permanent provision would require new primary legislation. Finally, it could be argued that the real future of this clause is in the hands of local authorities. If local planning authorities take account of their local economic realities and negotiate viable and flexible agreements with developers, there will be little scope for challenge.
Since we debated these provisions on Report, I have arranged a meeting for interested Peers—those who have spoken—on the draft viability guidance that will accompany this clause. I am grateful that the noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Shipley and Lord Best, responded to that invitation and were able to give us some thoughts on the matter. It was perhaps a little unfortunate that we did not have a bigger turnout but I am sure that everybody was busy.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
For the record, I think I was engaged on other legislation at the time.
Baroness Hanham
That would have made four.
I hope these discussions have assured noble Lords that we intend this to be a strictly dated clause, but the flexibility is needed. It will allow for adjustment of affordable housing requirements only where it is justified and clearly evidenced. In this way, we expect to deliver more housing, both private and affordable, than would otherwise come forward. I think everybody in this House agrees that that is essential.
This is not intended to be a permanent measure. We are happy with the sunset clause but think that we might need a little extra time. This is the easiest way of doing it without having to bring in primary legislation. We can extend this on an affirmative order. I hope that the noble Lord will feel satisfied and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and for the reassurances she was able to give. I draw comfort from the fact that first and foremost the answer lies with local authorities getting their local plans in place and ensuring that any agreements they negotiate or are negotiating are properly viable. I accept that in the first instance it is for local authorities to do. I thank the Minister for her confirmation of what we knew, which it is useful to have on the record, that this measure is subject to the affirmative procedure and that, should the Government of the time wish to extend, they will have to produce evidence to both Houses. I hope that both Houses will do their utmost to ensure that there is robust evidence should that eventuality arise. Most of all, I draw some comfort from my expectation that it will not prove necessary. That is, I think, a hope shared on all sides of the House. I believe that will be the case. Time will tell, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
“(2C) In complying with any duty under subsection (2B), if it appears that there is a conflict between any of the duties under this section, the Secretary of State shall attach greater weight to his duties under subsection (2B).”
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, in the imminent absence of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, I shall introduce Amendment 4. This amendment refers in large part to broadband, so I should declare an interest in that my family business is based in Cumbria and most certainly stands to gain from improved broadband provision.
The importance of broadband was extensively debated last week when the Communications Committee’s report Broadband for All—an Alternative Vision was so ably introduced by my neighbour and noble friend Lord Inglewood. He emphasised the special importance of broadband in rural areas, and I agree. I have long argued that renewed growth in Britain will come—indeed, is already coming—from small and medium-sized businesses, many of them rural. That came home to me forcefully last week when I was returning from your Lordships’ House. The train to Cumbria came to a frozen halt at Lancaster. The train operator kindly provided taxis for six of us to go further up the branch lines. To my amazement, all six of us, who live dotted around in the villages and hamlets near me, were all on a day trip to London selling our goods and services. This is interesting because it was completely unheard of only a few years ago. I tell the story because there is a strong danger that the anticipated broadband take-up will be underestimated. In a sense, that is very good news, but there are implications.
I am grateful to the Government for amending Clause 9 on Report. It means that the primary legislation governing national parks and AONBs will remain unchanged, which is a welcome improvement. However, my noble friend tabled this amendment because he remains concerned that Clause 9, even as amended, undermines the legal protection for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, and I share his concern.
In amending Clause 9, the Government were reacting to concerns that the clause disapplied key duties on the Secretary of State to have regard to natural beauty in protected areas. The new approach, in the Minister’s own words:
“ensures that the duty that already exists under Section 109 of the Communications Act 2003 for the Secretary of State to have regard for the environment and beauty of the countryside will be deemed to meet the ‘have regard’ duties set out in protected areas legislation, when the Secretary of State comes to make regulations under Section 109”.
The aim of the changes the Government made to Clause 9 was, again in the words of my noble friend Lady Hanham, to reassure,
“the House that our intention was only to ensure that the right legal framework was put in place and that we had no wish to unpick the distinct and settled legislative framework that applies to the national parks”.—[Official Report, 12/3/13; col. 141.]
This change is welcome, as far as it goes, but it is important to note that many outside this place remain concerned about the precedent it sets for protections for our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The view of the Campaign to Protect Rural England’s legal advisers is that Clause 9 as amended by the Government replaces the special protection for national parks and AONBs with the general protection given to all countryside areas under Section 109(2)(b) of the Communications Act 2003. If the Secretary of State has had regard to the matters mentioned in that section, that will be sufficient for the purposes of Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. In other words, the special treatment and priority given to national parks would be lost; they would be treated in future like any other area of countryside.
At a practical level, this means that the clause, even as amended by the Government, continues to allow the introduction of proposed new regulations that will make it much easier for telecommunications companies to put up overhead wires and poles in protected areas without applying for planning permission. The CPRE continues to believe that Clause 9 is unnecessary and that new telegraph poles in national parks and AONBs should continue to require planning permission, which would not pose a barrier to broadband infrastructure rollout.
This amendment seeks to clarify that where any of the duties that the Secretary of State must have regard to under Section 109(2) of the Communications Act 2003 come into conflict when the Secretary of State is making regulations, he or she must give greater weight to the “have regard” duties for protected landscapes. The expression “greater weight” is used in Section 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and it is proposed to use it in this clause to underline the special status of our protected landscapes in the decision-making process for the Secretary of State.
This is an important point of principle. Our national parks and AONBs are designated as such for a reason: they are recognised as being special landscapes, and thus worthy of special protection. It has been said that the ideal for the national parks set out by the Dower report and reiterated by the Hobhouse committee in the post-war years, and held steadily since then by politicians from all parties, “is none other than the protection of these finest landscapes of England and Wales in so effective a way that their local life shall vigorously continue, while the beauty of the countryside, untouched by any damaging influence or urban encroachment, shall be maintained as a thing splendid in itself, giving poise and strength to those who appreciate it and adjusting man’s overweening ideas of his own importance through the quiet influence of the unchanging hills”.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the South Downs Society. I support this amendment very warmly. I have very little to add to what the noble Lord said—I could not have put it better myself—but I urge the Minister to keep in mind that the national parks are one of the greatest achievements of this country, and that we should be very careful how we safeguard their value, which has provided benefit to millions.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I, too, support the principle behind the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, which was ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. Again, as in Committee on this Bill, I come from an economic perspective. As I said then, the whole economy of our national park areas comes from the beauty of their landscapes, which we must try to preserve at all costs. Their beauty brings income from visitors, both national and international, and from the whole question of the branding of the businesses, now and in the future, that exist within their boundaries. It would be very easy to chip away at the uniqueness of this branding: little bits here and there, often for seemingly urgent reasons at the time.
In fact this clause, in its original form, was saying just that: we must have broadband within these rural areas at all costs, and we do not care too much about how we achieve it. I agree; we must have broadband at all costs, but we must pay attention as to how we achieve it. Although broadband is of great economic importance, the landscape is of greater longer-term economic importance. Therefore, we and the Secretary of State must always put the landscape first. It must be the overriding long-term priority in the management of these areas, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us some comfort.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we had a long discussion on Report on many of the areas that have been raised again today. As noble Lords know, the Government have brought forward a number of amendments to respond to the concerns that had been expressed, particularly on some of the issues raised on the nature of the national parks and the areas of outstanding natural beauty. I certainly hope that I said on Report that we consider these areas to be exactly what they are meant to be. They are special areas, lungs in the countryside for people, recreational areas, and clearly they have all the beauty of England. Nobody wants to despoil that.
It may be helpful if I briefly review where we got to on Report. I hope that I reassured noble Lords at that stage that we were seeking to ensure that broadband—fast broadband—was available, particularly in rural areas, because many businesses in these areas will survive and thrive only if they have access to broadband. That is what we were trying to do. As I said, nobody has any wish to impede or impose on rural areas.
I will take a moment to remind the House of the position that we reached on the broadband provisions. It is our intention, through Clause 9, to ensure that there is sufficient legal certainty in primary legislation when bringing forward our proposed changes to secondary legislation. The clause as it was when introduced to this House expressly disapplied the duties in national parks and area of outstanding natural beauty legislation to have regard to environmental considerations. However, many of the concerns that this would set an unwelcome precedent for the future were raised by noble Lords, the English National Park Authorities Association and the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
I was able to have meetings with representatives from those associations, and I am very grateful to them for coming in to talk to us. As a result of those discussions, we were able to propose an amendment to the clause that addressed their concerns while ensuring that we had the necessary legal certainty to bring forward regulations. To my noble friend who moved these amendments, I point out that the initial amendment was about having regard to duties. We satisfied those associations and the House that those amendments achieved what everybody wanted to achieve: protection for these areas, as well as recognising the need to move forward.
Clause 9 amends Section 109 of the Communications Act 2003 so that the Secretary of State must have regard both to the need to protect the environment, and in particular to conserve the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside; and the need to promote economic growth in the United Kingdom. The duty to consider the need to promote economic growth was introduced because of broadband’s pivotal role in boosting economic growth, making the country more competitive and creating jobs. This is particularly important in rural areas, which, as I have just said, are most in need of upgraded infrastructure.
I reassure the House that the introduction of this new duty does not mean that protection of the environment is a lesser duty. It is not. The Government remain convinced that protection of the environment is crucial. That is why a code of best siting practice is being developed as a safeguard to ensure that fixed broadband equipment is sensitively sited. The noble Lord drew attention to the fact that we have already said that BT would have to share its infrastructure.
As I set out on Report, a working group has been established to draft this new code. It has agreed its scope and some broad principles, which I shared ahead of Report. Its next meeting is tomorrow, where it will continue its work towards the final code being ready for publication ahead of the secondary legislation being brought forward. I remind the House that the working group is made up of communications providers, local planning authorities, Ofcom, the Office of the Telecommunications Adjudicator, English Heritage and the English National Park Authorities Association, and all members are keenly engaged in bringing this important code to fruition.
I reassure noble Lords again that all existing provisions of the national parks legislation will be unaffected by this Bill’s provisions, except for Section 11A(2) of the 1949 Act, which will be complied with through the duty in the Communications Act 2003. This was resolved by amendment on Report. The Secretary of State has to be proportionate when exercising these powers, and any regulations are subject to both consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
The noble Lord raised several questions, some of which I think I have answered and some of which I fear I may not have done because they were rather more technical than anticipated in my brief. I will write to him on the ones that I think I have not covered, but I hope I have given him enough reassurance that we are wholly committed to the countryside and that we recognise all that it provides. Having said that, and following the long debates that we have had on this subject and the amelioration that we have been able to make to the original provisions, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for their support for this amendment, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. As she said, I do not think that all the questions have been answered. She was rather surprised when I rattled them off rather quickly. I sense that her heart is exactly in the right place as regards the countryside. With the assurance that she will write to those noble Lords who have taken part, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
This last amendment is a very minor, straightforward tidying up of legislation. It follows from the new clause that we inserted on Report on the delegation of the planning powers of the Mayor of London, now Clause 28 in the Bill. That clause deletes Section 2B(8) of the Town and Country Planning Act. As a result, we will no longer need to refer to Section 2B(8) in Schedule 1 to the Bill, so the amendment removes that reference.
With the leave of the House, as this is the last opportunity I will have before the Bill is sent back to the other place—clearly, we will see it back again in some form—I place on record my appreciation of the work done in this House by all noble Lords who have taken part. I thank them for the great persistence and consistency with which they have addressed the issues. We have made significant amendments to this Bill and have put in four new clauses, so I thank all noble Lords and those who have assisted us with this Bill, including my noble friend Lord Ahmad. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have no problem with this amendment. I reciprocate by thanking the noble Baroness and her team for the extreme courtesy with which they have handled this Bill and for the very extensive discussions that the noble Baroness has organised, some of which one could get to and some of which one could not. I also thank the Bill team for its helpful input.
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:21 - Division on Amendment 6A - Ayes: 158 / Noes: 174 - Amendment 6A disagreed.
22:00 - Division on Amendment 19B - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 141 - Amendment 19B disagreed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments 2 and 3, 26 to 43 inclusive, and 45.
Part 1 of the Bill makes significant changes to the system for independent oversight of the intelligence agencies and the wider intelligence community. It extends the Intelligence and Security Committee’s statutory remit, granting it additional investigative powers. It changes the ISC’s status to a committee of Parliament created by statute. The ISC in future will be appointed by Parliament and will report to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister. The Bill also extends the remit of the Intelligence Services Commissioner.
