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, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
1. What progress has been made on the negotiation of European Union free trade agreements.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The EU has concluded free trade negotiations with Singapore and has launched negotiations with Japan, and EU-Canada negotiations are also in their final stages. An EU-United States free trade agreement would constitute a major contribution to economic growth, and is a top priority for the Government.
Mr Barron
Given that the Government were unable to secure significant reform of the common agricultural policy negotiations on the seven-year EU budget deal, what prospect is there is that the Foreign Secretary will be able to make progress on the EU-US free trade agreement?
Mr Hague
I think that there is a very real prospect of progress in that regard. There is commitment and real political will on both sides of the Atlantic. The European Commission has published its draft negotiating mandate, and President Obama has spoken about the matter. As an agreement with the United States is potentially worth more than £100 billion a year to European Union economies, we will put an enormous amount of effort into this.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
As the Foreign Secretary said, the holy grail of EU free trade agreements is the one with the United States, which would create a world-beating single market and a substantial number of jobs, and would help to increase the EU’s gross domestic product. Does he agree that we would look pretty dumb if we were leaving the EU just as it was signing the free trade agreement with the United States?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend has made his point well, but I do not think that anyone is contemplating leaving the EU before 14 June—if, indeed, ever—when key decisions will be made at the Trade Council in the EU. If that process is successful, it will allow negotiations to be launched during the President’s visit to Europe for the G8 summit a few days later. We are getting on with all these matters now.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I apologise on behalf of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), who regrets that he is unable to be here today. I also thank the Foreign Secretary and you, Mr. Speaker, for acknowledging notification of his absence earlier.
An EU-US free trade agreement will be worth an average of £466 a year to every family in the country. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if his Back Benchers and some of his ministerial colleagues achieve their dream of leaving the EU, there will be little chance of our securing a similar bilateral UK-US free trade agreement?
Mr Hague
I am not going to speculate about that. We are going to make a success of negotiations between all the members of the EU, including the United Kingdom and the United States. That is our objective. As several Members have observed, this would be a transformational trade agreement, and I hope that there is a strong commitment to it in all parts of the House.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister on their vision in trying to achieve an EU-US free trade agreement, but does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about the fact that, on occasion, the European Union is very slow to act and to make such agreements? There is still room for bilateral trade agreements through strategic partnerships between countries.
Mr Hague
There is no doubt that working with 27 countries on these matters can be ponderous and slow, but when it is successful, it is of enormous importance. Those are the downside and the upside of circumstances in which competence lies with the European Union. When it works, it works well. The free trade agreement with South Korea eliminated nearly 97% of tariffs, and some British businesses are now enjoying a huge increase in exports to South Korea as a result. We want to see the same thing happen on an even greater scale in relation to the United States.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the EU has a trade agreement with Israel that allows goods to be imported under preference. He and 16 other EU Foreign Ministers have written to Baroness Ashton asking for guidelines to be drawn up to ensure goods produced in illegal settlements are not imported to the EU labelled “Made in Israel”. What steps are being taken to draw up those guidelines and to bring them into force?
Mr Hague
The UK has been advancing the case for such guidelines. That was done under the previous Government, and this Government support it. As the hon. Gentleman says, I have taken this up, along with other Foreign Ministers, with the EU High Representative. We look to the whole of the EU to do this in a co-ordinated and effective way.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that, in view of the fact that we have been members of the Common Market for 40 years, it is certainly true to describe negotiations as “ponderous and slow.” Does he agree that this country might have made more progress towards securing a free trade agreement with the United States if we had not been members of the Common Market, or what is now the European Union?
Mr Hague
Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend is asking me to speculate on areas I do not want to get drawn into speculating about. We make the most of the situation we are dealing with. The fact is that this is a competence of the EU, although our strong political will and support within the EU is required to make the most of such free trade agreements. As I mentioned earlier, working with 26 other countries can mean the process is slow, but it also means that when we succeed, that has an enormous impact. My hon. Friend should bear that trade-off in mind.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
2. What recent discussions he has had with the Commonwealth ministerial action group on Sri Lanka.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
The UK is not a member of the CMAG, but we have regular bilateral conversations with its members. We do not expect Sri Lanka to be on the formal CMAG agenda at its next meeting on 26 April, but we expect, and support, it being discussed at some stage in the meeting.
Mr Cunningham
The CMAG is the custodian of the Commonwealth’s fundamental values and principles. Given the allegations of war crimes in Sri Lanka and the impeachment of the Chief Justice, will the Government be calling on CMAG members to take action on Sri Lanka at its Friday meeting?
Alistair Burt
We have been very clear in a variety of statements, and in direct contact with the Government of Sri Lanka, that they should be upholding the very best of Commonwealth values, particularly in view of their intention to hold the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo later this year. We know from comments by members of the CMAG that they share the concerns and that they will also be expecting Sri Lanka to uphold those values.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Do the Government accept that it is becoming increasingly apparent that great damage will be done to the Commonwealth if the next CHOGM is held in Colombo later this year, given the appalling human rights record in Sri Lanka and its Government’s disregard for the rule of law? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are taking action, along with many other Commonwealth states, to have this matter ventilated not just at the CMAG, but if necessary between Heads of Government, to ensure that action can be taken over the next few months to find an alternative venue?
Alistair Burt
The decision to site the next CHOGM in Colombo was taken by consensus in the Commonwealth back in 2009, and we have no indication that the Commonwealth intends to change its view on that, but my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to point out the contrast between Commonwealth values and concerns about what is happening in Sri Lanka. We and other Governments have made that clear, and the recent passing of the Human Rights Council resolution in Geneva, which the UK strongly supported, is evidence of that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister just referenced the most recent United Nations resolution on Sri Lanka, in which it noted
“the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture, and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly”.
Given that Sri Lanka has been judged in those terms by the UN, to what extent does the Minister think the country complies with the principles of the Commonwealth and the recently adopted Commonwealth charter, and should we use CHOGM as a means of leverage to put pressure on Sri Lanka to put its house in order?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Lady is correct when she says that CHOGM provides the opportunity for us and others to express concerns to Sri Lanka, and to urge it to make good its own promises to fulfil the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations. We have urged it to do so and we will continue to do that.
I was able to speak to the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister yesterday. I made reference to our further concerns, whether they are about the impeachment of the Chief Justice or further attacks on the press in Jaffna, and made it clear that if Colombo is to host CHOGM later this year, the spotlight will be on Sri Lanka and it will need to demonstrate to the world how it has responded to these concerns and made good its own beliefs in reconciliation for the future.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
May I again urge on Ministers the idea that the Commonwealth should have a group of people independent of the relevant Government, who can go in and look at human rights issues, so that we can have not just a charter, but a method of reporting back to see whether the charter is upheld in Sri Lanka and other places?
Alistair Burt
The determination of the Commonwealth to uphold the highest principles, the Lancaster principles, and how that can be ensured in all Commonwealth countries, is a matter of active discussion in the Commonwealth. The situation in Sri Lanka has pointed out very sharply the discrepancy between the concerns and those values in principle. I have no doubt that leaders of the Commonwealth and Heads of State are acutely aware of the concerns that my right hon. Friend raises, and will be addressing them.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Indonesian Government about the death penalty.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
The British Government strongly oppose the death penalty, as a matter of principle. We continue to make formal representations to the Indonesian authorities and to speak out publicly on this issue, and they are in no doubt as to the seriousness with which we take this issue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our objections to the use of the death penalty with the Indonesian Foreign Minister in November 2012.
Andrew Jones
I thank the Minister for the efforts that the Foreign Office is taking on behalf of Lindsay Sandiford. Does he agree that the Indonesian Government should be left in no doubt that the failure to commute the threat of a death sentence would have serious implications for our relationship with Indonesia, and their standing in the world?
Mr Swire
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the death penalty with the Indonesian Foreign Minister during the November state visit of the Indonesian President. I issued a statement on 15 March, firmly expressing UK concern following the recent execution carried out by Indonesia. We continue to be deeply concerned for both Lindsay Sandiford and Gareth Cashmore, who have been sentenced to death for drug-trafficking offences. We are seeking reassurances that Indonesia will not seek to carry out the death penalty in both cases.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
May I also thank the Foreign Office for the support that it has given to my former constituent, Lindsay Sandiford? However, given the concerns about the adequacy of translation in the initial trial and the adequacy of legal representation going forward to the Supreme Court stage, will the Foreign Office reconsider its position and follow Indonesia’s own example, which provides support for translation costs and legal costs for its nationals facing the death penalty abroad, and support Lindsay Sandiford through that process, even though it is not legally obliged to do so?
Mr Swire
My hon. Friend is right to voice that concern, but it is true that the Government do not pay for legal representation for British nationals overseas. We have been working extremely closely with Lindsay Sandiford’s lawyers and Reprieve in identifying a lawyer for her, and we are prepared to assist her with anything beyond actually having to meet some of these bills, which we just simply do not do.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for the UK of instability in the Korean peninsula.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
5. What steps the Government are taking in response to the recent actions of North Korea.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for the UK of instability in the Korean peninsula.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Our assessment remains that there is no immediate risk to British nationals living or travelling in the Korean peninsula. But North Korea’s rhetoric and behaviour poses a serious risk to the stability of the region, which includes several of the world’s largest economies. The impact of miscalculation by the North Korean regime could extend well beyond its region. That is why the international response must remain clear, calm and united.
Wayne David
Inevitably and rightly, there has been tremendous focus on the absurd rhetoric of the North Korean regime and the development of its nuclear capability, but last month the United Nations Human Rights Council decided to set up a commission of inquiry into human rights abuses in North Korea. Will the Foreign Secretary give us an indication of how that work might develop?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is quite right about this. The UN Human Rights Council agreed to establish a commission of inquiry. This was a unanimous vote, which is unusual on these issues, and it was proposed in a resolution presented by the European Union and Japan, and co-sponsored by more than 40 countries. This will investigate the most serious human rights violations identified by the UN special rapporteur, including those in political prison camps. It is quite right that we do everything we can to investigate what is known to the world as an appalling record of human rights abuse in North Korea.
Graham Evans
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a further missile test by North Korea would be illegal, provocative and dangerous in the current climate? What steps has he taken to persuade the Chinese Government to use their influence to urge the North Koreans not to go down this dangerous path and to return to the negotiation table?
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend rightly says, we work with China on this, and of course with the United States. I was pleased that on Secretary Kerry’s visit to China in the last 10 days, the United States and China presented a strong, united position on this. As I reported to the House last week, we were active in bringing together the G8 nations, including Russia, during our meeting with G8 Foreign Ministers in London two weeks ago, to make it clear to the North Korean Government that they have a choice to make: either continue with this provocative path and face further isolation, or engage constructively with the rest of the world.
Lindsay Roy
Clearly, immense challenges remain in the Korean peninsula, including for British citizens and their representatives. What additional support has been provided through the Foreign Secretary’s office to embassy staff in both North and South Korea during this period of heightened threats and tensions?
Mr Hague
The offices function very well. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to our embassy staff in Pyongyang. It is not an easy country for the staff of western embassies to work in, but their work is important, particularly as many of our allies, such as Japan, the United States and South Korea, do not have embassies in Pyongyang. Our embassy is important and the small staff there do a great job. We were informed on 5 April by the North Koreans that they could not guarantee the safety of embassies in the event of war, but we are responding in the calm way that I have advocated, and our embassy sees no need to be withdrawn from Pyongyang.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Despite the limited nature of the threat directly posed to Britain by North Korea, does the Secretary of State agree that the speed with which this crisis has arisen indicates how foolish we would be to downgrade our strategic nuclear deterrent in the future?
Mr Hague
Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That would be a very serious national error. We have to bear in mind that North Korea has paraded, but not tested, a long-range missile with a claimed range of 12,000 km. That is clearly the sort of thing that it is trying to develop, and we must bear that in mind when making the decision that my hon. Friend talks about.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does not the behaviour of North Korea confirm that vile dictatorships are a threat not only to their own citizens, but to their neighbours? Has the Minister conveyed the full support of the UK to the Governments of South Korea and Japan in the face of outrageous aggression from North Korea? What steps is he taking to ensure that disputes in east Asia are resolved through international law, not military action?
Mr Hague
Yes, we are in very close consultation with those countries. I discussed this in detail with Foreign Minister Kishida of Japan when he was here two weeks ago, and last week I telephoned Foreign Minister Yun of South Korea. These countries are very conscious of our support and grateful for the support that we give at the UN Security Council. On other disputes in east Asia, we make it clear to all countries concerned that we wish to see them peacefully resolved and in accordance with international law.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Given the reckless, threatening behaviour in the north, what would the Foreign Secretary say to those in South Korea who would advocate a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent as a central plank of their future national security?
Mr Hague
Of course, the goal of international policy is to bring about the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, which is something the South Korean Government support, but I believe that it is very important for a country, such as ours, which has a nuclear deterrent that adds enormously to the credibility of the western alliance, to keep it.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
7. What recent discussions he has had on human rights in Colombia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
We recognise the progress made by the Colombian Government to address human rights problems but continue to raise issues of concern when they arise. On 4 March I met Colombia’s Vice-Minister for Defence, Jorge Enrique Bedoya, in London. We discussed various issues, including human rights and military justice reform.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he recognise that there can be no real peace in Colombia until the rights of the democratic opposition and mass social movements, such as the Patriotic March, whose leaders will visit Parliament tomorrow, are recognised? Its members are regularly brutally murdered by both the Colombian Government and right-wing paramilitary groups. Will he assure me that the UK Government will do everything possible to stress to the Colombian Government that democratic opposition is part of a civilized society?
Mr Swire
Yes, we absolutely will. We recognise the efforts made by President Santos to date. In fact, our 2012 annual human rights report, which was launched on 15 April, gives our assessment of the key areas where the Colombian Government have made progress and the areas where human rights concerns remain. We believe that the President is making the right moves and that he needs greater encouragement. I welcome the interest shown by Members across the House in holding the Colombians to their word.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister shares my hope that the latest round of peace talks with the FARC will succeed. Can he update the House on his assessment of what progress has been made in those talks and tell us what representations, if any, the UK has made to President Santos regarding his five-point plan, particularly the fifth point, which is on victims’ rights?