When the Bill was last in this House, we had a series of detailed and well informed debates. At Report I made a commitment that we would bring forward amendments in the Commons concerning the status of the ISC. We have done that. We have also moved a number of other amendments in the Commons that address concerns that were originally raised in this House.
I turn first to Commons Amendments 1, 41, 43 and 45. These concern the status of the ISC. During the debates in Committee and at Report, there was some very well informed debate about the future status of the ISC. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who I regret is not in his place today, made the case for the ISC becoming a Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord Lothian, current members of the ISC, argued for changing the name of the ISC to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to make clear the parliamentary character of the ISC. Following that debate, I announced the Government’s intention to make clear the parliamentary character of the ISC and to make a number of necessary consequential amendments. The amendments that the Government moved in the Commons would deliver on the Government’s intention.
Amendment 1 would adopt the amendment first tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord Lothian, and would change the name of the Intelligence and Security Committee to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Amendments 41 and 43 would make the equivalent changes in Schedules 2 and 3. These amendments would more fully realise the Government’s intention that the ISC should be a committee of Parliament, created by statute.
Commons Amendments 40 and 42 are closely related to the “of Parliament” amendments that I have just discussed. The Data Protection Act 1998 applies to Parliament but with special rules to determine who the data controller is. The data controller is the person within any organisation on whom most of the obligations under the DPA fall. Section 63A of the DPA states:
“Where the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are … processed are determined by or on behalf of”,
either House,
“the data controller … shall be the Corporate Officer”,
of the relevant House. It is not appropriate that the corporate officer should be the data controller for data processed by the ISC, but this is the likely effect of Section 63A once the ISC is a committee of Parliament. For that reason, Amendment 40 would add a provision to disapply Section 63A of the DPA so far as the ISC is concerned so that, notwithstanding that the new ISC will be a committee of Parliament, its data controller can continue to be its clerk.
In addition, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000—the FOIA. As a committee of Parliament, it is arguable that the ISC, too, would be subject to the FOIA, as other Joint Committees are. To avoid this consequence, Amendment 42 would add a provision to the Bill which would amend references to the House of Commons and House of Lords in Schedule 1 to the FOIA to make it clear that they are not subject to the Act as regards information held by the ISC. This amendment would preserve the status quo, in that the FOIA does not apply to information held by the ISC now and it would not do so in future.
In addition, Amendment 42 would add the ISC to the list of bodies in Section 23 of the FOIA. The result of this would be that ISC information—information which has been supplied to or by the ISC, whether directly or indirectly, or which relates to it—in the hands of another public authority subject to the FOIA would be exempt information for FOIA purposes.
We now turn to Commons Amendment 39, which would provide statutory protections for evidence given by witnesses to the ISC. First, such evidence may not be used in any civil or disciplinary proceedings. Secondly, evidence given by a person who is a witness before the ISC may not be used against that person in any criminal proceedings. These provisions would replicate an important part of the protection that witnesses before a Select Committee have by virtue of parliamentary privilege. They would provide encouragement to witnesses appearing before the ISC to be full and frank in their evidence. The protection against the use of evidence in criminal proceedings would be narrower than the equivalent protection for civil and disciplinary proceedings. They would not impinge on an individual’s right to defend him or herself in criminal proceedings. Of course, evidence that is deliberately misleading is of no assistance to the ISC. Accordingly, the protections would not apply to evidence given by a witness to the ISC in bad faith.
On Commons Amendment 26, I said at Report that one possible consequence of the “of Parliament” change is that the ISC would have the power to take evidence on oath. Following further analysis, we concluded that the consequence of changing the status of the ISC to become a statutory committee of Parliament was that the ISC may, in future, take evidence on oath. Our view was that existing statutory powers applicable to Commons and Lords committees would give the ISC the authority to administer oaths. This view shaped amendments which the Government tabled, and which were agreed to, in Committee in the Commons. However, the House service raised a concern with the Government about this, disagreeing with our analysis that the “of Parliament” change gives the ISC the authority to take evidence on oath. Its view is that the Bill should contain an express power for the ISC to take evidence on oath. In response to that concern, the Government tabled an amendment in the Commons to put the ISC’s power to take evidence on oath beyond doubt. It is not necessary that the Bill specify who has the power to administer oaths on behalf of the ISC; that can be left for the ISC to determine, under its general power to determine its own procedure.
Commons Amendments 2, 3, 28, 29, 30 and 31 concern the ISC’s ability to oversee operational matters. The Bill extends the ISC’s statutory remit, and makes clear its ability to oversee operational matters. This is a crucial part of the Bill’s aim of strengthening oversight. The amendments would both extend and clarify the ISC remit to oversee operational matters; they respond to concerns of the ISC that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, during debates in this House. The noble Lord’s first concern was that there may be exceptional circumstances in which the Government might want the ISC to consider particular operational matters falling outside the existing criteria. His second concern was that the requirement that both the ISC and the Prime Minister be satisfied that the criteria for operational oversight were met might slow down the provision of information to the ISC on routine operational matters.
In response to these concerns, the amendments made in the Commons would mean that the Bill would provide for three routes by which the ISC may consider particular operational matters. The first route is the one that was already in the Bill—when the Prime Minister and the ISC are agreed that the matter is of significant national interest and is not part of any ongoing intelligence and security operation. The second route is when the Government request the ISC to consider a matter notwithstanding that either or both of those criteria are not met. This meets the first concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. The third route is where the ISC’s consideration of a matter is limited to considering information provided to the ISC voluntarily by the agencies or another government department. This meets the second concern raised by the noble Lord.
For the first and second routes only, the ISC and the Prime Minister would need, additionally, to be satisfied that the consideration of a particular operational matter is consistent with the memorandum of understanding agreed between them. The ISC’s powers to require the agencies or other government departments to provide it with information would be available in the first two cases, but not for the third—on the consideration of information volunteered to the ISC. This would be the effect of Amendment 3 and consequential Amendments 28 to 31.
Amendment 27 addresses the future resourcing of the ISC. In Committee in the Commons, the Minister for Security made clear that it remained the Government’s intention that we should make the ISC more parliamentary and move it away from Government. Officials from government, the House service and the ISC secretariat have discussed what we think will be an acceptable solution agreeable to all parties. This is that the ISC secretariat should become a separate body, grant-aided by the House. This would be similar, for example, to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK. The National Security Adviser has written to the Clerk of the Parliaments and to the Clerk of the House of Commons setting out formally that this is the Government’s intention. My understanding is that the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords House Committee are willing in principle to take on responsibility for grant-aiding the ISC. This solution meets the Government’s policy intention that responsibility for the ISC secretariat should be moved away from Government. As the ISC itself becomes a committee of Parliament so, subject to what I will say shortly, responsibility for the funding and resourcing of the ISC secretariat would pass from Government to Parliament.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, in general, the amendments which the Minister has described are very welcome to the Intelligence and Security Committee. On behalf of the committee and my noble friend who is also a member of it, I thank the Government for the consideration they have given.
There are three issues that I should like briefly to put to the Minister. First, he said that in respect of access to operational information the committee will be given oversight of operational activity in three circumstances. In relation to the first, it is given retrospectively and if the matter is significant, and that is the usual type of operation that the committee currently considers. Secondly, as the Minister said, the ISC may also be given information about an operation if the Prime Minister wishes the committee to examine it. Therefore, current operations are not ruled out in those rather special circumstances. Thirdly, as the Minister said, the ISC may be given information about any operations if the agencies volunteer that information. There is a respect in which the word “voluntarily”, which appears in the Bill, can seem a little misleading and might even appear restrictive. At present, the agencies do indeed, of their own free will, confide frequently in the committee about operations, but “voluntarily” may suggest that this category is going to be restricted somewhat. I should be grateful if the Minister could give an assurance to the House, as he did when the Bill was before us previously, that there is no intention to restrict the current degree of information which the intelligence agencies give the committee about their operations.
The second issue is the question of resources. As the Minister said, it has been agreed that the ISC will become a grant-aided body. The assurances that I should like to ask the Minister, on behalf of the committee, to give are no doubt the assurances that he would expect me to ask him to give. The Government have repeatedly stated that they want to strengthen oversight. Does the Minister acknowledge on behalf of the Government that if oversight is to be strengthened the tools to carry it out will have to be provided? Can he give a commitment that the ISC will be given a substantial increase in resources that recognises this remit?
We have so far not reached agreement with the Government on what the grant is going to be. Those discussions are going on but it will have to be substantially higher than the present level of grant. Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise that? Can he give some comfort to the committee that, although those negotiations have not been completed, the Government recognise that a substantial increase will be necessary?
The third point relates to the publication of classified information, to which the Minister also referred. Can he confirm that Schedule 1, which, quite rightly, puts safeguards on the committee’s power to publish classified or sensitive information, is not intended to prevent the ISC publishing other, non-classified material—for example, the issuing of press releases, open letters or newspaper articles, which the committee, or the chairman on its behalf, does from time to time?
If the Minister could give some assurances to the committee on those points, we would be very grateful.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very detailed explanation of the amendments before us. In fact, he was able to talk about not just the amendments but some of the discussions that we had in Committee and on Report and about some of the background. I thought that at one point he might be challenging the noble Lord, Lord McNally, regarding his marathon speech during ping-pong of the Crime and Courts Bill, but fortunately he was not able to reach those dizzy heights.
I shall be fairly brief as I think that the Minister has covered many of the points and I suspect that your Lordships are more interested in some of the issues that we will be debating where there is not so much agreement as there is on these amendments. We welcome many of the amendments in this group. I am grateful to the Minister because the Government have obviously listened to many of the arguments made in Committee and on Report in your Lordships’ House and have brought forward amendments to recognise that.
As he will understand, I particularly welcome Amendments 32 to 37, which are identical to those that the Opposition introduced to place a power of veto on disclosure of information to the committee at the level of Secretary of State rather than Minister of State. I well remember the lengthy debates that we had in your Lordships’ House and I am glad that we were able to convince the Government that that was the right course of action. We are grateful.
I will raise one other issue in relation to the other amendments on which I should like the Minister to give me an assurance. In Committee and on Report, our position was that it was desirable for the committee to have full parliamentary privilege. At that time, we supported the view taken by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that the only way to achieve that would be by establishing the ISC as a full Select Committee of Parliament, obviously with the additional safeguards necessary for a committee of that kind. That did not find favour with your Lordships’ House or with the Government. The view taken was that that was not the way to proceed as it was thought to be too difficult. Therefore, we welcome the steps that the Government have taken since that debate to provide greater protections in statute for the ISC along the lines of parliamentary privilege.
The Minister was very helpful in explaining Amendment 39, which grants witnesses, in relation to any evidence they give to the committee, statutory immunity from civil disciplinary proceedings and from criminal proceedings under certain circumstances where the disclosure has been made in good faith. That is hugely significant and we are grateful for that move forward. I am sure that the noble Lord remembers, as I do, the lengthy discussions that we had on this issue when the Bill was last before the House. However, is he able to provide greater clarity on the extent to which protection exists for other individuals involved in the proceedings of the ISC? If he does not have the answers today, I shall be happy for him to write to me. My understanding is that Members of Parliament are currently not protected by parliamentary privilege in relation to their work on the committee, and nor are the staff working on it in relation to the evidence held by the committee. Clearly, that is very important, as most of the evidence that the committee receives is likely to be covered by the Official Secrets Act as well as the Civil Service Code.
Can the Minister provide clarity on three further points? First, do the protections provided by Amendment 39 apply to witnesses who provide written evidence—for example, whistleblowers who provide evidence anonymously or in writing? Secondly, what protections are provided for the staff of the committee and the Members of Parliament serving on the committee? For example, if the ISC were passed anonymous information covered by the Official Secrets Act, would the ISC then be able to act on that information to investigate it or would the handling of the information cause its members and staff to be in breach of the Act? Finally, does the fact that these are statutory protections and not privilege mean that it would be possible for the Government or an employer to obtain an injunction preventing a witness appearing before the committee?
I do not raise those issues in any way as criticism. I repeat that we welcome the steps that the Government have taken towards the committee having greater parity with the powers and privileges of a full Select Committee. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could answer those points, although we broadly support the amendments and are grateful to him and to the Government for taking on board comments made by your Lordships and the Official Opposition in Committee and on Report.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for their broad welcome for the amendments. This House has played a sizeable role in the process leading to the amendments. I do apologise. I was not deliberately seeking to delay the proceedings of the House but I felt it was important that I reported back as I see this as a significant change and one in which this House has played a key role.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, asked about operational circumstances. I can provide the reassurance that there is no intention to restrict the ISC’s receipt of information on operational matters. The amendment makes it clear that information can be provided at the ISC’s request as well as by agencies or departments on their own initiative. I hope that reassures the noble Lord. He also referred to resources and asked for comfort. I am not sure that any Minister can give comfort on resources at the present time but perhaps I can say that the Government acknowledge that the ISC will require an increase in resources to reflect its expanded oversight role. However, as he rightly pointed out, negotiations are current. I would not want to comment further on those but I hope the noble Lord finds that that is of some comfort. It is certainly a recognition by the Government of the new role for the ISC.
The noble Lord also asked about restrictions on the ISC publishing material. It is not the intention to restrict the ISC from publishing non-sensitive and non-classified information in press releases or open letters. As I said, any information that could be in an ISC report can be published by it on an informal basis as well. I hope that gives a clear indication that things are not being made more restrictive.
I have a note here that might address the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—if I can read the detail. On the due protection supplied to witnesses providing written evidence, the answer is yes. On questions two and three about the handling of leaked information or an injunction preventing a witness appearing, it says here that I will write on those matters. I have to say that I hope I can write slightly more clearly than this note, which is meant to provide me with information. It does say that I will write. Given the nature of the questions, I think the noble Baroness will understand that it is important that I do not mislead the House by trying to ad hoc or wing it. I will happily write to her and place a copy of the letter in the Library. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 and 3.
(a) the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that the matter—
(i) is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation, and
(ii) is of significant national interest,
(b) the Prime Minister has asked the ISC to consider the matter, or
(c) the ISC’s consideration of the matter is limited to the consideration of information provided voluntarily to the ISC (whether or not in response to a request by the ISC) by—
(i) the Security Service,
(ii) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(iii) the Government Communications Headquarters, or
(iv) a government department.
(3A) The ISC’s consideration of a particular operational matter under subsection (3)(a) or (b) must, in the opinion of the ISC and the Prime Minister, be consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4 and in doing so, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group. It is fair to say that the provisions dealing with closed material procedures have undergone significant changes since the Bill was first introduced into your Lordships’ House 10 months ago. This House made significant amendments to the Bill on important issues of principle. A number of noble Lords made their support for these provisions contingent on those changes being made. The Government have brought forward amendments that address the views of this House, and I believe that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and sensible.
In seeking to persuade your Lordships’ House that these amendments should allay the concerns expressed, we should remind ourselves briefly why the Government have brought the closed material procedure—CMP—provisions forward. Fundamentally, they will increase scrutiny of the intelligence and security agencies. CMPs will ensure that intelligence material which would risk the lives of agents and sources, or betray secret techniques is not revealed in open court. At present, the only method to protect very sensitive material such as the identity of informants from disclosure in open court is through public interest immunity. The problem is that a successful PII claim results in the exclusion of that material from the proceedings. Any judgment reached at the end of the case is not informed by that material, no matter how central or relevant it is to the issues in the case. This system works in some contexts, but when a case is so saturated in sensitive material the PII procedure can remove the evidence which one side needs to put their case. Settling is not always an option, and in serious cases involving accusations such as mistreatment, settling does not allow the court to get to the whole truth of what may or may not have happened. The other possibility is Carnduff-type strikeout, which also results in a case not being heard at all. We believe that CMPs offer a way through the dilemma. They enable the courts to ensure that allegations made against the Government are fully investigated and scrutinised, while addressing the potentially severe implications for national security.
A number of changes were made as the Bill proceeded through Committee and, principally, on Report in your Lordships’ House. There were six key amendments on Report, which it is fair to say were taken forward on the basis of a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. These increased the discretion available to the judge and allowed any party to apply for the CMP, and indeed for the court to order one, on its own motion.
Turning to the amendments, the Government have sought to take on board the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and amendments passed in your Lordships’ House. We have brought forward a completely restructured Clause 6—Amendments 4 to 15. There is also a proposed new clause, which is Amendment 16. It addresses the last resort concern by allowing the court to revoke a CMP declaration at any time. The Government’s proposals reflect the intention underlying the amendments made in this House, but also seek to avoid some unintended consequences that would cause problems in practice. Under these amendments the judge now has total discretion over whether to make a CMP declaration following an application by any party to the proceedings, or a Secretary of State, should the Secretary of State not be a party to the proceedings. The court also has the power to order a CMP declaration of its own motion. In making the case for CMPs, the Government argued that they can sometimes be fairer for claimants, too. The courts have confirmed that in some circumstances claimants’ cases will automatically fail without a CMP.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, and this House observed and argued, rightly, that if CMPs are sometimes in the interests of claimants, they should be able to apply for them and the court should be able to order CMPs as well. These amendments make some technical changes to the amendments originally passed by your Lordships’ House, but they put all parties to proceedings on the same footing when it comes to making an application for a CMP declaration, and will allow the court to order one of its own motion. Where a non-government party is applying for a CMP declaration in relation to sensitive material they do not hold themselves, their interests will be represented by a special advocate in the closed part of the hearings determining that application. The Government have also fully accepted the amendment passed by this House that gave the judge discretion on whether there should be a CMP declaration. As I reflected in some conversations with my noble friends, many of us in our parliamentary lives have tabled amendments to change “must” to “may” or “may” to “must”. This House passed that this should be a change from “must” to “may”, which is possibly the most profound amendment that it made. It has some far-reaching consequences with regard to asserting judicial discretion. Previously, if the court was satisfied that there was relevant evidence that would damage the interests of national security were it to be disclosed, the court had no option but to make a declaration. Now the judge does have discretion.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 6A as an amendment to Amendment 6.
During the Second Reading debate on the Bill I referred to the obvious difficulty that your Lordships faced in calibrating the balance between the two desiderata of justice and security. There were some then, as there are now, who took the view that such an exercise was unnecessary, and indeed wrong in principle, and that the interests of justice must at all times and in all circumstances be paramount. On that basis, they urged that Part 2 of the Bill dealing with closed material procedures should be struck out. That was not the view of your Lordships’ House which, following the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the eloquent and forensic advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in particular, chose instead to amend the Bill and to circumscribe the application of a new procedure.
Those who would have wished to prevent any departure from the traditions of our system, which have long required that a party in a civil case should know the case he has to meet, must acknowledge that such a course is now no longer open to us. Our task, therefore, is to consider the Commons amendments and determine whether they have gone far enough in striking that delicate balance or whether, as I believe, further adjustments need to be made. I acknowledge and welcome the Government’s acceptance of some of the changes agreed by this House. In particular, as the Minister has pointed out, there is much more judicial involvement in the process than the Bill in its original form envisaged.
I also remind your Lordships of the serious implications for our system of justice of the Bill as it now stands and, to be frank, as it would stand even if, as I hope, we make further amendments and invite the House of Commons to think again about a small number of important issues. To a long line of pronouncements in this area by the most eminent judges we can now add the recent concerns expressed by the president of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger. Nor can we overlook the cavalier and, it might be thought, analogous approach of the Government to such different but cardinal areas as the deployment of emergency and retrospective legislation, demonstrated as recently as last Thursday and last night over the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill.
That is why we need to build on the progress made thus far in improving this Bill in three areas in particular. Two are embodied in amendments in this group in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, dealing with what we may term, by way of shorthand, as the principles of last resort and judicial balancing respectively, reflecting the amendments moved so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who would be moving them today had he been able to be present. The third area is that of a process for renewing the legislation after a period, to which we will come later. I propose to deal principally with the amendment in my name, but I whole heartedly endorse, and will say a word or two about, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. I am authorised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to say that he entirely supports these amendments. His recent article in the Times makes his views clear.
The first amendment, Amendment 6A, effectively seeks to restore the position set out in the Bill which left this House, in making the use of closed material procedures a last resort. Amendments 16A, 16B and 16C import the same principle into the process for the court’s review of its decision contained in government Amendment 16. I consider these to be consequential upon this first amendment. I trust the House will forgive me if I remind noble Lords that closed material procedures allow the use of material not disclosed to the other party, who is therefore not able to give effective instructions, even to the highly security-vetted special advocate appointed to assist him. The amendment seeks to correct this by requiring the court to consider whether a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by other means, such as some of the processes available under PII, the public interest immunity procedure. These include a range of options, such as the gisting of the case, redaction, the giving of evidence by security agents from behind a screen, and more besides.
In relation to PII, it is interesting to note that the Government appear to be taking a somewhat inconsistent approach. Inquest proceedings, after all, will not be covered by the provisions of the Bill. The Government have constantly represented PII as a lengthy process which leaves them in a position where they might feel compelled to choose to settle a case rather than disclose information. Sweeping, if unsubstantiated, claims have been made about millions of pounds having been paid, or potentially having to be paid, to unidentified numbers of unidentified terrorists, to be used for unidentified purposes. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could enlighten us as to the number of claimants who have received compensation, and who have been charged with any offence, been made subject to a control order or similar constraint, or had their compensation frozen—as it could be—on the grounds that it might be used for terrorist purposes. After all, the Minister without Portfolio, Mr Clarke, said:
“We expect only a handful of cases”.—[Official Report, Commons, 04/03/2013; col. 705.]
The notion that there is a great tidal wave of cases waiting to sweep over us and our system, involving vast expenditures, seems to have been exaggerated, to put it mildly, in the light of the Minister’s remarks just a week or two ago.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out in his article, under the PII procedure, the courts are,
“able to reconcile justice and security by taking steps”,
such as those to which I have referred. He went on:
“Only if those methods cannot protect security, and allow for an open assessment or at least a gist of the case against the claimant, should the court consider moving into a closed session”.
He went on to dismiss the Government’s contradictory responses, namely that judges would adopt that approach in any event, and that such a safeguard would be too time-consuming. He also went on to rebut the Government’s counterargument against balancing the interests of national security against the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice, pointing out that this is exactly what the PII procedure involves. He is of course, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, not the only Member of your Lordships’ House to have contributed to the columns of the Times on these issues. His article may be seen in part as a reply to a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, expressing approval of the amended Bill’s provisions in relation to CMPs, to which he has referred at some length.
It is with more than usual trepidation that I join the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, special advocates, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Equality and Human Rights Commission in respectfully dissenting from the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. These, while properly welcoming the positive responses by the Government to amendments carried by this House, for which the noble and learned Lord voted, effectively endorse their position on the issues of last resort and balancing. The noble and learned Lord referred in his letter, not unreasonably, to the fact that in a minority of cases, and I use the same quotation as the noble and learned Lord:
“The interests of justice are not served when courts are blindfolded”.
The consequences of closed material procedures are that claimants are both blindfolded and effectively gagged, even in cases of habeas corpus. The Minister without Portfolio has, after some initial confusion about the matter, conceded that the Bill would apply to this, one of the most fundamental parts of our English common law. It is not unreasonable therefore to require the court to determine that the case cannot fairly be decided by any other means, rather than it having merely to be satisfied that the Secretary has, in the words of proposed new subsection (1F),
“considered whether to make, or advise another person to make, a claim for public interest immunity”.
That sets a very low bar for the Secretary of State to surmount. He has only to have considered it. Concern about the Government’s overall position can only be enhanced, despite their bland assurances, by the form of words set out in proposed new subsection (1D) in Amendment 6, which makes two substantial changes to the amendment carried here on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Members may recall that Clause 6(2) of the Bill which left us stipulated that the court may make a declaration allowing CMP if, were the material to be disclosed, the degree of harm to the interests of national security would be likely to,
“outweigh the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice”.
Under Amendment 6, proposed new subsection (1D) changes this to impose the condition that,
“it is in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings to make a declaration”.
Openness is therefore replaced by effectiveness, a very different concept. Effective, one might ask, from whose perspective? Is it that of the party, presumably the Government? Openness now counts for nothing. The phrase “in the proceedings” is added, excluding the wider considerations of the public interest. The concept of balancing the two interests disappears. This applies also to Amendment 16, on which the noble and learned Lord seeks to rely.
The Minister without Portfolio likes to paint with a broad brush. He claims that the effect of these amendments would require the Secretary of State and the court to go through all the documents before an application for a CMP is made. They would not. As the special advocates point out, disclosure under present statutory CMPs is no less time-consuming than PIIs. Once having examined the documents, the court could consider whether PII could lead to a fair trial without having to undergo a full PII exercise. The Secretary of State has only to consider whether a PII claim could have been made. He is not under an obligation to go through every document.