Mr Swire
As I said, we are hugely supportive of what President Santos has done to date and very much welcome the talks that have been going on in Havana, which we understand are due to restart in May. We stand by to offer any help we can. I think that it is worth paying tribute to his Government for getting to where they are. It has been a long time since Colombia has been as peaceful as it is today, but there is still a long way to go.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
8. What progress he is making on tackling sexual violence in South Africa.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Levels of gender-based violence in South Africa are among the highest in the world. The UK Government have committed £4 million to working with the South African Government, UN agencies and civil society to tackle the root causes.
Clive Efford
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Constituents of mine have raised concerns about the levels of sexual violence in South African schools. Has his Department had any contact with the Congress of South African Students to discuss that distressing situation?
Mr Hague
We have contact with many organisations in South Africa, including Rape Crisis and the Women’s Legal Centre, which works to improve access to justice for poorer people. Our high commissioner has given a series of radio interviews about the issue. We would be happy to add to that work and to those contacts, so I will look specifically at the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
As chair of the all-party South Africa group, may I tell my right hon. Friend how pleased we are about the money that the Foreign Office has made available? Will he use his good offices, those of our high commissioner and our role in the Commonwealth to show how unacceptable such behaviour is in South Africa, and indeed in other parts of the Commonwealth?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and absolutely agree with her. I mentioned how active the British high commissioner has been in highlighting the issue, including during South Africa’s 16 days of activism on gender-based violence in November last year. She also raised awareness of the issue at an international women’s day reception just last month, in March. We will continue that work, with the encouragement of this House.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in South Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
Much of South Sudan has enjoyed improved security over the past year, but we are concerned about violence in Jonglei, including the recent attack on a UN convoy in which 12 peacekeepers and civilians died. We are supporting community reconciliation efforts and urging the Government to prioritise the protection of civilians.
Mark Durkan
I thank the Minister for that answer. Have the Government been able to form any reliable assessment of recent events in Eastern Equatoria, particularly the alleged killings by the army in Lorema hospital? Obviously those alleged events follow the recent killing of members of the governor’s bodyguard, but there are divergent accounts and allegations. Have the Government been able to give credence to any side’s version of events?
Mark Simmonds
We are still trying to assess the detail of exactly what happened and to untangle the different stories emanating from that part of southern Sudan. There needs to be recognition that significant progress has been made and that a key part of finding a lasting solution to the tension between South Sudan and North Sudan is the implementation of the agreement that was announced at the United Nations General Assembly last year.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Now that South Sudan and Sudan have resolved their difficulties over oil, South Sudan has the potential to become an extremely prosperous country, but it still has very weak governance. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to help the Government of South Sudan enhance their machinery of governance and their capacity properly to govern South Sudan?
Mark Simmonds
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point: the oil now flowing between and through South Sudan and Sudan creates the opportunity for economic stability, development and growth in the southern part of Sudan, so the Government of South Sudan will have to have additional capacity to deal with the income that will, I hope, flow into the South Sudanese exchequer. Support is provided by the Foreign Office and by the work of our colleagues at the Department for International Development. We are assisting the South Sudanese Government in building that relevant capacity.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
10. What assessment he has made of the progress made by the Government of Colombia in tackling impunity and implementing the victims and land restitution law.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
As noted in our 2012 human rights report, the Colombian Government have made some progress on both issues: 170,000 victims have been provided with reparations under the victims and land restitution law. We continue to press the Colombian Government to speed up the processing of cases and reduce impunity, and support them in their steps to reform the judicial system.
Thomas Docherty
I am sure the House will agree that, despite the law’s success, many human rights activists are still in grave danger from death threats, and the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and others have campaigned to highlight the issue. Has the Minister met CAFOD and, if not, will he do so?
Mr Swire
The UK’s statement on the UN’s 2013 universal periodic review on Colombia, which we are launching today in Geneva, will call for improved access to justice for victims. I have not to date met representatives from CAFOD, but I would be delighted to do so, particularly if they were accompanied by the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that lessons learned by the UK during the Northern Ireland peace process could be useful in helping us to deliver peace in Colombia?
Mr Swire
Having had the honour of serving as Minister of State for Northern Ireland for two and a half years and of now travelling the world, I know that many countries benefit from what was learned in Northern Ireland. I welcome the interest shown in Colombia by Members from Northern Ireland, because what they know can be of huge use to Colombia as it tries to inch towards peace.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that, while the land restitution law is good, when peasant farmers return to their land they are coerced, bullied, injured and murdered. Have the Government held any discussions with the Colombian Government to ensure that peasant farmers are given protection when they return to their land?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman is right. We are concerned about the right of indigenous people. We are providing technical assistance to the Colombian Government to work towards effective implementation of the new land and victims law, which aims to do exactly that—to return land to huge numbers of displaced people and to compensate victims.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Sexual violence has reached a dangerous level in Colombia. The numbers are ever increasing, yet very few are brought to trial. What can the Government do to highlight this absurdity?
Mr Swire
Indeed; in 2012, President Santos launched Colombia’s national public policy for gender equality, and the British Government will provide support to the Colombian Government to promote women’s rights and address discrimination wherever possible. Equally, the British embassy in Colombia is assisting the Colombian Government in looking at these extremely serious issues.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
11. What discussions he has had with his Commonwealth counterparts about the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo in 2013 and the progress being made on tackling human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
We have discussions with our counterparts in the Commonwealth on a variety of subjects on a regular basis, including on CHOGM. We make every effort to reiterate our concerns about human rights directly to Sri Lanka, whenever we get the opportunity. I was able to do that most recently in a meeting with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister just yesterday.
Ann Clwyd
It is obviously not enough, because the Sri Lankans are not listening. They do not listen to the UN or the Commonwealth. It beggars belief that we think that they will listen more if CHOGM goes ahead there and we attend. I ask the UK Government to think carefully about the signal that it will send about their commitment to human rights if they go ahead with that visit.
Alistair Burt
I understand the concerns of the right hon. Lady, as do all hon. Members. This is a decision for the Commonwealth. It decided by consensus that the Heads of Government meeting should be in Colombo. The Commonwealth recognises the issues of concern in Sri Lanka. There is no doubt that whoever ends up going to CHOGM, from whatever country, Sri Lanka will be in the spotlight. The progress that can be made on a number of the positive recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is a key topic that many will want to address. We want Sri Lanka to get to where it professes it wants to go. However, I agree with the right hon. Lady entirely that the evidence of that at present is pretty scant.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
21. On human rights abuses, the British and US assessments of the level of torture in Sri Lanka seem to be at variance. The FCO says merely that reports of torture continue, while the US State Department says that there is“widespread impunity for a broad range of human rights abuses, particularly involving police torture”.Why the difference of views?
Alistair Burt
We judge the evidence of torture that is brought to us and make our calculations upon it. We have expressed concern about incidents of torture. Our asylum processes take account of the possibility that some people, but not all, could be subject to torture. Cases are dealt with on an individual basis. Part of the overall picture of human rights concerns in Sri Lanka is that the Government appear to be determined to address the issue, but the evidence remains difficult to see in certain cases. We will continue to press the case and we know that this is a matter of great interest to all right hon. and hon. Members.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
12. What progress has been made on rebuilding democratic and accountable institutions in Mali; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
The UK’s primary goal in Mali is to encourage the transitional authorities to pursue an inclusive political process that supports long-term stability. We welcome the commitment to a road map and the creation of a national commission for dialogue and reconciliation, but rapid progress is required if that is to stay on track.
Hugh Bayley
The French Parliament has just voted to extend France’s military mission to Mali at least until the end of the year. A French colonel is reported in Le Monde as saying that the Malian military remains ill-equipped and ill-trained. How long does the Minister think the UK will contribute by deploying troops to the EU training mission?
Mark Simmonds
Let us be absolutely clear that the UK is offering the French deployment, at the behest of the civilian-led sovereign Government of Mali, limited logistical support. Approximately 40 UK military personnel are deployed as part of the EU training mission, three of whom are specifically related to the Foreign Secretary’s initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. They are there to train the Malian army with respect to human rights. Other international and multilateral discussions are taking place on deploying AFISMA—the African-led international support mission to Mali—to replace the French troops and, ultimately, a UN mission.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Indeed, Jeffrey Feltman, the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, said last week that it was vital that the political process be taken forward in Mali. Given our previous military involvement, what specific assistance are the UK Government giving to the political process? Does the Minister envisage the elections taking place by the summer of this year?
Mark Simmonds
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Bamako recently to support that process. The Prime Minister has appointed a special representative, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien), who is very involved in the process. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the importance of the political process. We are discussing whether we can support the efforts of the African Union as well. We need to ensure that all the groups in the north are involved in the political process, and that mechanisms are put in place to air and resolve the grievances of those who live in the north.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
13. What recent assessment he has made of the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Progress towards achieving a lasting two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians remains a top foreign policy priority. I welcome the efforts that Secretary Kerry has put into the middle east peace process since taking office. The UK will make every effort to mobilise the European Union and Arab states behind decisive US-led moves for peace.
Andrew Gwynne
With the US Secretary of State rightly attempting to encourage both the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships back to the negotiating table, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern at the resignation of the Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad? Has he conveyed to the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, the need for Mr Fayyad’s economic reforms to continue?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we are concerned about the resignation of Salam Fayyad, who has done a great job of building institutions for Palestinians. He is remaining in office for an interim period of several weeks as consideration is given to a successor. We are certainly always in touch with the Palestinian leadership, and they know that we strongly believe that the economic programme that Salam Fayyad has pursued must be continued.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may be aware that Prime Minister Netanyahu has emphasised his new Government’s commitment to an independent Palestinian state through direct negotiations. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of reports of Palestinian Authority-sanctioned incitement, which remains an obstacle to a genuine peace settlement?
Mr Hague
President Obama’s commitment is very important, and his visit to the region last month was successful. He argued in Jerusalem that peace is necessary, just and possible, and we should strongly welcome the involvement of the United States. There will be many obstacles in the path on both sides, and many forms of behaviour and many things that are said will make the process more difficult. We have to overcome those and work with the leaderships of the Israelis and the Palestinians on the basis that they are willing to come to a negotiated peace.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
20. In recent days, rockets have fallen on the Israeli town of Eilat and the Egyptian authorities have intercepted a ship containing arms destined for Gaza and Sinai. In view of that, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the implementation of United Nations resolution 1860, which deals with international arms smuggling, must be an integral part of any peace settlement?
Mr Hague
Yes, the hon. Lady is right. On 17 April at least two rockets hit Eilat, in southern Israel, reportedly fired from Sinai, and militants have fired a number of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel since 26 February. All of that makes pursuing a peace process and securing a two-state solution more difficult. It is very important that every country fulfils its international responsibilities under UN resolutions to intercept arms shipments.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Can the Foreign Secretary say why Palestinians should trust Britain when there is not a level playing field—literally—because the Government are supporting a European international football tournament taking place in Israel?
Mr Hague
The fact is that both sides have a level of trust first in the United States, and then in many other countries in the world, including the UK, to take forward the process. I will visit the region in the coming weeks to reinforce that and to try to accelerate everything that we are talking about. In general in world affairs, I do not believe that sporting fixtures should be an obstacle to political progress of any form, and I do not think they will be in this case.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary not realise that any progress between Israel and Palestine is very unlikely to move on at all while the settlement building, the annexation of East Jerusalem and the siege of Gaza continue? Until Israel radically modifies its behaviour towards the Palestinian people, how can there be any progress?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is well aware of our condemnation of settlement activity on occupied land, and I am happy to reiterate that today. It is one reason why carrying the process forward is such an urgent matter. Settlement activity means that within a foreseeable time, a two-state solution will no longer be practical. Secretary Kerry has put that case, and the United States Administration accept it. We have to try to make a success of the process, including by coming to a conclusion on all final status issues.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary think it would be helpful or unhelpful for there to be elections in the west bank and Gaza strip this year?
Mr Hague
As believers in democracy we are always in favour of people having their voices heard, and we would be reluctant ever to regard elections as unhelpful. We hope, of course, that in any elections, people who are ready to make peace will be successful so that this long-running conflict can be resolved.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
14. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Ghana; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
We welcome Ghana’s successful conduct of elections in December 2012, which were internationally recognised as generally free, fair and credible. The Foreign Secretary visited Ghana in March, strengthening further the already excellent Ghana-UK relationship, and I had the pleasure of attending the presidential inauguration in Accra in January.
Helen Goodman
I am a little bit surprised by the Minister’s answer to be honest. Last week some women from the Ghanaian Parliament came to Westminster, and they emphasised the value of stable institutions. As the Minister knows, a dispute about the presidential election is, fortunately, being pursued in the courts rather than on the street. Will he say a little more about discussions that the Foreign Secretary has had about that episode?
Mark Simmonds
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the petition before the Supreme Court in Ghana. However, Ghana has now had six successful elections since military rule ceased in 1992, and is rightly seen as a beacon of democracy in western Africa. She is also right to say that it is essential that such disputes are delivered through the courts, rather than on the streets. In the legal process, the Supreme Court started looking at the petition on 16 April, and we anticipate a judgment within the next month or two.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
15. What discussions he has had on ensuring the representation of women at the upcoming conference on Somalia and ensuring that there is discussion of women’s rights and gender-responsive peace-building at that conference.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
We have encouraged the Somali Government to bring a representative delegation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I will hold an event early next week to hear from prominent Somali women about empowerment, violence against women and forced marriage. Preventing sexual violence in conflict is also a theme of the Somali conference.
Jessica Morden
Members of the Somali community in my constituency feel it is hugely important that work is done to reach out to, identify and encourage key women to participate in the conference. Will the Minister reassure them that that will be the case?
Mark Simmonds
In short, I can, not only at the conference but also prior to it. I and officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are reaching out to and meeting not just male, but female representatives of the diaspora throughout the United Kingdom. As I mentioned, a meeting will be focused on Somali women and the preventing sexual violence initiative is a key part of the Somali conference. I reassure the hon. Lady that the key is an end to conflict and insecurity in Somalia, and we sought to insert language into UN Security Council resolution 2093 about the importance of the role of women in all efforts for peace and security going forward.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
16. What steps his Department is taking to implement the G8 declaration on preventing sexual violence in conflict; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Following the adoption of the historic G8 declaration, we will take the campaign to the UN and begin implementation immediately. G8 peacekeeping experts meet next week to discuss commitments on military training, and work begins next month in The Hague, London and Geneva on the development of the protocol.