Mr Clarke’s adherence to liberal principles over the years has earned him many admirers in a lifetime in politics, although not necessarily within his own party. I hope that, by endorsing these amendments, the House can not only help to minimise the damage threatened to the most valued elements of our jurisprudence and judicial system, but help rescue the Minister without Portfolio from self-inflicted damage on his reputation for upholding those liberal values, as he comes to the end of his most distinguished career. In the name of our cherished traditions of fair and open justice, I invite your Lordships’ House to support the amendments.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 6B in my name. Everyone accepts that CMPs represent a significant departure from normal rule of law principles. Many people accept that they also contain a strong strand of unfairness, and that this unfairness consists in the exclusion of one of the parties from a critical part of the proceedings, perhaps even that very part of the case in which the defining issue is decided. Therefore, the claimant can never know the evidence that has damned his cause—it is never revealed to him.
Let us be blunt about this. The party withholding the material, and gifting it to the judge in secret, will almost always be the Government. The illiberalism inherent in the Bill seems to me to lie in this. CMPs as presently constituted are not fair, because they do not and cannot deliver balanced justice between the citizen and the state. This is the finding of the JCHR; it is the finding of those eminent lawyers appointed by the Government to conduct closed proceedings, the special advocates; and it was the overwhelming conclusion of this House when last we debated these measures. It is no doubt in recognition of this central unfairness that the Government insist, and the Secretary of State has repeatedly insisted, that it is their fervent desire that CMPs should only ever be used as a last resort.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I shall confine what I have to say to Amendment 6B, now that it has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. I am of course conscious that when this amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on Report, it was carried by a very large majority, but I voted against it at the time and do not support it now, for two reasons.
First, I like the wording of the Commons amendment. It seems to me to fit the bill. In particular, I support the inclusion of the word “effective”—as well as the word “fair”—in the phrase,
“fair and effective administration of justice”.
For the same reason, I will not be able to support Amendments 16A, 16B and 16C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which would remove that very word, which seems so important. In my view, “effective” is the key word, le mot juste, in this context. It sums up in one word the whole need for and purpose of the closed material procedure.
A system of justice is surely ineffective if one party to the proceedings, whether claimant or defendant—I am glad that it now includes claimants—cannot put forward his case, or his whole case, without the need to disclose sensitive material. The purpose of the Bill is to cure that defect. That is why I support the second condition, as set out in proposed new Section 1D of the Commons amendment, and find that I cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. The word effective, particularly coupled with the word fair, provides the judge, who has to make those decisions, with all the help that he will need. For that reason I do not support the noble Lord’s amendment.
There is another reason why I cannot support the amendment, which was the reason I voted against it when it was moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The wording of the amendment is said to come from a case called Wiley, which was decided so long ago that I had forgotten that I was a party to the decision. I find that I was, together with my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf. The difference between us was that my noble and learned friend gave a very long speech. He was followed by me, who agreed with everything that he had said—in a very short speech. I hardly need say that counsel was the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
The case has long since been superseded; indeed, I cannot find it in any current textbook. However, looking at it again this afternoon, I could not find anything that supports wording quite as wide as that proposed in the amendment. In any event, the Wiley balance was useful, as I remember it, and as the noble Lord has explained, in applications for public interest immunity, where the judge had to weigh the harm done to the public interest by admitting a particular document or documents against the harm done to a particular defendant or party in the case by excluding those documents.
That was always a difficult balancing act, but it was possible because it was a specific test which he had to apply. As I said, it served a useful purpose. I cannot regard it as a useful test in this context. How is the judge to evaluate the public interest in the,
“fair and effective administration of justice”?
That is far too wide and imprecise to be of any utility, certainly in the context of deciding whether to make a declaration under Clause 6. It gives the judge no help at all in making that decision. For that reason, too, I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
My Lords, I will address Amendments 6A and 6B and the consequential Amendments 16A, 16B and 16C. I will not repeat all the arguments made by the Minister, but I agree with them. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, I cannot accept Amendment 6A or Amendment 6B. As a non-lawyer, when I read Amendment 6A I interpreted it exactly as the Minister feared the court would be forced to interpret it: that it would have to try every other possible method before it came to the CMP.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, will forgive me for saying that when I read Amendment 6B I wondered if he meant it to be a wrecking amendment. When I heard him explain it he seemed to confirm that suspicion. He is arguing against the whole concept of CMP. Why are we here? We are not here because we want to go into this kind of judicial arrangement but because we have got a big problem on our hands. The previous Government had it and this Government have now got it. People are going into the civil courts and suing officers of the intelligence and security services, accusing them—rightly or wrongly—of doing terrible things such as being implicitly involved in torture and extradition. The services cannot defend themselves because they cannot put material into a court.
There has to be a solution and the solution is not PII, as some people seem to think. I would also like to quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—if he will forgive me because he is in his place—not from the excellent letter quoted by the Minister, but from what he said in a debate on this issue in this House on 11 July last year. He said:
“I should also make it clear that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile”—
who had just spoken ahead of him—
“is right in saying that in most situations that are covered by the Bill the result will be preferable to both sides”—
both sides—
“if the closed hearing procedure is adopted rather than PII, because PII has the very unfortunate effect that you cannot rely on the material that is in issue, whereas both the claimant and the Government may want to rely on that material. That is a good reason for having the closed-hearing procedure”.—[Official Report, 11/07/12; col. 1189]
I very much agree with that.
The amendments that I have mentioned do not improve the Bill in any way. In fact, they are to the detriment of the Bill. This is a problem which the previous Government had to wrestle with, the present Government are having to wrestle with and the House has to wrestle with it. Now that they have included the latest Commons amendment, the Government have made a very good attempt at trying to square what we all want, which is a fair trial. That must include, in the civil court, members of the security and intelligence services so they can bring a defence to accusations against them.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, in rising to support this Bill I confess to a particular interest in the legislation. Many years ago—although not quite as long ago as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—as Treasury Counsel I was required to advise and act for the Government in national security, public interest immunity cases. For six years after the passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, I was the Intelligence Services Commissioner responsible for retrospective judicial oversight over the various intelligence agencies. For considerably more years than that, I have been involved, as a member of the court, in most of the national security cases that came before us, including the control order cases and the expulsion cases like that which sought to return Abu Qatada to Jordan, on which the litigation still continues. The Al Rawi case relating to Guantanamo Bay, although it was settled before it came to us, came on the issue of principle which was whether, as a matter of common law, the courts could order a closed material procedure. The majority of us held not. We held that only Parliament could sanction so fundamental a departure from the principle of open justice. Hence Clause 6 is now before us.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, it is too late in this process to take the view that closed material procedures can never take place. I have grave doubts about this. It was something that we considered when I was in government, when we had to deal with special procedures in relation to control orders and where people’s liberty was at stake. This is a different order, which is to do ultimately with money. Be that as it may, we are past that point. The question we must ask is: under what circumstances should they exist? Both these amendments, which I support, although not quite in the terms in which Amendment 6B was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, are important, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has just explained. I want to focus particularly on Amendment 6A.
Amendment 6A requires that the court should be satisfied that a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means. I thought that was something which this House had now accepted as an absolutely fundamental condition. It may be that CMP had to happen sometimes—many of us do not like the idea that it happens at all—but if it does, it is because that is the only fair way of determining it. Why is that resisted? As I understood it from the Minister, it is thought that somehow that condition is met by new subsection (1F) in Amendment 6. That says:
“The court must not consider an application by the Secretary of State under subsection (1A)(a) unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has, before making the application, considered whether to make, or advise another person to make, a claim for public interest immunity ”.
My noble friend Lord Beecham said that that is a very low bar. It is an extremely low bar and it is very important to recognise that.
This does not begin to approach the question of a determination by the court—the judge—as to whether this is the only fair way of determining the issue. All he has to do is to decide that the Secretary of State has considered whether a PII application should be made. That determination will take 30 seconds. Counsel appearing for the Secretary of State will say, “The Secretary of State has considered it”. There is no going behind that and, indeed, it will be true. The Secretary of State will have considered it. He may have rejected it on the grounds that he has very carefully considered it and decided that it was all too difficult, or simply because he thinks it would be expensive, which was part of the point made by the Minister, or just that he does not like the idea of doing it because he really wants a CMP to be made. That is no safeguard at all. If any noble Lord thinks it amounts to some equivalent of a determination by the court and that the court’s view is that no other way can be found of fairly determining the case, he would be quite wrong.
Why, then, would this amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Beecham be rejected? It states:
“If the court considers that a fair determination … is not possible by any other means”.
There are only two possible reasons for rejecting the amendment. One is that we would actually like to see CMPs even if there is another way of determining the proceedings and so the fair determination of proceedings would not only be by CMP. It would be a very retrograde step to accept that. It would absolutely be the message that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has indicated that we must not send. The other reason would be that we do not trust judges to make that determination. I very much hope that this House will not for one moment countenance the proposition that when it comes to deciding whether a case can be fairly determined we would not trust the decision of our courts. I will warmly support my noble friend if he divides the House. I will support Amendment 6B but it is Amendment 6A that I have particularly spoken to.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a layman’s question. It may be an oversimplified one. The essential condition the court has to be satisfied with is not, principally, whether the Secretary of State has considered PII—that is certainly one of the conditions—but that it is in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings to make such a declaration. Is that not the principal test and what all this is about?
Lord Goldsmith
The principal test should be whether the only fair way of determining the matter is through a CMP. That is a very simple statement. It is a very simple test but for some reason the Government do not want to accept that as the test that should be applied.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendments 6A and 6B in this group and I am privileged to serve as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As the committee has been considering this matter since the Green Paper, I am probably as familiar with it as my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace.
The language of last resort that has now been adopted in Amendment 6A is quite suitable. The words,
“is not possible by any other means”,
reflect the recent statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, in Bank of Mellat v HM Treasury in the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court allowed consideration of a closed judgment in a closed material procedure. He stated that,
“this is a course which is to be taken only where the court is satisfied that it is absolutely necessary to dispose of the appeal justly”.
I reiterate the point that, although I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, about the reputation of those who serve in our security services, this Bill will affect the reputation of the judiciary and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace has outlined, these cases are ones saturated in this type of sensitive material. It is a matter of logic that a judgment in a case that is so saturated runs the risk of being almost completely blank and we face the situation where claimants will appear on the sofas of our breakfast television programmes with judgments from our courts that literally are blank.
This concerns not just the cases of the Guantanamo Bay claimants—I am proud to live in a country where citizens can go to our courts and sue members of our security services. The claimants may also include other people. I have mentioned previously the family of Gareth Williams. We know that his unfortunate death is currently under investigation but often if a prosecution is not brought the family will bring civil proceedings. We are talking about a situation where the parents of someone like Gareth Williams will be excluded from our courtrooms.
It is also most worrying that Her Majesty’s Government have not won the support of the special advocates as to the merit of these closed material proceedings. I speak as a former lawyer. They will gain work if there are more closed material procedures but we have not won their support. In fact, it is their complaint, long-standing according to the recent evidence of Mr David Anderson QC to the Joint Committee, that in SIAC and other jurisdictions there is “occasional overuse of CMP”. In addition, SIAC exceptionalism has not been maintained and CMPs have crept into other jurisdictions. I believe that this amendment guards against that kind of creep in civil forums. The amendment is also worded in a fashion that does not require a full PII process to be gone through before our extremely experienced High Court judges can determine “any other means”.
Why it should be,
“not possible by any other means”,
is also because, arguably, any other means is better than a CMP. I note here what my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace outlined about obtaining the whole truth. It is common that there are serious doubts here as to whether the whole truth will always be obtained when one party to the proceedings is not in the courtroom. I say “arguably” as we have never received figures, although we have requested them, for PII on the grounds of national security that leads to the total exclusion of the evidence produced by the Government. I have never been convinced of the Government’s position that expelling one party to the proceedings and running the risk of evidence not being challenged is better justice than excluding some evidence, not a party, from the hearing, however relevant the evidence is. It is better for the Government but not for justice.
I do not wish to appear glib as I accept that there are serious matters to be considered such as the security of our intelligence sources, their reputation, the reputation of the judiciary, the reputation of justice and the fact that these cases arise where there are serious human rights abuses. However, I find it odd that since your Lordships’ House last considered this Bill Her Majesty’s Government settled a claim by Mr al-Saadi for £2.2 million after he said that the UK was involved in his unlawful rendition to Libya. Why did the Government not wait for the legislation so that they could have a CMP? It leads me to wonder that it is not every case that the Government cannot defend because they do not have access to a CMP and so pay out taxpayers’ money with the security services taking a reputational hit. I happen to think that, in the minds of the great British public, if there is such a reputational hit, it is far outweighed by the kudos of the James Bond brand.