Amber Rudd
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the outcome of the G8 summit, and I particularly welcome the declaration on the prevention of sexual violence in conflict. Will he tell the House what action he will take to move the initiative beyond the G8?
Mr Hague
Now that we have the strong support of the G8 nations in what amounted to an historic declaration, I want to take the campaign to the United Nations and convene during our presidency of the Security Council in June a special session of the Security Council, which I will chair, in order to rally wider global support. I will then take the campaign to the United Nations General Assembly in September. I believe that in this calendar year we can make an enormous difference to global attitudes, action on the ground, and global agreement on combating sexual violence in conflict.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of ongoing concerns, which have been expressed not least in the Human Rights Watch report published yesterday, on Burma, sexual violence, and what Human Rights Watch says amounts to ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people. Given the lifting of sanctions, what representations has he made on the profoundly concerning human rights breaches against the people of Burma?
Mr Hague
It is important for us to keep up the work and the pressure on those subjects, which I discussed last week with one of the President of Burma’s most senior Ministers and advisers—a Minister of the President’s Office. In particular, we discussed addressing the stateless position of the Rohingya people. The UK and other EU countries have a role to play in offering police training in dealing with ethnic violence. Keeping up the pressure on human rights issues will be part of the EU’s continuing approach.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
On Saturday, I met Friends of Syria ministers in Istanbul, where the Syrian National Coalition issued its clearest statement yet of its support for a political solution to the conflict, its commitment to a future for all Syrians, its rejection of all forms of terrorism and extremism, and its responsible approach on chemical and biological weapons. In return, the nations present undertook to strengthen their support for the Syrian opposition.
Mr Buckland
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Britain’s relationship with Germany is one of the most important aspects of our influence within the EU. Will he outline how he and his Government have engaged with Germany, and how they will do so in future?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Compared with the last year of the previous Government, we have nearly quadrupled the number of ministerial and senior official bilateral visits to Germany each year. We have established joint meetings twice a year of the British-German ministerial committees on the EU. I have made many visits to Germany, and as my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister works extremely closely with Chancellor Merkel. I believe it is right to say that we now work more closely with Germany than any previous Government.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
As we move towards the final military draw-down in Afghanistan, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure personnel protection for our remaining training forces, and for our brave men and women from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and non-governmental organisations, who are working for a better future for the Afghan people?
Mr Hague
Protecting people during the draw-down is extremely important. That is one reason for maintaining a substantial military force. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our military numbers are coming down from 9,000 to 5,000 this year. We will then decide on the profile of withdrawal from then on. A large part of their job is the protection of the personnel who remain. We also work closely with the Afghan authorities and the very substantial Afghan national security forces to ensure that our hard-working personnel, to whom I pay tribute, are properly protected.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
T4. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation in Kashmir remains a key to lasting peace and security in Asia? What efforts are the Government making to help Pakistan and India to resolve their differences and unlock the great human and economic potential of the region?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Efforts to resolve the issue in Kashmir continue and will be of huge benefit to both countries and the region as a whole. The UK is in contact with both Governments to urge them to do as much as possible to assist that reconciliation. We were particularly engaged after the incidents in January, when, once again, there were killings and shootings. It is important to note that those incidents did not disturb the dialogue that had grown up between India and Pakistan, which is important for the resolution of the issue.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
T2. Following the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), is he aware that Ahava Cosmetics, which produces cosmetics in an illegal settlement, is currently labelled as “Israeli” in the UK? Despite complaints to trading standards, it refused to take up the matter. I welcomed his approach to EU-wide guidelines, but will he talk to his colleagues to ensure that the guidelines we already have are upheld and enforced?
Alistair Burt
It is of course essential that guidelines that have been introduced are adhered to, and that products are correctly and properly labelled. I am aware of the concerns about the product that has been mentioned—it is discussed. It is important that the voluntary guidelines are extended, and that settlement produce and Israeli produce are correctly labelled to give people a choice.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
T5. A Palestinian news agency has reported that Hamas will seek to petition the EU to remove it from the terrorist list. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of those reports, and will he confirm that the British Government will remain steadfast in its position that Hamas is indeed a terrorist organisation?
Mr Hague
Our position on Hamas is well known. We look to it, as we look to everyone in that region, to uphold previous agreements, forswear violence and make credible movement towards all of the Quartet principles that have been long established. There has been no change in our position on Hamas, and we do not, therefore, have direct contact with it.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
T3. Will the Minister update us on the ratification of the UN arms trade treaty and what work we are doing with our international partners to implement it as soon as possible?
Alistair Burt
I am so glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised this point. It has been rather unnoticed in the past few weeks that the ATT was passed. It is one of the most important things the UN has achieved in recent years. Ratification will begin on 3 June, and we will be playing a leading part in encouraging states to sign up and ratify as soon as possible. I appreciate the support of the whole House. This has been a joint effort; it began in 2007 under the previous Government and we have seen it through to its successful conclusion. I would like publicly to congratulate Ambassador Jo Adamson, who has led the team in the United Nations and done a wonderful job.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
T6. Last year, Conservatives on Essex county council passed a motion calling for the EU budget to be cut, a reduction in our contributions to the EU and for EU red tape to be slashed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the good people of Essex should back Essex Conservatives on 2 May—the only party to stand up to Europe?
Mr Speaker
With reference to the responsibilities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
Mr Hague
I absolutely agree, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful for the robust support of Conservatives on Essex county council on aspects of foreign policy. I am sure that they do a good job outside of foreign policy, too. Their support for a reduction in the EU budget is very important. It is something that people across the country want to see, and the Prime Minister has achieved the first ever reduction in the multiannual financial framework—a major diplomatic achievement for this country.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Human rights organisations were alarmed when sanctions against Burma were lifted. Could the Foreign Secretary use this as a lever to ensure that the United Nations can establish its human rights office in Burma, and to ensure that Burma releases all political prisoners, including Aung Naing?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
It is worth pointing out to the hon. Lady that, yes, we agree with what she says, but human rights will be at the heart of the lifting of sanctions in Burma. We did it with the advice of Aung San Suu Kyi, because we believe that engagement with the Burmese Government is the way forward. We are deeply concerned about human rights and we remain deeply concerned about ethnic conflict, but we believe that now is the appropriate time to lift sanctions.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
T7. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the tragic bombing in Boston is a sad reminder of the ongoing threat of global terrorism, and stresses the importance of the United Kingdom having very close links with the intelligence services of our allies, particularly the United States?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely. The tragic events in Boston are a reminder of that, as is this morning’s news about the operation in Canada to prevent a terrorist attack. We must always be vigilant about these matters and work closely with other countries. I explained, in my speech to the Royal United Services Institute in February, how we are extending our co-operation on counter-terrorism with many more countries in the world, given the more diffuse nature of the terrorist threat.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T9. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about Syria at the start of Topical Questions. Will he update us on what representations he has made with the international community to put pressure on Russia in relation to Syria?
Mr Hague
Putting pressure on Russia is a constant effort. We discussed it at the G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting, and I discussed it with Sergei Lavrov when he was in London last month. The Prime Minister speaks regularly, and will shortly speak further, with President Putin. Our diplomatic efforts with Russia are continual, but we have to say clearly that those efforts have not been successful so far and that therefore it is necessary to give greater support, in various ways, to the Syrian National Coalition on the ground in Syria in order to try and save lives and increase the incentive for the Assad regime to come to a political settlement.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
T8. My hon. Friend will be aware that this year marks the 25th anniversary of Saddam’s mustard gas attack on Halabja. Will he support the principle of a UN inquiry into those many hundreds of western companies that supplied the chemical weapons that enabled Saddam to carry out his attacks?
Alistair Burt
I am aware that my hon. Friend was in Iraq recently for the commemoration on the 25th anniversary of this dreadful massacre, and he also spoke with great passion in a recent debate in the House. Following the incident, there were extensive UN and UK investigations into the use of chemical weapons and any involvement of UK companies. Those inquiries were fairly comprehensive and did not illustrate any UK involvement. From a UK point of view, I am not sure that any further inquiries are necessary.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Recently, the Prime Minister made the very eccentric contention that North Korean missiles could reach the shores of the UK, apparently in an attempt to bolster support for Trident’s renewal. Is it not time to scrap the Trident renewal, save £100 billion, spend it on public services and avoid hitting the vulnerable in society?
Mr Hague
To be clear, the Prime Minister said that North Korea claimed that it had missiles that could hit the whole of the United States, and if that was the case, of course, it could also hit the UK. I mentioned earlier that it has paraded, but not yet tested, a 12,000 km-range missile. Looking decades ahead, as we do with these decisions, we have to be aware of the great variety of potential threats to the UK. It is vital, therefore, that we retain the ultimate deterrent in this country, the total cost of which is about 1.5% of the total welfare budget.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I hope my right hon. Friend will excuse me if I return to the question of Syria and the possible supply of arms to the opposition. Does he understand that it appears to many of us that the language being used by the Government is equivocal and delphic? In these circumstances, can we have an assurance that any material change in policy will be subject to the express endorsement of the House?
Mr Hague
My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I come regularly to the House with updates on Syria—I think I have given seven or eight oral statements—and that on any major decision the House can express its view. I am sure that the business managers would want to facilitate that—let me put it that way. The next few weeks will be crucial, because we need to decide, with our European Union partners and the United States, the next steps that we can realistically take, and should take, in order to do what I was just talking about—to strengthen the opposition on the ground and increase the incentives for a political settlement in Syria. We have taken no decision about that, but if we do so, I will come to the House and describe that decision.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to set out the UK’s opposition to boycotts, disinvestment campaigns and other attempts to de-legitimise the state of Israel, because the only way we will see peace in the middle east, with a secure Israel living peacefully alongside a viable Palestinian state, is by initiatives that bring people on both sides who believe in peace to work together, not by boycotts and all the rest of it, which just drive people further apart?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman puts it very well, and I know he cares passionately about this subject. The United Kingdom has always opposed boycotts and disinvestment. We believe absolutely that the future for peace in the middle east will come through negotiations between the two different sides. President Obama’s recent speech, in which he spoke about the urgency and possibility of peace, but also about the need for justice, provides a good base for both sides to proceed. We believe and hope that those opportunities should be taken as quickly as possible.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Sanctions against Zimbabwe were recently eased and the UK gave £90 million in aid last year, but many British pensioners are being robbed of their pensions, following Mugabe’s decision in 2002 to stop paying pensions to British citizens. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the case of my constituent Mr Scott, who worked for the Zimbabwean police for over 20 years and is being denied his pension, to end this injustice?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important issue on behalf of his constituent, but he will also be aware that many others have been affected by the withdrawal of pension payments. Hopefully his concerns will be assuaged by the fact that I have met representatives of civil servants who used to work in Zimbabwe who are not getting their pensions. I have also discussed the issue with the Zimbabwean Finance Minister, as part of the challenge to try to find a satisfactory resolution, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent to discuss the matter further.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Did the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister have any discussions with the Prime Minister of Israel on his recent visit to London, or can he say when he last discussed the middle east peace process with the Prime Minister of Israel?
Mr Hague
Yes, I had discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu in the margins of Baroness Thatcher’s funeral and the Prime Minister had a formal bilateral meeting with him that evening. As always, we are in close contact with the Israeli Prime Minister and, as always, we have urged him to make a success of the opportunity now to take forward the middle east peace process and find a lasting and just peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but I have a sense that even if we doubled the time allocation for Foreign Office questions—of which there is no immediate prospect—demand would probably still exceed supply.
Points of Order
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, Mr Nick Bitel was confirmed as the new chair of Sport England, but Mr Bitel was not the original recommendation for the position. He is an excellent appointment and we wish him well in his post, but it has emerged that the recommendation of Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson for the position was overturned following the intervention of No. 10. It would appear that she has been discriminated against because she had the courage to stand out against the Government’s hated welfare reforms. We need a statement on this shambolic and shabby affair. Did the Sports Minister recommend Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson for the position; what was the role of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in changing that recommendation; and did the intervention of No. 10 result in her not being appointed to this position?
Mr Speaker
I must say to the hon. Gentleman that, important issue though he raises, it is not one for the Chair. His attempted point of order will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and, knowing his terrier-like qualities as I do, I feel sure that this is a subject to which he will return.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been reports that plugs will be installed in the Chamber to help with charging pocket computers and iPads. Could you use your good offices to try to improve the wi-fi in the Chamber, which barely works on most occasions, before we spend a lot of taxpayers’ money putting plugs in the Chamber?
Mr Speaker
Well, I know that the Clerk feels that wi-fi in the Chamber works extremely well, and he advises me that he has been using it this day. More widely, I think the safest thing I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that these matters are being looked into and I feel sure that he will wish to participate in any investigation or examination that takes place.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In fact, I wish to make the same point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made a few moments ago. There is a great deal of concern about the lack of transparency on that issue, and we look forward to finding a way of getting to the bottom of what happened.
Mr Speaker
I note the attempted point of order from the hon. Gentleman, who is a former Minister for Sport. I can only reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), which is that I am sure that Members will take such opportunities as the Order Paper provides to raise these concerns, which will have been heard by, among others, the Government Chief Whip.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Amendment)
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to require the Secretary of State to review levels of asylum support annually; to require him to lay before Parliament a draft up-rating order to increase levels of asylum support in line with changes made to mainstream benefits in years when the general level of prices has increased during the previous 12 month period; to replace support provided by the voucher system under subsections (10) and (11) of section 4 of the Act with a single, cash-based support system; and for connected purposes.
As a country, we have a long and proud history of providing support and sanctuary to those who arrive on our shores fleeing persecution and war. I believe, however, that we are now in danger of falling short of the standards that our reputation leads people to expect. Last year, I chaired a cross-party inquiry into the experiences of children and young people in the asylum system. The panel received evidence in writing and in person from about 200 individuals and organisations: from local authorities, from academics, from those working on the front line with asylum seekers, and from the young people and their families themselves. What we heard about the hardship that they endure really shocked the panel.