Amendment 6B appeals to the need to take into account the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice. Right from the beginning of this process with the Green Paper, there has been scant, if any, recognition by the Government of the principle of open justice. Perhaps it is because, unlike in the time of Charles Dickens where open justice meant that trials were public entertainment, open justice today is ordinarily journalists being the eyes and ears of the public. The attitude of many to journalists due to phone hacking should not taint the public view of journalists such as Joshua Rozenberg and Gordon Corera who report inquests and matters in this area of law. That is a vital public function.
The test as the Bill currently stands is,
“in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings to make a declaration”,
and it is not sufficient as quite simply this is not a balancing test, Wiley or otherwise. It is not a balancing of interests. It says you merely put this on one side of the pan of the scales and regardless of what is weighing on the other side it goes into a secret procedure. Not all that would ordinarily be in the Wiley balancing test will, in my view, be included in the test in the Bill. As this is such an irregular trial procedure to adopt, it should be a competition of interests, a battle even for the Government to show that national security outweighs fair and open justice and that the nature of these proceedings is so unusual and so contrary to our principles of a fair trial that it should be only when nothing else is possible.
To conclude, I can do no better than to refer to the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger:
“It must be emphasised that this is a decision—
to go into a closed material procedure—
“which is reached with great reluctance by all members of the court; indeed it is a majority decision. No judge can face with equanimity the prospect of a hearing, or any part of a hearing, which is not only in private, but involves one of the parties not being present or represented at the hearing”.
This is an unhappy procedure—again, to borrow the language of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger—and, as such, judgments are secret for 30 years. That was clarified to the Joint Committee. I sincerely hope that I am wrong that the Lord Hennessy of the future will have an annual TV slot at the turn of the new year at the National Archives in Kew uncovering judgments that, had they been open, would have been appealed and the government of that day, again, pay out millions of pounds in compensation, and not even “Skyfall”, which I believe is currently keeping Peers occupied in Committee Room 2, would save the reputation of MI5, MI6 and our judiciary.
Lord Owen
My Lords, as a former Minister with responsibility for MI6 I realise that although it has a need to have and an interest in having its views expressed—and that was done very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay—there is also a prior consideration, and that is to write on to the face of the Bill that we have almost unanimously agreed that this closed procedure can be done only in a tiny minority of cases, or, as other spokesmen have said, only as a wholly exceptional device. I can see no objection whatever to the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I profoundly hope that it is agreed to.
The other amendment, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, raises very serious questions about whether we would see this new procedure, which I now think is necessary, in operation. I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said about that and I do not need to repeat his arguments. I think that some would regard the amendment as a blocking mechanism, although I am sure that it was not proposed in that way; I am sure that it was proposed as a double safeguard. However, it would not deal with the issue that, above all, has concerned me: how you protect source material, particularly if it comes through the intelligence of another country. We cannot imagine that a totally rational debate will always take place in a law court. This is an issue of whether you are supplied with that information. If there are profound doubts about the procedures—right or wrong—and if they are held by countries which have been our intelligence partners over many decades and whose information has sometimes saved a considerable number of lives in this country, we have to take account of how they see that procedure. Were the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to be passed, we might find that other countries would not see the procedure as safe. I would therefore stick to the Government’s amendment and their wording and not go along with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I support Amendments 6A and 6B. I think that there is agreement in the House that CMP should be used only in the most exceptional circumstances and that it so radically departs from one of the most fundamental of our common law principles that it is essential that its use is kept to a minimum.
I endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said about the process that happens in a court. All this sometimes seems arcane or obscure to those who are not lawyers and it is easier to pin it down by having examples. Those of us who practise in the courts and often deal with security matters know that the process described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown—where a judge will consider whether you can redact documents and take out references or anything else that might in any way disclose the identity of an informant—takes place in these cases and has done over the years. There is the business of someone giving evidence with their identity never being disclosed, or giving it from behind a screen, and there are other ways of doing it using new technology. There are many mechanisms, quite different from the PII process, which can protect the things that the security services are sensitive to, and it can be done with agreement while retaining the sense of as much openness as possible.
My sense of what the House wants here is for the closed material procedure of barring the defendant and their lawyers from the court and from hearing the evidence—which is fundamentally unfair and flies in the face of the idea of a fair trial—to happen in the most exceptional circumstances. It therefore seems extraordinary that there should be resistance to the notion that the Bill should state that such a process should be used only as a last resort. The argument made for not doing so is that it would be time-consuming for the Secretary of State—because the Secretary of State, even in this minute number of cases, would have to look through the papers and acquaint him or herself with the detail—as well as for the court. As your Lordships have heard from others who, like me, have participated in proceedings of this kind, one would expect a Secretary of State or a judge in a case of this kind to consider with care the nature of the evidence and whether it was possible to keep it as open as possible. That is what we would expect, and it is certainly what I would expect of a Minister who was exercising authority. Otherwise we would ask, “If the Minister does not want to examine the evidence that is being kept secret, who is exercising the authority? Is it the Minister or is it the security services?”. We really have to be very careful here. I remind the House of what happened in Matrix Churchill, where we understood that there was just a signing-off of requests by the security services, which was of great discredit to government at the time. I would warn against what this procedure will do to confidence in government, confidence in the security services and confidence in our judicial processes.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I suppose that I can claim to have had some experience in dealing with this area of the law in the past. The first thing I want to say is that the procedure that has hitherto been adopted in relation to national security is a secret procedure in which the judge sees the documents and the other side does not. This secret procedure has been established and used many times, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has said. There is nothing novel about that kind of thing having to happen in relation to sensitive material.
The first condition for the closed procedure is that one of the parties will be required to produce sensitive material—that is to say, material which is damaging to national security. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has said that he was considering redaction as an alternative to CMP, and using screens to hide people’s identity. That must be considered before you can say that sensitive material has to be produced. The idea of that is to remove the sensitivity of the material and make the redacted material harmless to national security.
It seems to me that the only alternative that this first amendment would introduce is the amendment of public interest immunity. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has explained in the case to which he referred, attempting to ascertain that would require, in some cases, a very long process. The process is equally one in which one of the parties is not allowed to take part. It is not much of an advantage over this procedure.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has made that point twice. Does he recognise that although, as he said at the outset, there have been procedures in which material has been seen, but not by one party, those are not procedures in which that material is then relied upon by the judge to determine the rights and wrongs applicable to that party? This is in order to exclude that material and not to allow it in. Is that not the novelty of this procedure?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Absolutely, that is the procedure with excluded material. Of course, excluding the material can sometimes be extremely damaging to the interests of the other party to the litigation. The noble Baroness referred to Matrix Churchill. That was exactly the sort of case that Matrix Churchill would have been if the judge had excluded it because the material that was sought to be excluded as sensitive material was, on further examination, of great use to the claimant, as we all know. The idea that a public interest immunity certificate is so superior to this procedure strikes me as being without great foundation.
I assume that the only material in question is material that has been subject to all the processes that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has suggested for removing its sensitivity, because if you can do that the party is not required to produce sensitive material because it has been neutralised and the difficulty has been removed. Therefore, when you have that in mind, it is very hard to see how you can find out whether there is any other way in which the case can be dealt with. One of the problems about that is that at the beginning of a case things may look different from how they look as the case proceeds.
One of the great benefits of the amendments that the other place has put in here is that this matter can be reviewed at any stage of the procedure. Therefore, it seems to me that this system, in a very small minority of cases, will be the best way of securing the fair and effective administration of justice in that case. It is not a question of excluding material, which is an appropriate test for the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald; it is nothing to do with that. It is to see that the material that is being used is used in a way that does not damage the security of this nation. The Government have as one of their primary responsibilities securing the national security, as evidenced by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said about control orders, which control people’s liberties, in which this sort of procedure was introduced. I believe that this procedure is the best way in which to secure national security.
I endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said in his letter. Our judges are as familiar with the desirability of open justice as any Peer who has spoken. They know the value of open justice; they were brought up to it. There is no question of a judge going for a closed material procedure if he thought it could be done in open court. I believe that giving this discretion to the judiciary in very limited circumstances with two very important conditions is the right way to deal with it. It is not the Executive who are deciding, but the judge. Judges have taken an oath to,
“do right to all manner of people … without fear or favour, affection or ill will”.
That oath will apply in the decision that the judge has to make, and it seems to me that the best possible test has been evolved by the House of Commons in its consideration of our Bill, and the test is the fair and effective administration of justice in that case.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, much of what I intended to say has already been said, but I shall give an illustration from the classic case of Duncan v Cammell Laird, which involved the sinking of a submarine in Liverpool Bay while undergoing trials on its maiden voyage in 1939. Ninety-nine men were lost. Their widows, mostly from Merseyside, sued the shipbuilders. The Admiralty, in the middle of the Second World War, declined to allow the production of the designs of the submarine on grounds of national security. Contemporary evidence, which has been seen since, suggests that its true motive was to restrict the power of citizens to sue government departments, particularly when they were financed by trade unions. In fact, the claimants lost.
Today, other means, which have been referred to in the course of this debate, might have been used to assist those claimants in the projection of their cases, but suppose this legalisation had been in force and that the Government had applied for a secret hearing. Can your Lordships imagine the uproar in Liverpool if the Admiralty had been able to produce not merely the designs but its expert evidence and argument, and to explain those designs to the judge in secret, without challenge and without anything being heard on the other side? Patently, it would have been a miscarriage of justice.
Open justice, very simply, means first that a claimant should know the case made against him. That principle derives from what was said more than two and a half millennia ago by Aeschylus in the “Oresteia”.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
How does my noble friend know what the judge would have decided, assuming that he had had a chance to look at the designs?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am not saying what decision he would have made—how could I possibly know? I am saying that the public would have been outraged at the idea that the Admiralty could go to see the judge up the back stairs, in a secret court, and produce the designs and the arguments to support their case.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Perhaps I may say, as a court judge, that nobody would ever visit a judge up the back stairs when a judge was trying a case.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I have certainly been up the front stairs to see many a judge in chambers. The noble and learned Baroness must know that we see the judge in private on many occasions, particularly when public interest immunity claims are being used.
The second principle of open justice is that the acts of public servants must be open to scrutiny and accountability by the public and by Parliament. It is for the judge to determine whether, as a last resort, open justice must give way to national security in the circumstances of the particular case. Everybody who has spoken here this evening has said that judges are perfectly capable of making that judgment, of carrying out that balancing exercise. However, that does not mean that secrets will be disclosed. We are talking about civil cases, about means whereby secret information will be withheld, and many mechanisms for achieving that have been referred to.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to a civil case last December which challenged the Defence Secretary’s practice of handing over detainees who had been captured in Afghanistan to the Afghan security forces. There was evidence to suggest that torture would be inflicted upon those people by those forces. The case came to court and the Defence Secretary claimed public interest immunity for a number of documents. Lord Justice Moses held that there was no objection in principle to the disclosure of material that was the subject of that claim into a lawyer-only confidentiality ring. That procedure is well known in the commercial courts of this country, and I believe that it is used in the United States of America. Is it not interesting that, while we are changing our law, we have not heard any suggestion from the United States, which is faced by the problems with which we are grappling, that it proposes to change its law or constitution in any way at all?
As I have said, these principles are core principles of liberalism and democracy, and I hope that your Lordships will support these amendments in the light of these principles.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I propose to say only very little because to some extent I anticipated what I might say, both in the previous debates on this matter and in the letter that has been referred to. However, when you hear Members of this House, with the experience that they undoubtedly possess, expressing concerns on this subject in relation to this Bill, I say that we have to give those concerns the utmost care and consideration, because their importance is very great indeed. We must be very careful that we do not fall into the trap of changing our traditions when that change will cause more harm than good.
Despite the arguments that have been advanced to the contrary, I remain firmly convinced that the Bill that we are now considering is radically better than the one that we were considering before, and the Government must be entitled to credit for that. As I understand it, what we really are considering, despite the oratory that we have heard, is very much a matter of degree. The only question to consider now is whether two further precautions should be inserted into the Bill in respect of what the Government have already done, which is to be welcomed on all sides.
Of course I accept the importance of open justice. You do not need to have that set out in a Bill for judges or ex-judges to say it. We have heard clear evidence of that in a recent decision of our Supreme Court, where the president of the Supreme Court was dealing with a procedure that is akin to the procedure now being proposed. The president of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, made the clarion call—and I am delighted that he made the statement—that all should recognise that we are dealing with a situation that involves an intrusion into the principle of open justice. If there was any doubt about the ability of judges to protect that principle, I suggest that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, made it clear that judges will protect it. After all, a judge makes a judgment, but his judgment is then subject to appeal. I urge the House to conclude that what we want is a situation where the judiciary, which has the fundamental responsibility of doing justice, has a discretion that is wide enough to do justice in the particular case that comes before it. I suggest that this Bill, without the proposed amendments, has to be judged on whether it enables the judge to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, suggested that this Bill might enable judges to do things that would reflect adversely on them. I accept that that is the inevitable consequence of judges exercising their responsibility to protect national security. If giving a judgment that is right and in the interests of effective and fair justice will reflect adversely on a judge, he or she must do their duty, give that judgment and not be concerned by the reputational consequence for them of giving that judgment. It is my belief that that is just what our judges do. They would put that out of their minds. Those are political considerations, which they should not be concerned with.
What is being done here is something that the Government say will contribute to justice, not the other way round. It is being done because, as must be recognised, it is the only real alternative that the judges do not already have. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I found his submissions difficult to follow, because redaction does not need this Bill; it is something that judges use regularly. The judge’s ability to take sensible precautions to protect national security is used with a degree of frequency, but this Bill does not affect those cases. It affects only those cases when the judge is satisfied that better justice will be done because of the Bill than would be done without the Bill. The amendments are to be criticised for the reasons identified by the Minister in opening the debate. It is right that you cannot have the judge using what is proposed here as a last resort, because that would undermine the Bill’s purpose.
Does the Bill give the judge the discretion that he or she needs? I remind noble Lords of the terms of Clause 6(2), which says:
“The court must keep the declaration under review, and may at any time revoke it if it considers that the declaration is no longer in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings”.
Those are very wide terms, which give the judge what he needs. Clause 6(3) provides:
“The court must undertake a formal review of the declaration once the pre-trial disclosure exercise in the proceedings has been completed, and must revoke it if it considers that the declaration is no longer in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings”.
Those provisions put the judge in the driving seat, which is exactly where the judge should be as a result of this Bill.
Although we have to examine the arguments to the contrary with great care and appreciate just how important are the principles at stake, we should come to the conclusion that this is a Bill of which we can now approve.
Baroness Hamwee
I ask my noble and learned friend two short questions. The first is a very simple one, possibly even simplistic. He referred to the change in terminology from “must” to “may” as being very profound. Could he confirm to the House that the Commons amendment providing that the court,
“may make such a declaration”,
if it considers that two conditions are met, is equivalent in non-legislative speak to saying that the court may not make a declaration unless the conditions are met? In other words, it may make a declaration only if those conditions are met.
My second question concerns a matter that has been referred to once very quickly—that is, gisting, or the disclosure to an excluded party of sufficient material to enable him to give effective instructions to the special advocate representing his interests in closed hearings. Clause 10, which is to be amended by Amendment 17, is about the rules of court, and I would like to ask my noble and learned friend about those. There is nothing returned from the Commons on which we can hang an amendment specifically about gisting, so I hope the Minister can reassure us from the Dispatch Box that the rules will provide what I hope they will in this connection. Under Clause 10(2)(g), rules may enable the court to give a party to the proceedings a summary of evidence taken in that party’s absence. Responding to the first report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government say:
“Wherever it is possible and practically feasible to provide gists and summaries of national security sensitive material without causing damage, they will be supplied”.
They add that the question of gisting should be decided on a case-by-case basis. I do not want to take up the time of the House by arguing for the importance of the special advocate being able to take instructions from his client—that, I am sure, will be self-evident to everyone—but I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the rules will require gisting and I ask this particularly as Clause 10, to which I have referred, said the rules “may” make the provision, while Clause 7 provides that rules of court “must” secure certain things. I hope I do not read too much into the distinction between those two terms.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
My Lords, I hesitate to stand after the really important contributions by so many Members of this House, including a number of very noble and learned Lords. I do not want to make a long speech, but there are some points that have possibly not been touched upon. The central problem here is about litigants, not defendants. It is about people making claims that currently cannot be heard. This is an attempt by the Government to find a way, imperfect as it is—“a second-best solution”, in the words of David Anderson QC—to get these cases heard and to put into court, albeit in a restricted way, material that is not currently put into court, so that there is a better chance of the full picture being seen by the court. David Anderson said—if I may, I quote him slightly to correct him:
“We are in the world of second-best solutions”.
He added:
“But it does not seem to me that the level of injustice inherent in the use of a CMP in a case of this nature necessarily exceeds either the injustice to the claimant of a case being struck out, or the moral hazard and reputational damage to the intelligence agencies that is caused by settling a case which, had it been possible to adduce all the evidence, would have been fought”.
This does not seem to me to be primarily about the reputation of the security and intelligence agencies. The service of which I was once a member welcomes scrutiny. If we disobey or break the law, we should be prosecuted. The first part of this Bill is about greater scrutiny. I expect that scrutiny to evolve and over the years to become more detailed. However, the reputational damage is significant in a way that has nothing to do with personal feelings; it is to do with whether these organisations, which are funded by the taxpayer and scrutinised by Parliament and other bodies, are going to be less effective as a result of this reputational damage. This needs resolution, but it is not primarily about that. It is primarily about making sure that some of these extraordinarily serious allegations are actually heard. At the moment, we do not have an inquiry. I believe that some criminal investigations are happening, but there are still a whole lot of allegations out there that are not resolved, and this would be a way of resolving them.
There is one other point I want to make, which I think speaks to the amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. On the face of it, the amendment looks unexceptional, but I think it is a question of the confidence of our human sources, which is very important. I do not need protection; they do. A point made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, was that human sources are either approached by the intelligence and security agencies inviting them to provide information in confidence or they approach us or they are the sources of an ally. Not all of them but many of them do so with the highest motives, and in many cases their lives are at risk—although, again, not always. I look to my noble and learned friend Lord Brown. Obviously I entirely agree with him that national security is undefined and that there is a spectrum. There are some things, which he mentioned, at one end of the spectrum that might be labelled “national security” but are not damaging to reveal. However, at the other end of the spectrum—this has not really been discussed today—there is some highly sensitive and secret material in relation to which the risk to human sources’ lives is high.
I know that I am a bit repetitive on this issue in the House and I apologise, but I still think that it is not given enough attention. Technology is vulnerable. If we expose it in a careless way or in a way that is not protected by this legislation via the test that open justice means that we can ditch the national security side of things—I know that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is not as crude as that but there is a suggestion that the two things can be held in balance, and I look again to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd—that will potentially have a very chilling effect on the willingness of people to offer us information. I hope that that is wrong but, if it does have that chilling effect, we will cease to get the information.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does the noble Baroness know of a single case in which sensitive security material such as she talks about has been released to the public or to anybody as a result of even the present procedures that apply to this?
Baroness Manningham-Buller
No, but I am saying that if the amendment balances national security versus open justice, however much my former colleagues might seek to reassure human sources that they will be protected and the courts rely on that protection, I fear that they will be apprehensive and will not be willing to talk to us. That is already an issue. That is what I am talking about—not whether the courts and judges have mishandled things. I am not suggesting that for one minute.
Thirdly and finally, I wish to pick up the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown about national security not being defined. If this material were such that it could be redacted or gisted, or if people could give evidence anonymously, we would not need this Bill. To use the words of David Anderson, who is new to this subject and as the independent reviewer of terrorism has looked at all this, these cases are saturated with it and, if it is redacted to that degree, there is nothing to put into the court.
I shall not say any more this evening but I remind the House of the potential damage that we have to continue to guard against.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I fear that I have to disagree with two eminent judges—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, talked about the judges being in the driving seat and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said that under the amendments to the Bill huge discretions are given to judges which we can safely leave in their hands. I agree with both, but the car of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the discretions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, are bounded by the Bill we are debating. I believe that Amendments 6A and 6B extend further, although not radically, the protections that I consider necessary in such an important incursion into the ancient liberty of open justice.
Although the Minister made an exemplary opening speech in trying to explain this vast set of important amendments, I am bound to say that where the Government are trenching on open justice, the onus is on them to prove their case beyond peradventure. I do not think that that has been done. The very phrase, “closed material procedures” is a sort of euphemism. Out there people talk of secret courts and secret justice and, of course, they are right. We have had some wonderful speeches tonight, but I was particularly impressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who has behind him possibly a unique body of experience among those in the Chamber at this time through his work as a reviewer under RIPA. I think that I am quoting him rightly. He said that the important and salutary message that we need to send out from this House is one that persuades the country that while doing our difficult duty, and my word, it is difficult to strike the balance, we are none the less—if there is erring on one side or the other—erring on the side of open justice.
I shall finish by adding to the point that the noble and learned Lord made, and the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. One cannot look at issues of extreme violence in some sort of academic vacuum. There is a propensity to violence among our fellow citizens and to extremism of different kinds—the kinds that the security services have to deal with, reminding us how enormously difficult their task is. That does not come out of a clear blue sky; it is the product of social and political contexts within which they live and of which they have experience. Although it is difficult to get one’s hands round this, if we can show that we have gone to every possible, sensible length to minimise trespassing on the principle of open justice, that will help to send out a message in relation to this Bill, which is being closely followed around the country. It will send out the best message, which is least likely to give cause in places we will never go for an increase in the extremism which is the very devil we are trying to guard against.
Amendment 6A, the widely balancing principle, and Amendment 6B, the exhaustion of all other remedies, so to speak, are significant improvements to a Bill that has been hugely improved by the Government, but which would benefit from these further two refinements.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I ought to declare that my daughter is chairman of Liberty, but I fear that she will be very disappointed with me this evening since I do not consider that Amendments 6A or 6B are necessary. Like many others in this House, during the passage of this Bill I have been extremely concerned about whether it was appropriate and whether it went too far. So many have spoken quite emotionally on the concept of closed courts and how inappropriate they are. I think that the Government’s original proposals were unacceptable, as did many others. Ministers have made enormous steps towards great improvements, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, they are to be congratulated on those changes. They have now put the judge in the driving seat. The judge now has control.
Proposed new subsection (1D) to Clause 6 refers to the “second condition”, about which not very much has been said. The second condition has to be approved by the court and,
“in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings to make a declaration”.
One need only remember what the president of the Supreme Court said about the inappropriateness of making such a declaration in other circumstances, unless it is actually necessary and appropriate to see that judges really ought to be trusted not to close a court until they absolutely have to do so.
As we can tell from the various speeches this evening, this has become a very sensitive and somewhat emotive issue. However, there are other circumstances in which judges see evidence that almost nobody else is allowed to see. In a totally different area, as an adoption judge, I would see reports from the guardian and from the adoption agency, usually the social worker, that the birth parents and very often the adopters were not allowed to see. Like other adoption judges in the past—and I assume that the law has not changed on this—I ended up making decisions on evidence that was not shown to part of the court; that is, the most important people, the adopters and the birth parents. It is not unknown for evidence to be provided to judges that cannot be seen by parties, although national security is, of course, in a very special situation.
I respectfully agree with every word said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I had gone the other way at an earlier stage but I have now changed my mind; I am entirely satisfied by this Bill. I was discussing it with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who cannot be here this evening. I agree with him that one has to strike a balance between these very difficult situations. He and I agree that balance is now reached by this Government and I will support the Government on this.
Lord Gilbert
My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate but I have been moved to do so. We have heard this evening that this debate is about the reputation of the security services. We have heard it is about 2,000 to 2,500 years of British justice and that we must of course be on our guard to make sure that we do no damage to either of those principles. However, for me the Bill is not about those things at all. I was a constituency MP for 27 years and I can tell your Lordships that what concerned my constituents was that we should not produce a set of circumstances in which several hundred of them could be blown to smithereens on the District line while going about their ordinary day’s business. That is what concerns them, not what we have been hearing this evening. I have not heard that said once throughout this debate—it astounds me.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the House will agree that this has been a very good and well informed debate and rightly so because the issues we are dealing with are of fundamental importance to our justice system. I do not think anyone who has taken part or who will vote feels at all comfortable about the idea that there should be closed material proceedings. Nevertheless, as has been explained by a number of contributors to the debate such as the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Lord Woolf, and, although he is supporting the amendments, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, there is a need in current circumstances for closed material proceedings.
The present situation, standing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Al Rawi case, is that closed material proceedings are not available under common law and the Supreme Court invited Parliament to consider the position. We have sought not only to make provision for closed material proceedings but, as we have gone from Second Reading, through Committee and Report, to the other place for debate and back to us, in doing so we have put in place proper safeguards which reflect the values of our justice system.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said it was important that we show the greatest and utmost care and consideration in addressing these issues, and we have done that tonight. I can assure your Lordships’ House that, in reflecting on the amendments passed on Report in this House, Ministers gave careful consideration to how we might respond to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the number of cases that had been settled and how much compensation was paid. As I have explained previously, I am not able to comment on the number or details of many of the cases settled as they are often the subject of confidentiality agreements. However, the House will be aware—indeed, my noble friend Lady Berridge referred to it—that a settlement was recently reached with Mr al-Saadi, on a no-liability basis, to the tune of £2.2 million. I am unable to comment on whether actions have been taken against recipients of other settlements. If such actions have been taken, it would be impossible to comment without breaching the terms of the settlement because it could, for example, indirectly reveal the identity of the individuals concerned.