There is a popular myth that asylum seekers enjoy undeserved riches, gaining access to high-class housing and easy finance that their indigenous neighbours could only dream about. It is just that, however: a myth. In fact, families told us stories of unimaginable difficulty, loneliness and poverty, of going without meals to pay for their children’s clothes, of poor housing and of victimisation. Contrary to the popular cliché, benefits for those in the asylum system have caused people to fall way below the poverty line in recent years, with some surviving on as little as £5 a day.
The problem with the current system is that decisions about whether to uprate the levels of benefit known as section 95 and section 4 support are effectively a matter for the Home Secretary alone. Representations from other Government Departments about the impact on children’s welfare can be, and often are, ignored. There is no requirement for the Home Secretary to come to the House regularly to report on or explain her decisions. As a consequence, no decision was made in the last financial year on whether to uprate section 4 and section 95 levels, leaving them effectively frozen since April 2011. The House rightly expects to have a say on setting the support levels for mainstream benefits, and the same should apply in these cases.
This is a problem not just for the present Government. Successive Governments have let the levels drift, fearful of headlines relating to what is actually a tiny number of people and, in the context of budgetary pressures, a tiny amount of money. Levels for section 95 support were originally pegged by the Labour Government at 90% of income support levels, before being reduced to 70% after deductions for utility bills paid for in provided accommodation.
Some, but not all, benefits for children continue to be pegged at a favourable level in relation to income support levels. Levels for 16 and 17-year-olds, for example, are arbitrarily reduced. No account is taken of the disability of any children who might arrive with complex needs. In any case, the downward drift in the value of adult benefits means that families as a whole are often trying to manage on benefit levels of as little as 60% or 65% of income support levels, in spite of all the data showing that 70% is the bare minimum to avoid absolute poverty, and in spite of the fact that many families arrive on our shores with little more than the clothes on their backs.
If life is tough on section 95 support, life on section 4 support entails devastating hardship. Section 4 support is provided to those whose asylum claims do not meet the strict requirements for refugee status but who might not be able to go home, when the Government recognise that that is the case. The levels are significantly lower than the section 95 levels. This is well illustrated by the way in which we support families who have a new baby. Someone on income support would be eligible for a £500 maternity grant. Someone on section 95 support would be eligible to receive £300, but someone on section 4 support would receive just £250. Everyone knows, however, that the costs of having a baby are the same, regardless of which level of asylum support someone is eligible for.
Furthermore, section 4 support is paid not in cash but on a card, and it is that card that causes much of the hardship. The rules on where the card can be used are highly restrictive, meaning families may have to travel some distance to be able to shop. It cannot be spent on public transport, which exacerbates the difficulties, particularly for those who need appointments with doctors or solicitors. Our inquiry heard of one case where a woman whose maternity grant, which I mentioned a minute ago, did not arrive. Without any money to travel, she was forced to leave hospital and walk home in the snow with her newborn baby in her arms. I think everyone here would accept that that is simply an unacceptable state of affairs.
Furthermore, very little money can be transferred on this card from one week to the next, so families told us they were unable to save for larger items such as winter coats for their children, while the regular moves entailed for many families seeking asylum exacerbate the difficulty of having to pay for uniforms—a larger-priced item for which families need to save up from one week to the next. The families say, too, that this card is downright unreliable. It is often turned down at checkouts and, most painfully of all, the card immediately identifies the holder of it as an asylum seeker, frequently resulting in abuse and stigmatisation. During our inquiry, we heard about some very upsetting examples of that.
This is patently not a system designed for children’s welfare, yet we met families whose children had spent two or three years on this system of support—a large proportion of their lives, then, spent in crippling levels of poverty. It seems baffling to me that such a large and inefficient bureaucracy could possibly be value for money for the 800 or so families for whom the card is currently being used. It would surely be more cost-effective to abolish it and provide one single cash-based system of support.
This Bill is not about treating asylum seekers better than everybody else. It is about applying the same standards of decency to those whose lives have already involved unimaginable hardship. It does not entail spending lots more money; it does, however, entail spending money more wisely. It is not about special rules for one group of people. It is about making Ministers accountable to this House—as, frankly, they would expect to be in any other similar situation. Decency, common sense, accountability, and above all, humanity: that is what the Bill is about, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sarah Teather, Dr Julian Huppert, Nic Dakin, Alex Cunningham, Mr Virendra Sharma, Neil Carmichael, Mr David Ward, Caroline Lucas, Paul Blomfield and Mark Durkan present the Bill.
Sarah Teather accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May, and to be printed (Bill 161).
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
13:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister, I have to tell the House that the original message from the Lords was defective, so Commons Bill paper 162 did not include the amendments in lieu proposed by the Lords. This has now been rectified and a revised Bill paper 162 is in the Vote Office. The first motion therefore relates to the Lords amendments in lieu 7B and 7C, as on the revised Bill paper.
After Clause 4
Development orders: development within the curtilage of a dwelling house
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 7B and 7C in lieu of Lords amendment 7, to which this House has disagreed.
Mr Speaker
With this we will consider the motion that this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 25 but proposes amendments (a) to (e) to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement.
Michael Fallon
I thank their noble Lordships and Members of the House of Commons for their thorough and thoughtful consideration of the Bill. There are two main issues before us.
Let me begin by introducing the revised approach to the Government’s proposed relaxation of permitted development rights for home owners. During our consideration of Lords amendments in this House last week, the Secretary of State gave a commitment to reflect on the representations made and to adopt a revised approach. We have reflected carefully on the points raised by Members here and by noble Lords in the other place in their detailed deliberations on the issue, and in particular on the concern that adjoining neighbours would not have an opportunity to make representations on such developments.
In expanding the permitted development rights for domestic extension, the Government propose to adjust the balance between home owners and local authorities, to make it easier and cheaper for families to make room for growing teenagers, or indeed for elderly parents who wish to come and live with them. Those changes reflect the Secretary of State’s recognition that a requirement to make a planning application is out of proportion to the wider impact of development. That is an important principle.
However, we have always said that it is important to balance the benefits against the potential impact that extensions can have on neighbours. Having listened to the concerns expressed, we tabled an amendment which was agreed by their Lordships yesterday without a Division, to ensure that adjoining neighbours will be consulted when the new rights are exercised. We drew inspiration for the amendment from the 2007 “Quality of Life” report by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith).
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will he confirm that the neighbours who will be consulted will be all those who share a boundary with an affected property, and not just those who, for instance, share a party wall?
Michael Fallon
Yes, I can confirm that.
What we are proposing is a light-touch neighbour consultation scheme. It will work like this. A home owner wishing to build an extension will write to the local planning authority providing plans and a written description of the proposal. The local authority will then notify the adjoining neighbours—for example, the owners or occupiers of properties that share a boundary, including those at the rear. Those neighbours will have 21 days in which to make an objection, the same period as under existing planning rules. If no neighbours object, the home owner will be able to proceed. If any neighbour raises an objection, the local authority will then consider whether the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of neighbours is acceptable.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has been saying. Can he clarify the impact of the curtilage rule? Many terraced houses in London have a 10-metre rear garden and a 3-metre front garden, amounting to a 13-metre curtilage. A 50% extension at the rear would be a 65% extension in relation to the rear garden. Would that be reasonable grounds for objection by a neighbour?
Michael Fallon
That might well turn out to be a reason for one of the adjoining neighbours not to be happy with the proposal and to object to it.
If a neighbour raises an objection, the local authority will consider the impact. It will then be up to individual councils to decide how to handle the procedure, and to determine whether decisions should be delegated to officers or made by the planning committee.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
This is an improvement on the previous position, but who will pay for it all? Will there be a planning fee? Will the local authority be expected to pick up the cost of the consultation in the event of an objection, along with the cost of advertising it to local residents?
Michael Fallon
No planning fee will be levied on the home owner making the notification. If the extension proceeds with no objections, the local authority will benefit from a considerable saving, because it would otherwise have had to bear the costs of a full planning application. However, we shall be happy to discuss with local authorities, in the normal way, whether in the fullness of time the scheme is likely to impose any additional cost on them.
Mr Ward
Normally people object to an extension that is beyond the current permitted level. The position is likely to become more contentious, and there is likely to be a large increase in the number of neighbours who complain. Who will fund the local authority’s inspections and the resulting consultation?
Michael Fallon
The local authorities would have to do that if a planning application were made in the normal way. Under the new relaxed procedure, the costs will be lower. As I have said, however, if it seems likely that there will be a significantly greater burden on local authorities, we will discuss that with them to ensure that it does not happen.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I am pleased that the Government have taken account of Back Benchers’ concern about neighbour notification. Does my right hon. Friend know how many authorities currently believe, or know, that they are operating with a deficit in terms of planning fees? My local authority believes that it subsidises planning, and that the fees recovered do not cover the planning service that is currently provided.
Michael Fallon
The object of the scheme is that we end up with fewer, not more, planning applications, and that should save local authorities some expense.
Michael Fallon
I think that I must make some more progress first.
If approval is not given, the home owner will be able to appeal against a refusal, or may wish to submit a full planning application. As with normal planning consents, neighbours will not be able to appeal against a grant of permission. The approval process will be straightforward, and—I think that this is the answer to my hon. Friend’s question—we do not expect it to impose significant costs on local authorities. It will ensure that uncontroversial improvements are dealt with quickly, it will protect neighbours’ amenity, with the council as an independent arbiter, and it will ultimately make it cheaper for people to extend their homes and will devolve more power to local residents.
John McDonnell
I apologise for being slightly late. I was chairing another meeting.
One of the issues that have been raised continually with me is that of developments that overlook neighbours and, for instance, the positioning of windows. What information will be available to neighbours about that?
Michael Fallon
The applicant will have to send a letter to the local authority notifying it of the proposal and enclosing plans, which will of course have to receive building control consent. There will be a full notification, but it will not go through the normal planning regime process.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I welcome the change in the present position. The Minister mentioned loss of amenity. Would building materials constitute that? Would, for example, the construction of a breeze-block building represent a loss of amenity?
Michael Fallon
If it affected the amenity of the neighbour, that might well be an issue. It is hard for me to speculate on exactly what kind of amenity would be affected by a breeze block, but if a neighbour felt that it was having an effect, that neighbour would be able to object.
We have listened to the concerns that have been expressed, and have responded directly to them. I hope that I have explained to the House how our amendment addresses, in particular, the concern about the impact of our proposals on neighbours.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that places such as conservation areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty will be exempt from this, and that the usual article 4 route will still be available where there are particular concerns—about flooding or run-off, for instance?
Michael Fallon
Yes, I can confirm that this does not apply to conservation areas, and that the ability of a local authority to use an article 4 direction is not impaired by the changes we are making.
I hope the House will now allow me to turn to the employee shareholder clause.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Will the Minister give way?
Annette Brooke
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have some remaining concerns about situations in which objections are not made, perhaps because of loyalty to neighbours or because of absent landlords. That could result in a building being erected that has long-lasting implications on future householders in an area. Will the Minister address that point in discussions with the Local Government Association?
Michael Fallon
I am very happy to ensure that my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government will discuss that with the LGA, if that will be helpful.
Let me now turn to—
Mr Redwood
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and he need not look so heavy-hearted, as I am going to say that I greatly welcome the changes, and that many Members on the Government Benches feel the Government have listened and come up with a sensible proposal. Will he just confirm that existing permitted development rights are not in any way affected by this new procedure, and that they are still there in perpetuity for people to use without any hassle?
Michael Fallon
Yes, I can confirm that, and I can also assure my right hon. Friend that I was not heavy-hearted; I was simply keen to move on to the employee shareholder clause, and I was wondering how long I was going to be occupied in explaining how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had fulfilled his commitment last week to listen to the concerns expressed in this House and to come forward with what I suggest is a very reasonable compromise.
Let me now, finally, turn to the employee shareholder clause. It establishes a new employment status between employee and worker. The Government have always been clear that this measure is entirely voluntary, and that it is open to both individuals and companies to use it if they choose to do so. I emphasised that again in our debate a week ago. In response to concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) and peers in the other place, last week I reassured both Houses about the wholly voluntary nature of this new status. I made a commitment that no one can be forced to apply for, or to accept, an employee shareholder job. I announced that the Government had revised and clarified the position for those claiming jobseeker’s allowance. The position now is that jobseekers cannot be compelled to apply for or accept an employee shareholder job if they do not consider it right for them.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Minister has 977 people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in his constituency, and long-term unemployment is up by 10%. Can he confirm that employers in his constituency will be able to make job offers conditional on JSA recipients accepting employee shareholder status, thus giving up most of their fundamental employment rights at the same time? That is the point of departure for many people with the Minister on the issue of whether or not this is voluntary.
Michael Fallon
It is not only voluntary, but I made it clear to the House last week that jobseekers cannot be mandated to accept a job in those particular circumstances, and I cannot make it clearer than that.
In addition, I want to reassure the House that we will not allow individuals to use this employment status for tax avoidance. The Finance Bill includes several measures, such as excluding those who already own 25% of a company and connected persons from benefiting from the capital gains tax exemption.
The will of the elected House has now been expressed twice. However, the other place has again rejected this measure. After considering the concerns expressed by noble Lords, we have laid further amendments to ensure that individuals entering into this employment status fully understand the opportunities and risks involved. I will now set them out.
First, the company must give the individual a written statement of particulars, setting out the employment rights that are not associated with this status and detailing the rights attached to the shares. That will include whether the shares being provided as part of the employee shareholder status have any voting or dividend rights, whether there are rights to have the shares bought back or redeemed, and whether an individual may freely sell the shares to anyone, or if there are restrictions. This written statement is separate from that already required under the Employment Rights Act 1996, which sets out the terms and conditions of the job, and which the employee is entitled to receive within two months of starting work with the employer.
This employee shareholder statement of particulars must be provided in writing before the potential employee shareholder starts the job. It means that an individual can only become an employee shareholder if that has taken place and if the other criteria in the clause are met. The clause ensures that potential employee shareholders understand precisely what the new employment status involves.
Mr Umunna
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but I respectfully completely disagree with him. What guarantee is there that the prospective employee shareholders will even understand that statement? It will be explaining dividends, pre-emption rights and other technical and complex matters. What guarantee is there that they will understand the information in the statement, or know whether to seek further legal advice and have a proper discussion about these matters?
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I will come on to the issue of the advice that may be available to the employee in those circumstances.
Michael Fallon
I do not think we would know in those circumstances whether that was the exact reason why somebody had not been offered the position, but what I did last week—and I hope my hon. Friend accepted this—was make it absolutely clear that nobody who had jobseeker status could be mandated to have to accept a job.
Our second amendment prevents an employee shareholder contract from taking legal effect until seven days have elapsed from when the offer is made to the individual. The amendment affords an individual a period to consider the risks and rewards of the contract. That removes any question that individuals might be pressurised into accepting a contract.
These amendments mean that an individual who has chosen to apply for, and has been offered, an employee shareholder job has both the information and the time they need to consider whether the job is right for them. Noble Lords, including my noble Friends Lord King and Lord Forsyth, also expressed a concern about the employee shareholder receiving independent advice. I want to reassure them and all noble Lords that the Government are taking that concern seriously and are reflecting on the remarks made in the other place yesterday evening.
This new status gives in particular young and new companies a fresh option that they may use to attract high-calibre employees who can share in the growth potential of the company, and I urge the House to support these amendments.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I shall start with the issues that the Minister raised on permitted development. We welcome the Government’s change of heart. This is a victory not just for Opposition Members but for Members who are sitting behind the Secretary of State who have helped us to protect the gardens of England from inappropriate developments. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs, but he was dragged kicking and screaming to table the amendments.
I still find it puzzling that the honeyed words from the Secretary of State last week were so mysterious and vague when the new arrangements unveiled look very much like the planning permission system. First, the house owner will have to provide plans and details to the planning department, including details of the materials to be used, just as happens now. Secondly, the planning department will have to notify neighbours, just as happens now. If there are objections, the planning authority will take the decision whether to grant planning permission, just as happens now. The only change is that in the absence of objections from the directly adjoining properties, the development will automatically go ahead, notwithstanding any objections from other affected neighbours, or from the council, or from the wider community—and, of course, the absence of the £172 planning fee.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer if he has time to sum up, on how neighbours might be affected by the proposals. First, by limiting the possibility of objecting to an extension to those who share the immediate boundary with the property in question, the Government are taking rights away from other neighbours whose amenity or light may be affected. Remember that we are talking about extensions 26 feet long and 13 feet high, Mr Speaker—about the size of the Speaker’s Chair. Why are the Government not even giving those affected in that way the right to express a view that may be considered material by the planning committee? Secondly, what about neighbours who are away when an application is put in, and who come back 21 days later to discover that work has already started on a structure that will seriously affect their amenity and enjoyment of their back garden? Does the Minister not think that unfair?
The Minister decided to talk for some 15 minutes on permitted developments, on which the Opposition will not be objecting this afternoon, and very little time on shares for rights. I wonder why. Let me tell the House why I think he did so, because it is clear that the Government are in a total shambles with their ill-thought-out shares for rights proposals.
Let us remember the origins of the proposal, dreamt up by the Chancellor at Conservative party conference because he had absolutely nothing to say about the economy, growth or unemployment. He proclaimed, let us remember:
“Workers of the world unite.”
The Chancellor got his wish. The workers of the world did unite, along with businesses and organisations, to tell the Chancellor that his proposals were wrong. And it is not just the workers that have united, but his own Back Benchers and, of course, the noble Lords in the other place. The narrow 27 majority for the proposals last week in this place highlighted the extent of the discontent with the proposals in this House.
The Minister’s concessions on jobseeker’s allowance claimants not being forced to take up the shares for rights proposals were welcome, but if the proposals were truly voluntary in the first instance, it cannot be seen as a concession at all. The question that the Minister just avoided, from my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary, is whether an employer can make agreement to such a deal a condition of anyone, let alone a jobseeker’s allowance claimant, taking up a job. He refused to answer that question; perhaps, in his summing-up, he may be able to take that on.
What did the concession manage to achieve in the other place last night? Let us see. An increase in the majority against the proposals in the other place last night from 54 to 69—a triumph for the Minister, and it emphasised that Lord Forsyth was correct when he said that the policy
“has all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]
I disagree with Lord Forsyth on that. I think it was thought up by someone in the bar, and not at the start of the evening but close to closing time. In fact, if we analyse the figures from last night, we see that Cross Benchers voted 59 to 1 against the proposals, as well as the former Liberal Democrat leaders Ashdown and Steel—and this current Lib Dem leader wants them and so does the Business Secretary. Will the public not ask why?
Yesterday, the Lords sent a powerful message to this House that the Government are wrong on shares for rights. Their message, for the second time, is loud and clear: “Dump this awful policy now.” Or will the Treasury not allow the Minister to dump the policy? The results of the vote give the Minister the out he was looking for. We know that the BIS Department is not keen on the proposals, we know that the Minister is not an enthusiastic supporter and we certainly know that the businesses of this country do not want it, following a consultation exercise.
Let us examine what some of the noble Lords said in the other place yesterday. Lord King said,
“I am not the only Member”
of this House
“who feels some embarrassment at finding ourselves in this situation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1267.]
Baroness Wheatcroft shared Lord King’s embarrassment when she said:
“My Lords, my noble friend Lord King mentioned a degree of embarrassment at finding himself in this situation, which I certainly share.”
She went on to say that the Financial Times,
“that great bastion of employee rights, ran a leader the day after the last debate in this House in which it said that this legislation contained,
‘little to like and a lot to fear’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1269.]
That was not all in the other place last night. Lord Deben, on shares for rights, said:
“Frankly, it does not matter much what we decide on this because I do not think anyone is going to take it up and I do not think it is going to happen.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1262.]
Mr Redwood
I am getting confused. The hon. Gentleman first says that the proposal is so awful that no one will implement it, and then that its effect will be £1 billion of lost tax. It cannot be both. Which one does he really think?
Ian Murray
I am delighted to receive the intervention, because it is the Treasury that says that £1 billion will be lost and Lord Deben, a Member with whom the right hon. Gentleman probably shared time in government, who said that perhaps no one will take this up. So it is not we who are saying it but Conservative peers in the other place and the Treasury’s own assessment of what will be lost. Whether someone takes it up or not, the Treasury is saying that there will be £1 billion of lost taxation. Perhaps Ministers in this House might want to go and chat to some of their colleagues in the other place and decide what they are going to do with it.
Critically, there was a hint in the Lords that some kind of deal had been done between the Business Secretary, who incidentally has said nothing on these proposals, and the Treasury. Can the Minister tell the House what that deal is? The public deserve to know what deal has been done between the two senior Government Secretaries of State to push the proposals through. I will take an intervention from the Minister now if he wishes to tell the country what that deal is, but I suspect he will not take up that opportunity.
Let me highlight another comment from the other place last night. The shadow Minister, Lord Adonis, who took the report through the other place yesterday, said:
“Where does this report come from? We all know: it is on the rebound from the Beecroft proposal to do away with certain employment rights in respect of unfair dismissal and instead to substitute a single payment that would have resulted from it. The Business Secretary was not prepared to go along with that. Then, as we have heard from various parts of the House”—
including from the Government side of the House last night in the other place—
“some kind of deal was apparently done between the Chancellor and the Business Secretary to resurrect a version of the Beecroft proposal in return for shares.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1271.]
The House needs to know, before the legislation is passed, what that deal was.
Lord Forsyth emphasised it when he said:
“the Government seem determined just to railroad this through and not deal with the arguments.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1258.]
Those arguments are not diminished by the amendments that the Government tabled this morning—amendments that were only confirmed at 11.27 this morning. They are scurrying around, trying to find solutions, when the best solution is to consign the policy to the dustbin.
Under the scheme, which creates a third type of employment status, as the Minister mentioned, employers may award employees at least £2,000 in shares in exchange for the employee’s giving up a bundle of employment rights, including ordinary unfair dismissal, the right to a statutory redundancy payment, the right to request flexible working, and the right to training. The Government are determined to pursue the scheme, but the list of concessions that they have produced today, and which they hope will get it through the Lords, is completely inadequate and does not address the fundamental issues of the giving up of employee rights for a few worthless shares.
There were many interventions in the House last week. The Opposition wholeheartedly support employee ownership, but there does not have to be a link between employee ownership and giving up one’s employment rights. Many Government Back Benchers who are in their place this afternoon made the point about how wonderful employee ownership was, but the fundamental point is that employee ownership does not have to be increased by giving up fundamental rights at work.
Let me go through some of the concessions that have been presented to the House today. First, there is a provision that the employee cannot accept the offer within seven days of it being made. How that would work in practice is completely unclear. An employer remains free to refuse to offer the job to a prospective employee who does not want to take up employee shareholder status. That is a critical point about whether it is voluntary. With the employment market as depressed as it is, why would an employee want to turn this down? People are desperate to get back into work. That is why the proposal cannot be seen as voluntary. Why would an employer not just say that this has to be accepted or the job offer will be withdrawn? Perhaps the job will be offered to a number of candidates, and the candidate who accepts the shares for rights proposal will ultimately get it.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
May I challenge the hon. Gentleman to think about his premise? He said earlier that these are worthless shares. I do not think that any business or entrepreneur in the country who takes such a risk would believe that shares are worthless. That is the big difference on the Government Benches. Does he agree that the fact that the Opposition think the value of the shares is zero colours their judgment of how an employee who wants to take a risk and an opportunity would see great value in having a stake in a business?
Ian Murray
There is a misconception among Government Members that no Opposition Member has run their own business. Well, I have run several businesses before I came into the House. At the start, of course the value of shares was high, because we were investing in the businesses, but that is not always the case. Ultimately, when businesses shed staff or employees have to leave, shares will be worth less. That is a fundamental principle of business. When I come on to the concessions that the Government have put together, it will be seen that that is absolutely right.
Nick de Bois
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the end of a business. When one starts a business—as I am sure he has done, given what he just said—it is to achieve success and growth. That is when the shares offer their greatest opportunity. They will be offered for no cash in return for a stake and the potential of profit later, with a tax-free advantage. It really is a win-win.
Ian Murray
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, who undoubtedly has a lot of business experience, but he clearly has not read the legislation or understood what it is trying to achieve here. He is right that when the shares are being given out, they will have a high value. But at the very time that employees need to cash in those shares because, for example, they have given up the right to redundancy, their value will be lower than when they were first given, or they will be worthless. The residual value of the shares will be far lower when an employee is effectively being sacked than it was when the employee was being taken on. That is why some of the concessions have been made.
Let me come to the written statement that the Minister has suggested to set out the details of the shares being offered, including whether they are voting or non-voting shares, whether they carry a dividend, whether they carry a right to a share in a company’s assets if it is wound up, whether pre-emption rights are excluded, and details of drag-along and tag-along rights. Most employees will not understand the implications of this information, and there is nothing to prevent employers from issuing pages of gobbledygook about the shares that buries the information somewhere within.
I am struck by the provision about winding up, which is specifically mentioned in the concessions. Surely this is the crux of the matter. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering away, but if they wish to intervene, they may do so. How can it be right to give up the right to a redundancy payment at the same time as the shares may not be worth anything at winding up. The term “winding up” is used in the Government’s amendment to the proposals. Shareholders tend to get nothing in the winding up of any business after the creditors are taken into account. Why would any employee want to do this? We end up with a situation where, at a time when an employee would want to cash in the shares, the company is in real financial trouble and the shares are worth far less than the initial value or nothing at all.
Nick de Bois
The short answer is that if one takes shares, one takes a risk. The difference is that employees are not being asked to part with a cash investment up front.
Ian Murray
That might be the case, but one does not have to give up one’s fundamental worker’s rights to take the risk in shares in businesses. Many employees take shares in businesses, but they do not give up the rights to redundancy, to request flexible working, to training and to unfair dismissal and maternity rights. Last week, the hon. Gentleman made an impassioned speech about his running of businesses and the fact that his employees are always at the forefront of his mind. The vast majority of those in this country who start a business have employees at the forefront of their minds. But relationships do break down and businesses do run into trouble. I agree with him to a certain extent, but missing from the jigsaw is the fact that fundamental rights at work still have to be given up in order to take on those shares. He fails to recognise that that is part of the overall equation.
Let us examine the issue of tax avoidance that my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary mentioned in the House last week. The Treasury says—it is a Treasury document—that this will cost £1 billion, but the true cost may be more than that, as my hon. Friend said. As the Treasury’s December 2012 policy costing document says,
“It is hard to predict how quickly the increased scope for tax planning will be exploited.”
Let me examine this:
“increased scope for tax planning will be exploited.”
That sounds to me like tax avoidance and it was picked up by Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said:
“just as government ministers are falling over themselves to condemn such behaviour”—
tax avoidance—
“that same government is trumpeting a new tax policy that looks like it will foster a whole new avoidance industry.”
The Treasury document, by using the terminology
“increased scope for tax planning will be exploited”,
emphasises what Paul Johnson has said.
Mr Ward
Is not the value of shares very much up to those who control the shares? The value can be controlled by the majority shareholders, who often are directors of the company and can devalue a company at a moment’s notice by transferring assets out of the business into another company that they can set up.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. He voted with the Opposition last week, on which he should be commended. The other issue around the concept of dilution of shares is that when new investment comes into a business, shares can be diluted. There is no provision for employees who are shareholders to be informed of that. Assets can be transferred out of businesses and there is nothing to stop employers, when they wish to make large scale redundancies of employee owners in the business, diluting the shares before they do so.
Nick de Bois
The hon. Gentleman will remember that, under his Government, the Companies Act 2006 had some clear safeguards for minority shareholders, which specifically protect their interests and allow resort to court if minority shareholdings are unfairly diluted.
Ian Murray
We are back to the same point from the hon. Gentleman. He still refuses to recognise the equation here. That may all be correct, but at the same time fundamental rights still have to be given up. Indeed, those safeguards in the 2006 Act have been wrapped around by many companies in terms of the dilution of share ownership.
Mr Redwood
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s attack on the idea of some tax privilege in the scheme. I imagine that he is a member of the House of Commons pension scheme, and there is tax relief on all contributions that he makes into the scheme, and full tax relief on gains and income in the fund. That seems perfectly reasonable. How does that differ from the tax advantages of this scheme?
Ian Murray
Being a member of the House of Commons pension scheme does not mean that I give up my rights at work. The equation is not there. I am not even sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has spoken in favour of these proposals. Does he support them? I am not sure that he does.