My noble friend Lady Berridge suggested that perhaps the Government had rushed a settlement to get it in before this legislation went onto the statute book. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is not desirable for courts to delay the processing of cases in pre-emptive speculation about what may or may not become available in future legislation. It is unhelpful to suggest that that should be the case. It was and is right that the case of Mr al-Saadi and others should be dealt with quickly and fairly on the basis of existing legislation. The alternative of delaying, pending possible future legislative changes, would be unfair to all parties concerned. I certainly would not like to defend such a situation from the Dispatch Box if that allegation ever had any truth.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said that, unlike cases in which he was involved when he was in government and introduced closed material proceedings with regard to control orders under which there were restrictions on freedom, what we are dealing with here is just about money. It is about more than just money; it is also about the reputation of, and the trust and confidence in, our security intelligence agencies. It may also be about executive actions—for example, the judicial review of decisions taken by a Secretary of State on national security grounds which would not be the subject of pre-existing statutory CMPs.
As I have said, it is not just a question about money because, at the end of the day, we are trying to ensure that there will be some kind of proceedings available whereby taxpayers’ money is not spent in settling cases where the case has not been proved. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury referred to secret justice. I have said in these debates that it is second-best justice, but at least it is justice. There is no justice when cases are settled without any proof of the claim being made.
The importance of the safeguards and how we keep these cases to a minimum—they should be the exception—has been reflected in the debate tonight. My noble friend Lord Macdonald has tabled an amendment that would require the courts to have a balancing test akin to the Wiley balancing test that was developed in the context of public interest immunity. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, explained why he thought that was inappropriate; he said that it was too wide and imprecise. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, indicated that we are also dealing with situations where there might be foreign sources of intelligence and, crucially, human sources who work on our behalf for our security services. They expressed concern that the imprecision of the test would not be helpful.
My noble friend said that he thought the effect of the Bill as it currently stands, without his amendment, would be that the security services and the Government would opt for CMP rather than PII, public interest immunity, and that somehow that would be convenient for them. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, made the important point that Part 1 of the Bill is about scrutiny of the security services, but Part 2 allows for greater scrutiny. If you wish to push something under the carpet, PII, or settling a case without any evidence being led, is one way of ensuring that information does not come out. Albeit closed material proceedings are closed—for all the reasons that people have articulated in this debate they are not as good as open proceedings—they nevertheless allow the court to examine the material that is there and to apply scrutiny to allegations made against our security services, which otherwise would not be the case.
Regarding openness, my noble friend Lady Berridge referred to the president of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and what he said this weekend. The point that was picked up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, helps make the point that we have been trying to make. Of course, as more than one contributor to this debate has said, the idea of openness is absolutely intrinsic to our system of justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, reflected that in his comments this week. It was intrinsic and it was instinctive.
It is absolutely fanciful to imagine that, in applying the tests set out by the Government in the amendments before your Lordships’ House tonight, the judges will somehow forget about openness. It is very clear that the justices of the Supreme Court did not need words in a statute to get them to apply their minds to the importance of openness when it came to making the decision, which they did.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Is my noble and learned friend saying that the judges will apply a balancing test when they exercise their discretion between open justice and the interests of national security—that that is implicit in everything he is saying?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it is very clear that open justice is part of our justice system. It is implied by the words “fair and effective”, and it did not need any words in statute to encourage the justices of the Supreme Court to have regard to the importance of openness in these situations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said the following words, to which I think my noble friend Lady Berridge referred:
“No judge can face with equanimity the prospect of a hearing, or any part of a hearing, which is not only in private, but involves one of the parties not being present or represented”.
He went on to say:
“Nonetheless, as Parliament has decided that, in certain circumstances, such a procedure is necessary and permissible in a trial before a judge, we have concluded that, on an appeal from a decision in a case where a judge has considered closed material and given a closed judgment, it may be necessary for this court to go into closed session in order to dispose of the appeal justly”.
In other words, the just decision on that particular point was that the court would go into closed session.
On the other issue, I also do not find there to be any real difference in what Members of your Lordships’ House wish to see, and it is an issue of judgment as to how we achieve it. These cases should be the rare exceptions; there are a very small number of cases. When I gave evidence by letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 31 October, there were 27 cases which, across government, we considered would lend themselves to closed material proceedings. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, expressed his view as to why closed material proceedings were necessary, but in his judgment these amendments should be in the Bill. I have explained this, and indeed others who have contributed to the debate have also explained why it is not necessary.
We all aim at the same thing: at the end of the day, this should take place in a small number of cases. It is a matter of judgment. As I indicated earlier, at this initial gateway of closed material proceedings the court is considering an application having not yet seen all the material for the case. Against this background, we are keen that legislation should avoid the court being required to meet a condition which would then require it to establish definitively at that point whether a fair determination would be possible by any other means.
As I said, that could mean the exhaustion of a range of measures, including a full PII exercise. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said, it is something to which the Secretary of State should apply his or her mind. If one reads the judgment of Lord Brown in Al Rawi, he indicates at one point that it would take 60 lawyers the best part of two or three years to go through all the material. That is the scale. If that is the road down which judges felt that they ought to go because of the wording of the Bill, that would underline much of its purpose.
I also pick up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who seemed to think that the means of achieving it being a backstop and a rare exception was the provision in proposed new subsection (1F) about the court having to be satisfied that the Secretary of State had considered PII. We do not even get to that stage, because the court must not even consider the application unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has considered PII. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, was very much to the point: the safeguards of last resort, as it were, are not that requirement on the Secretary of State but, rather, the courts being satisfied that the disclosure of material would be damaging to national security, and that it would be in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice for the application to be granted.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I point out to the Minister that I, too, am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We looked at whether it would take many months for the Secretary of State to review the material. We were firmly of the view that that is not what is required of the Secretary of State at all. It is only about looking at material that would move it into in the special category which would mean that it would require closed material proceedings. This business that it would take insurmountable periods of time to examine the material is not what we are talking about. The Joint Committee was absolutely satisfied on that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I fully accept that the Joint Committee on Human Rights and your Lordships’ Constitution Committee have said that it would be undesirable to go down the path of an exhaustive PII. The point that I am trying to make to your Lordships’ House is that when we make law, the Joint Committee on Human Rights will not be deciding how it is interpreted, it will be the courts. The courts will no doubt be at the receiving end of very eloquent and persuasive arguments from special advocates as to why they should exhaust different routes. That is our concern: if we include such words in the Bill which allow such arguments to be made, the courts may well feel that they must take those exhaustive steps before entertaining an application for closed material proceedings. We believe that that would take away much of the purpose of the provisions.
In conclusion, it is not as if we are just leaving it there. As I said in my opening remarks, we believe that the tests that we have in place, giving considerable discretion to the judges, the revocation possibilities during the review and the disclosure phase, and the requirement on the court to consider at the end of all the disclosure whether closed material proceedings should still continue constitute a very powerful weapon in the hands of the court and at judges’ discretion that will ensure that those procedures will be used only in truly exceptional cases.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked about the change from “must” to “may”. She is absolutely right: it is only if all those conditions are fulfilled that the court may grant an application for and make a declaration of closed material proceedings. Even at that stage, the court has discretion whether or not to do so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, asked whether it gives the judges discretion to do the right thing in the circumstances of the particular case. I very much believe that what we have put in place in the other place does that. I fear that to accept the amendments could in some ways undermine that, although I fully understand why they have been moved. I believe that we have the right discretion for our judges in place. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, trust the judges. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 5.
“(1A) The court may make such a declaration—
(a) on the application of—
(i) the Secretary of State (whether or not the Secretary of State is a party to the proceedings), or
(ii) any party to the proceedings, or
(b) of its own motion.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 6.
“(1B) The court may make such a declaration if it considers that the following two conditions are met.
(1C) The first condition is that—
(a) a party to the proceedings would be required to disclose sensitive material in the course of the proceedings to another person (whether or not another party to the proceedings), or
(b) a party to the proceedings would be required to make such a disclosure were it not for one or more of the following—
(i) the possibility of a claim for public interest immunity in relation to the material,
(ii) the fact that there would be no requirement to disclose if the party chose not to rely on the material,
(iii) section 17(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (exclusion for intercept material),
(iv) any other enactment that would prevent the party from disclosing the material but would not do so if the proceedings were proceedings in relation to which there was a declaration under this section.
(1D) The second condition is that it is in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings to make a declaration.
(1E) The two conditions are met if the court considers that they are met in relation to any material that would be required to be disclosed in the course of the proceedings (and an application under subsection (1A)(a) need not be based on all of the material that might meet the conditions or on material that the applicant would be required to disclose).
(1F) The court must not consider an application by the Secretary of State under subsection (1A)(a) unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has, before making the application, considered whether to make, or advise another person to make, a claim for public interest immunity in relation to the material on which the application is based.
(1G) A declaration under this section must identify the party or parties to the proceedings who would be required to disclose the sensitive material (“a relevant person”).”
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, your Lordships will be at one with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in agreeing that it is the prime duty of government to protect the national security. That is currently being achieved by a variety of means, including PII. It would continue to be achieved under the terms of this amendment if your Lordships’ House agrees to it and if that is confirmed by the House of Commons. Your Lordships’ House is usually and naturally reluctant to overturn Commons amendments. There can be no better or more necessary occasion to do so than when issues profoundly affecting our system of justice or the rights of citizens are at stake. This is just such an occasion. I beg to move and test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group. The Government have listened to concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere about transparency, particularly around the new closed material proceedings provisions. I know that several Members of your Lordships’ House expressed frustration at the lack of information available about how many CMPs take place.
The Government have accepted that the unusual nature of CMPs means that there would be significant public and parliamentary interest in more information about how the provisions in this Bill will operate. A strong view was expressed in this House, although no amendments to the Bill were passed, that reporting and review arrangements would be valuable safeguards.
The Government have brought forward amendments that address these concerns. We decided to adopt the expert view of the Constitution Committee by providing for annual reporting to Parliament and for a review of the CMP provisions under this Bill to be conducted five years after Royal Assent. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also made similar recommendations.
Given the often lengthy nature of litigation, with cases often lasting more than a year and sometimes several years, we believe that the frequency of review under these provisions allows for regular but meaningful reporting and for a review to be informed by enough cases to provide for substantiated conclusions and reasoned recommendations where necessary.
An annual report is the most proportionate approach. We expect that the CMP provisions in the Bill will be used rarely. More frequent reports may contain too few data to be meaningful. Annual reports will not, however, be the only way in which facts relating to cases involving CMPs will be made public during the reporting period. The Government made an amendment when the Bill was last considered by this House to ensure that where an application is made under Clause 6(2), that fact must be reported to the other parties in proceedings; and there are already existing mechanisms by which the courts publish their open judgments and the media report on cases of interest to the public.
The reports will focus on the volume of cases and applications. The amendment lists the matters of key concern to be included in the annual report as: the number of applications for a CMP declaration and by whom the applications are made; the number of declarations and revocations made by the court; and the number of judgments published, both open and closed, with respect to the determination of Section 6 proceedings—this would include judgments made on the substantive trial and judgments made regarding the outcome of the application for a CMP declaration. The reporting arrangements will also cover “deemed” Section 6 proceedings or those treated as Section 6 proceedings.
In addition to an annual reporting requirement, the Government have introduced provisions for a comprehensive review of the operation of the CMP provisions in this Bill after five years, conducted by an independent figure and with a report made to Parliament. We expect such a review to take into account the views of special advocates, among others; to consider efficiency, trends and types of case; and to analyse the numbers provided in the annual reports to reflect on how CMPs are being used. The reviewer will have to take care not to comment on judicial decisions or on how the judge has run particular cases.
In line with most other legislation, this clause provides for the appointment of the reviewer by the Secretary of State. Amendment 19A in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks would require consultation first with the Lord Chief Justices and the Lord President of the Court of Session. We do not believe that such consultation is necessary for a reviewer or commissioner to be independent or to be perceived as being independent, as has been repeatedly shown by the independence displayed by Mr David Anderson QC and other independent reviewers and commissioners. David Anderson has been clear about his views on this Bill, for example, and has been influential in persuading the Government to change their position on a number of issues. Such appointments are now subject to a statutory code for public appointments to ensure that they are undertaken transparently and on merit. This should provide reassurance that the person with the right skills and background will be appointed.