Mr Redwood
I am asking about tax avoidance. The hon. Gentleman has just condemned the scheme as tax avoidance. I am asking whether he is against all tax avoidance, or does he practise it as well?
Ian Murray
It is a little disingenuous to ask a Member of the House who is at the Dispatch Box whether he practises tax avoidance. That is stretching it a bit far. I am merely quoting from the Treasury’s 2012 policy document, which says that:
“It is hard to predict how quickly the increased scope for tax planning will be exploited”.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that there will be a whole new avoidance industry in terms of the capital gains tax on these shares, and in terms of PAYE and national insurance. If Government Members do not believe me, they can listen to what Lord Forsyth—as a Scottish Member of Parliament, I never thought that I would agree so much with him—said last night in the other place:
“I remain concerned as to whether the estimate made that this could result in more than £1 billion disappearing in tax-avoidance schemes is correct. It is not clear to me whether the Treasury has found ways of ring-fencing this scheme, which provides for up to £50,000 of capital gains tax to be relieved, and whether this could not be used as a great tax-avoidance scheme.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1257.]
Mrs Main
I wish to speak to amendment 7B. I am delighted that the concerns about neighbour notification and the involvement of local people in decision making have been listened to. That was crucial for many Members of this House. However, I would still like to tease out answers on some of my concerns about amendment 7B.
St Albans, according to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s own figures, handles twice the number of planning applications as a normal planning authority. We are surrounded by green belt, thankfully, but are under direct pressure from many developments, including domestic developments. The fees collected do not cover the planning applications already being made, so we run a subsidy to the planning operations of St Albans district council.
I suggest that the fees for applications are quite modest. They form a very small part of a whole development. For example, they do not include architect fees, which can be substantial, or any of the other land searches that might be needed, for instance when tree protection orders are in place on a site. I do not believe that the fees are what deter people from making applications for a housing development, perhaps for a growing family. What I am concerned about is that we will now have what I call “planning-lite.”
The original amendment in the Lords, which was defeated there, suggested not involving planning officers, neighbour notification or any other work for the council whatsoever. The new amendment, which I welcome as an improvement on the old one, would bring the planning system into the permitted development rights decision-making process and, as a result, mean direct costs for many councils, particularly those, such as mine, that have a significant number of planning applications. I cannot see the savings. I would love to see some sort of spreadsheet showing how that cannot be a burden on the council, as it means taking those applications, because they are above the original permitted development rights figures, out of the current planning system, in which a fee is paid for examination and registration for neighbour notifications and perhaps even a site visit, and moving them so that the officer still does the same work but does not get any of the fee. I urge the Minister to monitor that situation, because in a heavily utilised planning department, such as the one in St Albans, I believe that this will have a negative impact on the council.
I am also concerned that we are effectively introducing a third planning system and that there might be pressure on neighbours not to object or to trigger the process. I can envisage developers going around and reassuring neighbours that a development will not be a problem, and the neighbours might feel reassured, but is money to be put into enforcement if the neighbours, when they see the edifice going up, are unhappy because what was described to them is not what is being delivered on their doorstep?
Those are details, but having served as chair of a planning committee and, like other Members, having a postbag filled with planning issues, I know that they are important details to reassure not only hon. Members in the House, but those of us who will face neighbours who say that they were not really aware what they could object to and that a developer had assured them that they had the permitted development rights. We will not be party to those conversations.
Andrew Bingham
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome this change. Does she share my concern that neighbours will need to be able not only to look at the plans, but to read and understand them?
Mrs Main
I do share that concern. Obviously, the detail is still very light. For example, will the plans be available on websites? Since councillors do not seem to be involved in the system, someone could potentially go around and advise someone who is not as savvy as hon. Members are on the implications of a structure for them in order to form an objection. There is a very active civic society in St Albans that takes a keen interest in planning. I am disappointed that no one other than an immediate neighbour can form an objection. The people who run the Watercress Wildlife Association in St Albans, for example, take a keen interest in the water run-off from further uphill. Will we have a domino effect of several applications on large permitted development rights that eventually start creating soggy gardens further downhill?
I know that that is all detail and that this is a short debate, and I do not wish to tire the House, but my main concern, if we are to move to the new “planning-lite”, is that we seem to have given additional responsibilities to councils but no additional resources. I urge the Minister to listen to the words of councils, which already feel that they subsidise the planning system. We also do not know whether there will be non-determination periods. I have no idea whether the permitted development right period of determination would be similar. What council would prioritise a determination that has no fees associated with it over a determination that has a determination period and a fee associated with it? Will we have two categories of decision making? That all needs to be teased out, and I look forward to the Minister giving guidelines that ensure that councils are consistent in their approach to those decisions and that it is not simply a question of whether someone happens to have a vocal neighbour who is savvy enough to interpret plans and make objections in the interests of the whole community rather than just in self-interest.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Annette Brooke, I remind the House that this business can go no later than 1.49 pm, and that the Minister would like a few minutes at the end to sum up.
Annette Brooke
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I rise to speak very briefly to Lords amendments 7B and 7C. I acknowledge that we are in a better place than we were last week and thank the Secretary of State for his work on the issues. However, because so many questions remain, I certainly retain a preference for Lords amendment 7, which I think sets out a good solution.
I will quickly run through the objections to the proposals and the uncertainties. I would like to reinforce the point about finance for local authorities. If we are not careful, and if there is no extra money going to local planning authorities when they clearly have duties for which they are not receiving a fee, we might have a situation in which those people who cannot afford extensions end up subsidising those who can, which seems unfair. We are talking not only about planning applications, but enforcement, because there might well need to be enforcement, whether or not there have been objections, if a building does not match what was submitted in the first place.
I remain concerned that not all neighbours will object, possibly because they are absent at the time or because elderly and vulnerable people who depend on their neighbours for help will not feel able to object. It is essential that we build in a requirement for the local authority to at least conduct a desktop exercise to consider all the plans in their context.
I reinforce the points made against seeking objections from adjoining landowners only. In some circumstances it would be appropriate to go further afield. There will be knock-on effects for a row of terraced houses, possibly right along the row, and precedents will be set, even if the initial application was for just one end.
I plead with the Minister to look at the number of outstanding issues, so that we can truly get the best of both worlds by incentivising building while ensuring proper protection for neighbours.
Michael Fallon
I will first address some of the points that have been made on the change to permitted days. It has been suggested that 21 days might be too short, but that is exactly the same as the equivalent period under the planning regime.
My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) have suggested that neighbours further afield than those who adjoin might be denied the opportunity to object to something, but it is hard to understand why they would have stronger objections than those who live much closer. I therefore suggest that the focus of objection needs to be the impact on immediate neighbours.
Michael Fallon
I would hope that neighbours would talk to each other and discuss any proposed developments. They should not feel that they are not able to object. As I have said, it is hard to understand why those who live further away should have, or should be entitled to register, stronger objections than those who live next door to the property concerned.
My hon. Friend raised two other issues, the first of which was what would happen if the extension turned out to be larger than or different from the original proposal. Under the notification, the plans have to be deposited with and approved by the building control regime, which will exercise supervision in exactly the same way as it does for a normal planning application. It would also be able to require modifications to an extension that did not fit the original plans.
Secondly, my hon. Friend raised the issue of fees, which I addressed when I opened the debate. I repeat that if she turns out to be right about the actual cost to local authorities, we will, of course, discuss any concerns or new pressures on them with the Local Government Association in the normal way. Our position, however, is that there will be considerable savings as a result of a number of applications not going through the normal planning route.
Finally, on the employer shareholder clause, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was a little cavalier in some of his arguments. First, he suggested that my noble friend Lord Deben opposed the clause, but he voted for it in a Division last night, so the hon. Gentleman was not accurate about that. Secondly, he suggested that people would be forced to give up their employment rights for what he called “worthless shares”, but they cannot be forced to surrender their employment rights unless those shares are worth at least £2,000. If they turn out to be worth less than £2,000, the employee shareholder would, of course, be fully entitled to be considered to have the rights that he or she previously had.
Ian Murray
On the surrender of rights, the Minister just said that if the shares are worth less than £2,000 the employee would have all their normal rights. Surely that is not accurate. Will he correct the record?
Michael Fallon
I did not say that. I said that the value of the shares must be worth at least £2,000. It was the hon. Gentleman who used the word “worthless”. These shares cannot be worthless, or the employee shareholder will not be forced to give up the rights that he or she currently enjoys.
Mr Umunna
I want to return to my previous question about the provision of legal advice to people before they agree to accept employee shareholder status. The Minister said that the Government are reflecting on what advice can be given to such employees, but what is he actually going to do?
Michael Fallon
The hon. Gentleman has seen how we reflected on concerns about permitted developments, and concerns about legal advice were expressed extremely cogently last night. We have sought throughout the passage of the Bill to make absolutely sure—I stressed this as long ago as Second Reading—that nobody should be harassed or bullied into accepting this status. I have made it clear that guidance will be available and our amendments improve that by making sure that there will be a statement of written particulars. There will also be a cooling-off period of some seven days, and we are further considering how we might improve the advice available to those who are considering taking up this status.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am conscious that we have only a minute left, but the one issue that my hon. Friend has not yet addressed—I hope he will—is how we prevent discrimination by a would-be employer who favours people who are willing to do the shares deal over those who are not interested.
Michael Fallon
If my right hon. Friend is suggesting discrimination at the point when the shares are offered, the amendments that we have already made will protect the employee against that kind of harassment or discrimination. Legitimate concerns have been raised in both Houses that nobody should be forced to accept this status. The essence of the status is choice—the company can choose to offer it and the individual can choose whether or not to accept it, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 7B and 7C in lieu of Lords amendment 7, to which this House has disagreed.
Motion made, and Question put,
That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 25 but proposes amendments (a) to (e) to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement.—(Michael Fallon.)
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
A message has been received from the Lords relating to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. Under the orders of the House of 16 April and yesterday, any such message may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
We will debate two motions. The first relates to Lords amendments 35 and 36, and consequential amendments (a) to (c). The second relates to Lords amendment 37 and amendments (a) to (d) in lieu. The motions will be debated together and are available from the Vote Office, as is Bill 163.
At 12.44 today, the Government tabled a revised version of amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37. Despite the short notice, the Speaker has selected the amendment for debate. The revised version of the relevant paper is available in the Vote Office.
Lords message considered forthwith (Order, 22 April).
Clause 56
Commission for Equality and Human Rights
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 36, does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment 35 and proposes consequential amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this we will consider the motion that this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 37, but proposes amendments (a) to (d) in lieu.
Jo Swinson
I would like to put on the record my thanks for your flexibility, Mr Deputy Speaker, in accepting the late tweak to the amendment that had been tabled earlier this morning in relation to Lords amendment 37 on the issue of caste. I shall come to that issue in a second or two.
We are returning to the discussion on the equality provisions of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which were debated in the other place yesterday. We have paid regard to the strong views and concerns that were expressed in that debate, and have tabled motions to respond to them.
As I have made clear in the course of our debates, the Government want a strong and effective Equality and Human Rights Commission. As part of that and to focus the EHRC on its core functions, we proposed the repeal of its power under section 3 of the Equality Act 2006, which is known more commonly as the general duty. However, in light of the clear views expressed in the other place, the Government have reconsidered our position and will not insist on our disagreement to Lords amendment 35. That will allow the general duty to remain in the 2006 Act. Although it is accepted by all that the duty has a symbolic rather than a practical effect, it is clear that considerable importance is attached to this overarching statement.
We maintain that the commission’s monitoring and reporting should be carried out in respect of its core equality and human rights duties. The EHRC will continue to be required to monitor and report on changes in society, but, as has been agreed to in the Bill, that should relate to the areas that it is uniquely placed to influence and change: equality, diversity and human rights. For that reason, the motion is to disagree with Lords amendment 36. Instead, the EHRC will monitor its progress against the duties specified in sections 8 and 9 of the 2006 Act, and the form of that reporting will remain unchanged.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
My hon. Friend’s announcement is very welcome. She knows that our party has always argued that there should be a general overarching duty—[Laughter.] No, that is completely the case, but the matter had to be worked through within the coalition. Her announcement sends a strong signal that there is a principle and that practical implementation is available to the commission.
Jo Swinson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks with passion on equality issues and has done so for many decades. I know that he speaks from the heart on this matter. I also understand the strength of feeling on this issue that he and I have heard expressed by activists in our own party and from many other corners.
Ensuring that the EHRC reports on the aims set out in sections 8 and 9 of the 2006 Act means that it will be able to capture the situation more meaningfully over time by reporting every five years and monitoring its key equality and human rights duties.
Retaining the general duty in section 3 requires a consequential amendment to ensure that the word “groups” in the general duty is defined effectively. The amendment that we propose therefore reinserts the parts of section 10 of the 2006 Act that define the term “groups” for the purpose of the Act.
I turn now to Lords amendment 37, which relates to caste, and amendments (a) to (d) that the Government tabled today. In our previous debate on this matter, I made it clear that the Government recognise that caste prejudice occurs in the UK. Even if that happens at a low level, such prejudice is unacceptable and must not be tolerated. I also said that, although we remained unconvinced that there was sufficiently compelling evidence to require the introduction of legislation, the Government were not averse in principle to introducing legislation, should it become clear that that was the appropriate solution to the severity of the problem.
Strong views have been expressed in the other place on this matter. In the light of those views, we have reconsidered our position and agreed to introduce caste-related legislation. However, we need to ensure that any legislation that we introduce will have the desired effect. We therefore propose amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 37 that will impose a duty on the Government to exercise the power in the Equality Act 2010 that would make caste an aspect of race for the purposes of the Act. We think that that option, rather than the amendment proposed yesterday in the other place, is the best way forward.
As has been discussed in this House and in the other place, the issue of caste is very complex. Many people have voiced the opinion that our understanding of the relevant issues would benefit from some form of consultation to ensure that all the pertinent considerations are identified and, where possible, taken into account. Converting the order-making power in the 2010 Act into a duty will ensure that the Government legislate to incorporate caste protection into discrimination law. It will also give us an opportunity to undertake consideration, possibly through consultation, on whether any other factors, such as the need for specific caste-related exceptions, need to be introduced at the same time that caste is given legal protection. One example that has been raised is that we would not want monitoring forms to demand that people say which caste they are from, because we want to see such a characteristic gone from society and do not want to perpetuate it. Ensuring that there is proper guidance, and that we legislate sensitively, is therefore important. We will all welcome the opportunity of a little time to ensure that it is got right. That will help to ensure that the legislation is focused and robust and addresses all the relevant factors.