It has also been suggested that a review after a shorter period of time would be better. My noble friend’s Amendment 19B would reduce this period from five to four years, which I note seeks to ensure that the sunsetting provision follows consideration of the reviewer’s report. I believe that given how long litigation can take and the small number of cases expected, five years is the right period for there to be enough evidence for a review meaningfully to draw upon.
Amendment 19C would require a further review every five years. In its report, the Constitution Committee said the House may wish to consider the Bill being independently reviewed five years after it comes into force. We have followed that recommendation. Any reviews should be focused where there is proper justification for them, and they should be proportionate.
We should remember that judges have full discretion over whether to grant a CMP, whether to revoke it at any point in a case, whether they agree with the Secretary of State’s assessment of national security damage, how material should be treated within the CMP, effective management of the case, whether a CMP should continue, and in deciding the outcome. There have also been some suggestions that the unusual nature of the CMP provisions means that a sunset clause would be appropriate. This would allow Parliament the opportunity to revisit the need for the provisions in the Bill once they had been operating for a while. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended such a provision but the Constitution Committee did not.
Amendment 19D in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks and Amendment 19E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seek to introduce a sunset and renewal clause for the new CMP provisions, requiring renewal every five years. My noble friend’s amendment provides for a renewal order to follow completion of the reviewer’s report. His amendment makes it clear that the CMP provisions would cease to take effect except relating to proceedings where a declaration had already been made, thereby not interrupting ongoing cases.
I point out to noble Lords that the effect of this amendment would also be to disrupt the Norwich Pharmacal clauses in the Bill that are intended to bring clarity to the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction when sensitive information is involved and to provide reassurance to intelligence-sharing partners, a point that was made in the previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. Although such a clause would apply to the new CMP Clauses 6 to 10 of the Bill, it would also affect proceedings connected to Norwich Pharmacal, both those where the Secretary of State would need to apply for a CMP and the reviews of certificates issued by the Secretary of State under the Norwich Pharmacal clauses. These proceedings are deemed to be Section 6 proceedings because the case needs to be heard in a closed material procedure to ensure that the outcome of the proceedings is not prejudiced by having already publicly disclosed the very information with which the proceedings are concerned.
Such a sunset clause would undermine the purpose of the Bill and unnecessarily so. Both Houses have agreed that there is a gap in the law, that there are circumstances where a judge may decide that a CMP is preferable, that claimants’ cases must sometimes automatically fail without a CMP and that the judge should have a CMP in his toolkit. Given the wide discretion that we have given the judge about when the provisions should be used, I do not know why we would then want to remove CMPs from the judge’s toolkit.
As I have said, the Bill provides for the procedures of the court over which the judge has discretion and not the exercise of controls by the Executive. I reinforce the point, made in an earlier debate, that international partners have expressed concerns regarding the United Kingdom’s ability to protect sensitive information shared with the United Kingdom in cases where claimants are making allegations against the state and its defence rests on national security material. We risk further undermining the confidence that partners have to share information with us if they feel that we do not have secure processes in place to protect their material while defending government actions. We fear that a sunset clause would introduce unnecessary uncertainty.
As I indicated before, the Constitution Committee did not recommend a sunset clause. In its report it said that the House may wish to consider the Bill being independently reviewed, but not renewed, five years after it comes into force; or rather it did not recommend renewal. The Government have accepted the Constitution Committee’s recommendations, and believe that the report and review provisions are sufficient to provide reassurance about how CMPs are used. I therefore beg to move that the House agrees with the Commons in their amendments.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 19A to 19D in my name as amendments to Amendment 19, concerning review and renewal of the operation of CMPs in the legislation.
In the other place, as my noble and learned friend has explained, the Government conceded that the operation of Clauses 6 to 10 of the Bill should be the subject of a review after five years of the Bill’s operation. That is the effect of Amendment 19. As far as they go, the provisions of the amendment are welcome. They were introduced against the background of the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in each of its two reports in November last year and February this year that the operation of Part 2 of the Bill should be subject to annual renewal. This amendment not only fails to meet that recommendation but, as it stands, has a number of significant weaknesses that make it frankly unfit for its purpose.
First, proposed new subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State on his or her own to appoint the reviewer. Yet one of the central complaints about the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Macdonald pointed out earlier, is that in practice it gives too much power to the state and to the Secretary of State in particular. The concerns focus not only on the degree to which the Bill sacrifices common-law principles of fairness and open justice but also on the relationship between the Secretary of State and the courts. That remains true notwithstanding the concessions, important though they are, that there have been on judicial discretion and equality of arms.
The Bill undoubtedly accords to the Secretary of State significant new power to influence how trials of some civil cases may be conducted. How the Secretary of State exercises that power and whether it is found in the light of experience to be either excessive or unnecessary will be fundamental questions for the reviewer to address.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I want to reinforce what the Minister has said about the prejudice which a sunset clause would have to the confidence which partners would have in us. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, was modifying his proposals in his speech because he has recognised that.
Let us suppose that an ally is at this moment considering whether to pass confidences to the Government. If those confidences were held by the intelligence services they would be protected under the Bill. If they were held by another department, they could be protected only by a certificate passed by a Secretary of State. If at this moment the ally was considering whether to pass those confidences to this country and was uncertain whether in four or five years’ time there would be closed procedures under which that certificate could then be considered, it would be a matter of uncertainty whether those confidences would be protected in four or five years’ time. That would affect the willingness of allies to pass secrets to us now. It would, therefore, be very damaging if a sunset clause in the form proposed originally by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, supported by the Opposition, were to pass into law. I very much hope that the House will not support that proposal.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I am prepared to say at this stage that I will not be pressing my own amendment, which is on similar terms at least to the last amendment that the noble Lord has moved.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, has adumbrated a case in which it would seem almost that the doctrine that no Parliament can bind its successor is somehow to be disregarded. Of course, it would be open to any subsequent Parliament to amend this law in any event. Any nation dealing with us will be aware of that. There is not, therefore, a great deal of force in what the noble Lord has been proposing as a justification for supporting the Government’s position on this matter.
The question arises: what is the point of a review? If a review is to take place—and the Government have given welcome acceptance to that concept—where does it lead? Apparently it would lead nowhere. The whole purpose of the review in these circumstances would be vitiated. There needs to be a review, given the nature of the change in our proceedings for us to establish a principle that there should be a renewal, and certainly on that basis I am prepared to support the noble Lord’s amendments.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, this has been a relatively short debate, but nevertheless important points have been made by my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Beecham.
The first point I wish to make with regard to the first amendment in the name of my noble friend is, as I indicated in my opening remarks, that a number of public appointments, not least the appointment of Sir David Anderson, have been made by the Secretary of State without the consultation that my noble friend is suggesting in his amendment. I know that it is furthest from my noble friend’s mind to suggest this, but I am sure we would not want a situation where perhaps the appointment of some independent reviewers was questioned because they had not had the same statutory consultation requirements as have been proposed here.
I do not think anyone can deny that the role that Mr David Anderson plays is a very sensitive one. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation reviews quite significantly the actions of the Executive. It is in the interests, too, of the Secretary of State that the person appointed as the reviewer is credible. I do not think that the recent appointment by the Home Secretary of the Biometrics Commissioner—or indeed of Mr Anderson—has given rise to any concerns. I would caution against fixing a problem that does not exist, because you might inadvertently create another problem by perhaps casting some doubt on the independence of those who have been appointed under the present regime. The Secretary of State should have the discretion, in a highly sensitive national security context, to ensure the appointment of an individual who does not pose any risk. I am sure that would be agreed across the House.
I listened to what my noble friend said and, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out, he indicated that he was perhaps shifting—that is not a criticism at all—on the position of the renewal, given the deemed Section 6 proceedings as far as Norwich Pharmacal is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, makes an important point with regard to the confidence in which other countries share information with us. The fact that there would be regular potential for renewals puts it in a different category from that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and it could raise a problem. In one of our earliest debates, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, indicated from a visit to America that when we discussed information perhaps being withheld, it was not fanciful; it was something that he actually encountered in his role as a member of the ISC.
I simply say to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who ask what is the point of a review if nothing could happen, that the answer lies in what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, himself said. No one is suggesting that this Parliament is binding its successors by this. I remind the House that it is not just the actions of the Executive and the Secretary of State; it is the whole system that we are setting up, which involves the courts. If a review proved that closed material proceedings were not working, manifest injustice was following on from them and they were not actually doing what they were set up to do, of course it would be possible for a future Parliament, through primary legislation, to repeal the legislation if that system is not working. Indeed, it may not go as far as repeal. It may be that a review would point out particular things that perhaps needed amendment, falling far short of a repeal. So a review could have a proper purpose that does not necessarily require a renewal order to follow on from it. In these circumstances, I invite the House to support and approve the amendments that have been brought from another place and I invite my noble friend not to move his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 19.
“Review of sections 6 to 10
(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of sections 6 to 10 (the “reviewer”).
(2) The reviewer must carry out a review of the operation of sections 6 to 10 in respect of the period of five years beginning with the day on which section 6 comes into force.
(3) The review must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period to which the review relates.
(4) As soon as reasonably practicable after completing a review under this section, the reviewer must send to the Secretary of State a report on its outcome.
(5) On receiving a report under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.
(6) Before laying a copy of a report before Parliament under subsection (5), the Secretary of State may, after consulting the reviewer, exclude from the copy any part of the report that would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be damaging to the interests of national security if it were included in the copy laid before Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State may pay to the reviewer—
(a) expenses incurred by the reviewer in carrying out functions under this section, and
(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I have not moved Amendment 19A, but Amendments 19B to 19D, as a suite, on the principle of renewal, are extremely important. In those circumstances, I do not accept the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man to produce, in this legislation, a very clear signal that a review of certificates on Norwich Pharmacal proceedings can proceed without impairing the renewal amendment. In those circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 20 to 24.
““sensitive material” has the meaning given by section 6(9),”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 25.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 25. This is a minor technical amendment. It removes the privilege amendment which was inserted into the Bill at Third Reading in this House to recognise the privilege of the other place to control any charges on the people or on public funds. The removal of this amendment at this point is standard procedure.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 26 to 45.
“(6) The ISC may take evidence on oath, and for that purpose may administer oaths.”
“Funding and other resources
A Minister of the Crown—
(a) may make payments to either House of Parliament in respect of any expenditure incurred, or to be incurred, by either House in relation to the ISC,
(b) may provide staff, accommodation or other resources to either House of Parliament for the purposes of the ISC,
(c) may make payments, or provide staff, accommodation or other resources, to the ISC, or
(d) may otherwise make payments, or provide staff, accommodation or other resources, to any person for the purposes of the ISC.”
“( ) This paragraph applies to information requested by the ISC in the exercise of its functions that—
(a) does not relate to any particular operational matter, or
(b) relates to a particular operational matter that the ISC is considering under section 2(3)(a) or (b).”
“Publication of information received in private
5 (1) This paragraph applies to information received by the ISC in private in connection with the exercise of its functions.
(2) The ISC—
(a) may only publish the information by way of a report under section 3, and
(b) must not otherwise disclose the information to any person if the ISC considers that there is a risk that the person will publish it.
(3) The restrictions on publication and disclosure of information in sub-paragraph (2) do not apply if—
(a) the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that publication or disclosure would not be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters or any person carrying out activities falling within section 2(2),
(b) publication or disclosure is necessary for the ISC to comply with any enactment or rule of law, or
(c) the information has on an earlier occasion been disclosed to the public, in circumstances which do not contravene—
(i) sub-paragraph (2), or
(ii) any other enactment or rule of law prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information.”
“Protection for witnesses
6 (1) Evidence given by a person who is a witness before the ISC may not be used in any civil or disciplinary proceedings, unless the evidence was given in bad faith.
(2) Evidence given by a person who is a witness before the ISC may not be used against the person in any criminal proceedings, unless the evidence was given in bad faith.”
“Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)
In section 63A of the Data Protection Act 1998 (application to Parliament)—
(a) in subsection (2), after “Commons,” insert “other than where they are determined by or on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament,”, and
(b) in subsection (3), after “Lords,” insert “other than where they are determined by or on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament,”.”
(b) after “Committee” insert “of Parliament”.”
“Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)
(1) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 23 (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), in subsection (3), at the end insert—
“(o) the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”
(3) In Part 1 of Schedule 1 (Public Authorities; General)—
(a) in paragraph 2, after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) information held by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”, and
(b) in paragraph 3, after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) information held by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.””
(b) after “Committee” insert “of Parliament”.”