I turn to the slight tweak to the motion, which now includes a provision enabling review of the duty and the effect of the order once the Act, as I hope it will become, has been on the statute book for five years and periodically thereafter. That picks up on the concern expressed in recent debates that, because caste is inherently an undesirable concept that we want to fade away, we do not necessarily want to be stuck with references to it on the statute book, given that that will no longer be necessary once, as we all hope, the concept has disappeared from UK society. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said in a letter to me at the end of last week:
“Given that we are all united in our desire to see caste as an identifier in the UK erode over time, it would also be possible to put in place a timetable for statutory review to establish at what point the measure could be withdrawn if caste discrimination has become a thing of the past.”
That point was also picked up by Baroness Thornton in her closing remarks in last night’s debate. The new provision addresses those concerns by introducing a review and sunset clause.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am very pleased indeed that the Government now accept the importance of retaining the general duty. I must say that I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) argued that that had always been the position of his party, given that only the other day the Minister, who is also a member of his party, argued the exact opposite. None the less, we are prepared to welcome repenting sinners to the fold.
As the Minister is well aware, there was widespread concern in civil society and across Parliament at the prospect of repealing the general duty. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness Campbell on her championing of the retention of the duty both in the House of Lords and outside Parliament. I also pay tribute to the Minister for heeding the concerns that have been expressed.
The Minister has said in the past that section 3 of the 2006 Act is of symbolic importance. That is right, and symbolism is important, but perhaps even more importantly, it is a powerful statement of our values, aims, approach and ambitions for equality and human rights. I am pleased that that strong message and that underpinning of what equality and human rights mean to us will remain at the heart of our equalities legislation.
We are pleased by the Government’s acceptance of the vote in the House of Lords last night, and we will accept their insistence on disagreement to Lords amendment 36, on monitoring. However, I issue a word of caution to the Minister, which Baroness Campbell raised when the amendment was proposed. It is important that the Government take care to ensure that the EHRC does not simply monitor its own actions but that its role in holding up a mirror to the whole of society on progress on equality and human rights is properly cemented and protected. Ongoing monitoring and reporting enabling that is important, as is the EHRC having the resources necessary to do that properly.
We are pleased that the Government have now accepted the need for legal protection against discrimination on the grounds of caste. Everyone agrees that caste has absolutely no place in our society, and that if there is even one case of such discrimination, proper action must be taken and there must be proper access to redress. The Minister is well aware of the strength of feeling on the matter—she alluded to it in her remarks. I pay tribute to the common effort across Parliament among the parties and with Cross Benchers to reach this point. I especially want to place on record again our gratitude to the noble Lords Harries and Avebury and, of course, my noble Friend Baroness Thornton, who have done a tremendous amount to bring us to this point.
I understand the offence and hurt that the very notion of caste causes. As the Minister said, it is important that nothing we do in the House entrenches caste in our society. Rather, we must help to move forward in a direction that leads to its eradication. In recent weeks, the Opposition have been bringing people together to discuss the right way to do that in the context of what is, as the Minister said, a complex subject. I venture to suggest that we have already done more in three weeks than the Government have done in three years.
Simon Hughes
I would like to pick up where the hon. Lady finished and say that I share the view that this is a good day for equality. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for getting us to this point. I will not resile from what I said in my intervention, which is that I and my colleagues have always held such views. Indeed, our party worked with the Labour party when it was in government to put into legislation the general equality duty governing the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Anyone who is critical of that assertion clearly does not understand that in coalition Governments one party can hold a continuing obligation or view that is not necessarily persuasive to the Government as a whole. The two parties in the coalition clearly started from a different position, and it has taken until today and the clearly expressed view of the House of Lords for people to arrive at an understanding that it is better to retain the general equality duty. I am sure that is the right decision. It sends out the right signals and guides the commission in its work ahead.
Like others—certainly like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—I was at the Bar of the House of Lords yesterday evening listening to the debate on caste. There were views on both sides. The Government were arguing to retain their position and said that we should not add caste to the Equality Act 2010, and others argued against that. The Government were supported by people on both sides, but the view of the House of Lords was that we should add caste to the list of issues on the basis of which people could allege discrimination, but that we must recognise that there is a division in the communities affected as to what that measure will mean in practice and how it will be responded to.
There are clear community views. I was at a Vaisakhi event with colleagues from across the House last night, and views were expressed to me by members of the Sikh community that they did not want this change. I had just heard Lord Singh of Wimbledon arguing strongly that in Sikhism there is no such thing as caste, and I am persuaded to take his view as he is authoritative and well-regarded on that issue. However, I think that the Minister has now arrived at the right place, with the Government, and caste as a basis for discrimination will be added to the Equality Act. The problem might not be hugely prevalent, but there is enough evidence of it in certain places for it to be recognised. It is important—I am sure the Government take this view, and it was argued by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—to have a period between now, the passage of the Bill, and its implementation, to ensure that people understand the implications of the measure across communities.
In the Hindu community there is certainly a division of view and I think we are right to support those in the Dalit and other communities who say, “We should know. We are the victims.” Their voices have prevailed. It is also wise of the Government to hope that over five years this measure may become unnecessary, and there will later be the opportunity to review it.
The fact that a bicameral Parliament works is evidenced by where we are today, with two Chambers having debates and adding to the wisdom of one—I, of course, want the other one to be reformed and to become either wholly or partly elected, but that business has clearly been deferred. Until then, however, I am glad that the House of Lords has contributed so firmly to our debates, and I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for making it clear that the law will be changed. I look forward to working with many others across the House and the Government to ensure that communities understand the logic behind the change. At the end of the day, we must have a country in which people know that there is no discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality or caste, and that discrimination is unacceptable wherever it occurs. I think we have got there, and we should be celebrating that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am grateful that common sense has prevailed with regard to the EHCR. It demonstrates that debates in this place and elsewhere do work, and that we can convince one another of the rightness of a particular position.
On caste, may I make a number of statements so that I can be clear about what we are agreeing to? If any of these statements is wrong, will someone get up and tell me? That would be helpful. I am sorry to reach this level of simplicity in the House, but it has been a long few weeks. First, if we pass this legislation over the next couple of days, caste discrimination will be outlawed in this country. Is that correct?
Jo Swinson
I am happy to make that clear for the House, and I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on a similar point. The amendment changes the word “may” to “must” in the Equality Act 2010. At the moment, it states that the Secretary of State “may” make caste discrimination illegal, and that will be changed to say that they “must” lay regulations to make an order. That will require secondary legislation, which gives us time to consult and get that right. When the secondary legislation is passed, the measure will be on the statute book.
John McDonnell
Let me try this phrase: if we enact this legislation, the Government must outlaw caste discrimination in due course.
John McDonnell
That is point 1—stay with me on this. Point 2: in developing the detail of the legislation, we will ensure that we consult the wide range of communities that have an interest in this matter, and seek to mobilise them in eliminating caste discrimination—agreed?
John McDonnell
Thirdly, I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on the limited period of time in which that will be done. I have heard about months and also a full year—whatever view is realistic. I think it would be possible in a year not only to deliver clear definitions and guidance on implementation, but to mobilise the whole community around this issue and to convince people about the need for this provision.
Finally, this amendment contains a review period so that if we reach nirvana and the elimination of caste discrimination in this country, we can return to the issue and remove the measure from the legislation.
If all those statements are accurate and agreed across the House, I now understand the point we are at, so perhaps others will as well. I think it has been a significant victory for democratic debate in this Chamber and the wider community. Lots of organisations have been involved in this discussion. Not everybody is happy, but we have reached an understanding that there is a problem to be addressed. No matter how small people think it may be, this issue is significant for many of us and it is being addressed appropriately with some subtlety and understanding of people’s views, so that those are taken into account. I welcome the overall approach that has been agreed.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I, too, thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment and for the thoughtful way it has been crafted. I also thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for her speech, and for pointing out some of the practical steps that can be taken.
I know that those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches have felt a sense of thoughtful consideration and sometimes anguish about this issue, but it has always been fairly straightforward for me. I am not diminished as a person because we ban discrimination on the basis of race or gender, and I will not be diminished as a person because we ban discrimination on the basis on caste. All those are exemplary measures for the Government to take.
I was reflecting on caste, and it occurred to me that if we define caste as occupation, I too carry my caste in my name. A fuller is an occupation; we are the cleaners of wool—with a rather unsavoury material, I think. I do not know where in the hierarchy that might sit, but I do not think it would be at the top. However, I am a greater man because I am my father’s son, and—to be clear for the record—also because I am my mother’s son.
I would like to ask a couple of questions and make a point. Will the Minister provide not precision but some clarification on the timetable and say when she anticipates that the order will be enacted?
May I point out something that has not been mentioned yet? Any repeal of the regulation will require a resolution of each House and will not simply be done by the Government of the day. That is a welcome feature of the legislation.
Finally, we have spoken of the great contribution to the legislation of community groups with differing views. I pay tribute to my constituents who have brought the matter to my attention and to the attention of others. As with all legislation that is enacted, there is a responsibility to ensure that the protections provided are used appropriately. We need to ensure that it is not open season for people to use the law just because it is another option. The measure is there to be used in very serious cases—hon. Members know that they are rare but extraordinarily important. We do not want the changes to the law to be misused by people, such that the voices that have been heard in the House today are drowned out in the legal courts in future.
Jo Swinson
With the leave of the House, it would be helpful if I responded to a few of the points that have been made in this brief debate.
I welcome the constructive approach of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and her support for the Government amendments. She raised several points, one of which was the definition of caste and the possibility of using the word “descent”. We will consider carefully how to define “caste”. There could be problems with the “descent” concept—descent is wider than caste, and a number of groups have expressed concerns about using that word as an alternative. We now have time to discuss a wide range of issues, and will involve all interested parties. I hope that also goes some way to dealing with the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
On EHRC monitoring, the hon. Lady referred to last night’s debate and the comments of Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. I watched her speech—she spoke powerfully, as always. The amendments require the EHRC to continue to monitor and report—it must still report on changes in society in relation to equality and human rights, which can mean broad reports on progress in society.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a helpful speech. Perhaps we should adopt the format of making statements and seeing whether the Minister will stand up and make corrections if necessary. That could be deemed not to be the best way of dealing with parliamentary proceedings—the first suggestion was slightly above my pay grade.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the period of time over which the measure might be implemented. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston suggested in her letter that one to two years for enactment might be the right period. Enactment depends slightly on how much progress is made in dealing with those groups, but that time period is the general ballpark we are looking at.
That point also goes to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). When I was summing up last week, time was of the essence, and I was unable to complete my remarks, but it is worth noting the powerful speech my hon. Friend made on behalf of his constituents last week as well as today. On his question about repeal, the amendments make it clear that the Minister “may by order” repeal or otherwise amend section 9(5) of the Equality Act 2010. Repeal would therefore happen by order, through the normal parliamentary processes, using the affirmative resolution procedure, so both Houses would have their say. That would happen only after a Minister had ordered a review and published a report. That would be the process by which repeal would happen. I hope that he welcomes that along with the Government amendments.
I hope that I have answered the questions asked, and that hon. Members feel able to support the motion and amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 36, does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment 35 and proposes consequential amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill.
Consequential amendments (a) to (c) agreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (d) made in lieu of Lords amendment 37.
Opposition Day
Northern Ireland
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the significant and positive developments in Northern Ireland in recent years; acknowledges that challenges remain; and reaffirms its commitment to supporting peace, progress and prosperity in every community.
It gives me great pleasure to move the motion on the Order Paper in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and to open the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Hon. Members do not often get the chance to discuss Northern Ireland on the Floor of the House and I welcome this opportunity. It is good to see many Northern Ireland Members in the Chamber. The motion enables them to speak with a great deal of flexibility on the many issues that affect their constituents.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way so early in the debate. I commend him, as a Front-Bench spokesman, for leading a debate on Northern Ireland. It is important to put on the record that this is the first Front Bencher-led debate on Northern Ireland since the 2010 election.
Vernon Coaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks—I hope he feels like that at the end of my speech as well as at the beginning. In all seriousness, I am grateful for his remarks. The issues that affect Northern Ireland are taken seriously on both sides of the House. We need to debate them and to consider the challenges.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As a Labour Back Bencher, I, too, welcome my hon. Friend’s decision and the decision of the shadow Cabinet to use this Opposition day for a debate on Northern Ireland. That is a strong sign of the continuing Labour concern and commitment to a lasting peace and lasting prosperity in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, more than anything, we need more jobs and stronger growth? Does he also agree that, at the moment, Northern Ireland is held back by a failing UK economic policy from a failing and feeble Chancellor?
Vernon Coaker
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning of his intervention. I will go on to say something about the economy and the need for jobs and growth in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, but he is right to make that point.
The motion should enable Northern Ireland Members to speak with a great deal of flexibility on the many different issues that affect their constituents, as well as allow them and Members from other parts of the United Kingdom to put forward their views and wider considerations on the topic in hand.
Northern Ireland has been transformed in recent years. I am acutely aware of those on both sides of the House who have made such an enormous contribution to the cause of peace. The fact that many of them are in the Chamber is an indication of their commitment. I place on record my gratitude for their guidance and support in helping me to do the job of shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
This month marks the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. I know there are differing views on the agreement within Northern Ireland and within the House, but along with parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, Labour Members are proud of our role in helping to bring about that historic accord. We believe that the agreement and the agreements that followed have made Northern Ireland a better place, and we stand by them.
Good Friday 1998 was a hugely significant moment, when relations within Northern Ireland and throughout these islands were recognised as complicated and challenging, but intertwined and interdependent. The years that followed were difficult, but much good work was done despite the ups and downs of devolution. Hon. Members in the Chamber, including from the Social Democratic and Labour party, played a valued part in that, as did the Ulster Unionist party.
Six years ago, devolution was fully restored. Since 2007, Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson from the Democratic Unionist party have respectively served as First Ministers, alongside Martin McGuinness from Sinn Fein as Deputy First Minister. The transfer of policing and justice powers was another enormous step forward in 2010, when the Alliance party joined the Executive and took the position of Justice Minister.
All this shows that we have come a long way in Northern Ireland. As I say frequently, it is a privilege to hold my position most of all because I get to be in Northern Ireland often. The progress made in past years has given rise to a changed Northern Ireland, one that is confident, optimistic and dynamic, and a great place to live, work, invest in and to visit. This year, Northern Ireland gets the chance to show the world the real Northern Ireland; to show what it is really about. The UK city of culture in Derry is a packed 12 months of art, culture, sport, music and drama. I challenge anyone, anywhere to match the unrivalled programme of events that make Londonderry the place to be every day of 2013. The world will literally come to Northern Ireland for the G8 summit. I commend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their work in bringing this prestigious event to one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The world’s spotlight will be on Northern Ireland when the G8 summit takes place in County Fermanagh in June. Does he agree that the summit is an opportunity for the world to see how Northern Ireland has moved forward? There is, however, a worry that those who choose to protest on other issues could do damage. Does he agree that every effort must be made to ensure that security measures are in place so that no damage is caused to Northern Ireland as it moves forward?
Vernon Coaker
I think that every right hon. and hon. Member would agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There is a right to protest in a democracy, but it has to be done lawfully and peacefully. I do not think that any of us would wish to see anything take place that would detract from an important world summit, and an important example of how Northern Ireland can demonstrate to the whole world the real Northern Ireland and how it has moved forward.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
May I associate myself with that last comment and thank the hon. Gentleman for the lead he gives and the work he does in Northern Ireland, together with Ministers? We were all together at the Alliance party conference. The message that people in Northern Ireland need to hear is that the rest of the United Kingdom want them to do well, want them to prosper and want them to succeed. Avoiding violence is the best way to make sure that everybody understands that, and that the message goes out not just to Northern Ireland, but around the world.
Vernon Coaker
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, the fact that we are having a debate on the Floor of the House of the House of Commons in London is a statement of the importance that all of us here attach to what is going on in Northern Ireland. We do take notice and we do care.
I hope that all of Northern Ireland will benefit from the G8 summit, and I am sure that the Government will involve the Northern Ireland Executive in an appropriate and beneficial way. I know, too, that the Irish Government hold the presidency of the European Union and will play a key part. The world police and fire games take place this summer and will provide a huge opportunity, with thousands of athletes coming to Northern Ireland from countries and continents the length and breadth of the globe. There is a huge belief in Northern Ireland that things that only a few years ago would have seemed impossible, have been and are being done, and that things are moving in the right direction.
Despite those huge strides, however, we cannot be complacent about the challenges that remain. For us in Westminster, devolution should not mean disengagement. We have a role to play and the Government have a responsibility to help keep Northern Ireland moving in the right direction. On security and the economy, decisions made at a UK level have enormous implications for Northern Ireland, a point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
The continuing activities of dissident republican groups give cause for worry. They are small but dangerous, and have shown that, despite being rejected by the vast majority of the public, they are determined to continue their campaign of violence. The awful murder of prison officer David Black a few months ago should serve as a reminder of their deadly intent. Indeed, as we have seen recently, it is thanks only to the dedication of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Army technical officers and the Security Service that further atrocities have been avoided. The foiling of attacks across Northern Ireland is a credit to these very brave and dedicated individuals who keep people safe and secure, and do their job with courage and professionalism in the face of serious threats against them and their families. They have our utmost gratitude, and the support and admiration of the entire House.
I share the concerns—perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister can address them—about how the additional security funding from the Treasury has been allocated in the four years from 2011 to 2015. There will be a drop in funding next year from £62 million in 2013-14 to £27 million in 2014-15. The police and security services, as I know we all agree, must have all the resources they need to combat terrorist threats. I know that the Secretary of State agrees, and I am sure that the Government will keep all these matters under review, taking advice from the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister.
The unrest seen in loyalist and Unionist areas following the decision of Belfast city council not to fly the Union flag all year round, also gives cause for concern. There was a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation against public representatives, the police and the wider community. Some of it was orchestrated by paramilitaries, which is unacceptable. There is real frustration and anger in some communities, and I do not downplay that or ignore those who say that their Britishness is being undermined. I hear similar sentiments, albeit from the opposite viewpoint in republican and nationalist areas, where some people feel that their Irishness is not respected or given appropriate recognition. Clearly, these are not easy issues to address.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister, he announced in July 2007 that he was lifting the ban on the national flag; he encouraged the flying of the Union flag, certainly throughout Great Britain. I wonder what the official policy of the official Opposition is on flying the flag in Northern Ireland. Would it be helpful to increase the flag-flying days in Northern Ireland, as requested by loyalists and others?
Vernon Coaker
Our position is to try to help facilitate agreement between everyone about what solutions can be found, so that Britishness and Irishness is respected. It is difficult, in a particular circumstance, to say, “This is the solution that can or should be found.” Equality of respect between the different traditions in Northern Ireland is extremely important. Flags are a symbol of that, and all one can hope for is that the discussions and ongoing debate will lead to a conclusion that is acceptable to all communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the national opinion polls which last year showed that only 21% of nationalists wished to see a united Ireland? This year, the polls say that only 19% of nationalists wish to see a united Ireland. Is that not an indication that their Irishness is diminishing?
Vernon Coaker
I think it is a snapshot of opinion at a particular time. The agreement lays out procedures and processes for opinion to be tested at any time. The reality at the moment is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and the debate in this Chamber reflects that. The priority for people at present is to resolve some of the ongoing challenges that remain, and to see what more can be done with respect to decisions made here about jobs, growth and investment in all communities in Northern Ireland. I think that people would see that as their priority, whether they consider themselves to be British or Irish.
There is a worry that, in both loyalist and republican areas, there are elements who want to take us back to the bad old days, and that they might be gaining a foothold. The message that the whole House sends out is that they will not succeed.
With the marching season already upon us, I want to make it clear that there is no justification for riots or attacks on the police. The rule of law, including the decisions of the Parades Commission, must be respected and upheld. The peace process shows that, however difficult, in the end dialogue works, so I encourage everyone who wants a peaceful summer in Northern Ireland to talk as neighbours, not enemies, in a spirit of understanding and to find a way forward on contentious issues, such as flags and parades. Like the Secretary of State and the Minister, I would like to do what I can to help facilitate those discussions.
These are difficult economic times. On the economy and welfare, the Government’s policies, decided here, have an impact in every community in Northern Ireland. Last week’s figures showed unemployment in Northern Ireland at a record high of 8.4%, with almost one in four young people out of work, while 20,000 families with children have lost out because of changes to tax credits. Earlier this year, the Chartered Institute of Housing estimated that the bedroom tax would affect 32,000 people in Northern Ireland and have a disproportionate impact because the vast majority of social housing stock in Northern Ireland comprised large family homes. There simply are not the smaller properties for tenants to downsize to.
On corporation tax, we had two years of dither and delay, with the promise of a decision last month, but all the Prime Minister said was that we would have to wait until after the Scottish referendum. Northern Ireland’s economy, like the economy of the rest of the UK, cannot wait until 2014; we need to get moving now. We need a plan for jobs and growth and a plan B for Northern Ireland’s economy to get people, particularly young people and those who have been out of work for a long time, back to work, and to bring investment into Northern Ireland and help small businesses to grow. With proposals for a tax on bank bonuses to tackle unemployment, a temporary cut to VAT to boost demand and the bringing forward of infrastructure projects, we want to support the Executive to get the economy on the right track.
Big challenges remain, and not just on security and the economy, and the Governments in London and Dublin need to continue to help Northern Ireland to meet them. That includes taking responsibility for dealing with the past. For Northern Ireland to move forward, it must agree a way to deal with the legacy of the troubles, the death of 3,000 people and the injury and trauma of tens of thousands more. We are clear about the need for a comprehensive and inclusive process to deal with the past, at the heart of which should be the victims and survivors.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Parades Commission earlier. He will be aware that some of us believe that the commission is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Surely it is time we had a clean sheet of paper to consider some other process for dealing with the parades issue. It is a vital part of Unionist culture, and we need to address it, otherwise we could be in for a difficult summer.
Vernon Coaker
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course, if the Executive and the parties in Northern Ireland have an alternative to the Parades Commission that they feel would better facilitate parading and deal with some of the issues, that would be a matter for discussion and change, but until such a time, the commission’s decisions are the law of the land, and as such they need to be adhered to. I understand his point—people often make it to me—but at the moment its decisions are the law of the land. It determines the routes and some of the conditions for parading, and we need to adhere to them. If we need an alternative, people must come forward with proposals, but until then, the commission makes the decisions. I know he agrees that it is crucial that the police do not make those decisions. If the current situation is unacceptable and people feel the need for change, it is incumbent on everyone to consider what that change would be.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
My hon. Friend rightly talks about healing the past. Might that be helped by people such as the Deputy First Minister and other Northern Ireland Ministers with a history of involvement in the IRA being honest and admitting what they did, rather than always trying to imply that they were totally innocent of the terrible tragedies and lost lives over a long period?
Vernon Coaker
We need a process for addressing all the matters that arise, but at the moment those points are made in a vacuum. We need an overarching process for debating these issues. My hon. Friend obviously knows Northern Ireland well. When I meet victims from all parts of Northern Ireland and from all sides of the community, I am struck by the need to find a better way of dealing with people’s sense of grief and loss, whether in respect of the Ballymurphy families, the Kingsmill families or whoever. There is no quick solution, but a process for discussing how that might be done would be an important step forward.
There is no consensus about what that process should look like, but we have to get people talking and to keep them talking until we find a way forward. I believe that change comes from the bottom up. Hon. Members know of the huge amount of work being done at a grass-roots level, on the ground in communities, to bring people together and help build the shared future we all want. Much of that work is unsung, but it is making a huge difference. I have met individuals and organisations doing important work in difficult circumstances. These people have shown vision and commitment to the community. I have seen the work they do, whether on shared education, sport for all, providing skills and training for young people or giving a voice to pensioners. We should all redouble our efforts to promote and support this crucial work.
Huge progress has been made in Northern Ireland, but we cannot, and must not, be complacent. Northern Ireland is unrecognisable from the place it was, but challenges remain, and we must overcome them by pulling together. That means the Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, business, communities and all those who want to build a better Northern Ireland. We cannot just wish for a better future; we have to work for it.
Lady Hermon
I would like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s words about dealing with the past. I think he referred to a comprehensive and inclusive process to deal with the past. Will he spell out what that might involve, other than talking to one another, cross-community football matches or whatever? Does he wish to see another commission like the recent Eames-Bradley commission? What exactly is “comprehensive” and “inclusive”?
Vernon Coaker
It might be something along the lines that Eames-Bradley suggested; what I am saying is that we have to bring people together to talk about this in the first place, but at the moment I think there is reluctance on the part of the Government to do that. I remember a debate in which the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said that the Northern Ireland Assembly had asked the then Secretary of State to facilitate talks and bring everyone together to see how a comprehensive and inclusive process might work. People get cynical about having more talks, but given the absence of agreement and consensus, and the fact that there are differing views about what should be done, the very least we can do is to bring people together, even if—I will be honest with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—there is no guarantee that that will succeed. To start to talk about that—to ask how we deal with it, whether elements of Eames-Bradley could have worked, whether other elements could work and what a comprehensive process means, and to include all representatives in Northern Ireland in that process—is to start saying what we can do to address the issue. That is the role that the UK Government could play in trying to facilitate the process that the hon. Lady describes.
The values that were held throughout the peace process are as relevant today as they ever were—the commitment to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships in Northern Ireland, between north and south, and between these islands; the acknowledgement that the tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering, and that those who have died or been injured and their families must never be forgotten; the acceptance that only democratic and peaceful methods can be used to resolve political differences; and, most fundamentally, an understanding that differences still exist between competing, equally legitimate political aspirations, but that we must strive in every practical way towards peace and reconciliation. The Government at Westminster must rededicate themselves to those values, working with the Executive and the Irish Government to fulfil their obligations to help to keep Northern Ireland moving forward. There is still work to be done. Let us do it together, mark the progress, meet the challenges and strive to build peace, progress and prosperity in every community in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on choosing Northern Ireland for today’s debate. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have provided us with a welcome opportunity to consider some hugely important matters in Northern Ireland.
Let me start by paying tribute to the courage and dedication of those on all sides who are responsible for delivering the huge progress we have seen in Northern Ireland over the past two decades. That includes successive UK Governments, our partners in the Irish and US Administrations and, of course, the political leadership in Northern Ireland. They all deserve our sincere thanks. Delivering the peace settlement was greatly assisted by the bipartisan attitude that is generally taken in this House towards matters such as security and constitutional and institutional affairs in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the continuation of that approach from the shadow Secretary of State.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the bedrock of the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland is provided by the agreement signed on 10 April, 15 years ago. Whether we call it the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday agreement, there can be no doubt that it has transformed life in Northern Ireland, alongside its successor agreements, made at St Andrews in 2006 and Hillsborough in 2010. None of those agreements would have happened without the Downing Street declaration, made 20 years ago by John Major and Albert Reynolds, which started the peace process in earnest.
I agree that we in this House must never, ever take the peace settlement for granted. It will always be important to keep reminding ourselves of the many ways in which the agreements have improved life for people in Northern Ireland and transformed it as a place to live. For example, the agreements secured the constitutional position of Northern Ireland on the basis of consent, meaning that it will never cease to be a part of the United Kingdom unless a majority decides otherwise. That is something that we warmly welcome as a Government who support the Union and believe that all parts of our United Kingdom are stronger together, weaker apart. The agreements also mean that the territorial claim to sovereignty in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution has now gone.
After years of direct rule from Westminster, we now have an inclusive, devolved Administration working hard for the people of Northern Ireland. Delivery of key public services is firmly in devolved hands, and since the St Andrews agreement, all the main parties are signed up to support for the police and the rule of law. The rights and identities of all parts of the community are fully protected, whether they choose to define themselves as British, Irish or both. There are accountable institutions to deliver practical co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and relations between the UK and the Republic of Ireland have never been better. Of course, the greatest achievement of all was the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons and the end of the terrorist campaigns that tragically saw 3,500 lives lost. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling that there can be no doubt about the significant challenges that still need to be overcome in security, the economy, and addressing sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland.
Lady Hermon
Before the right hon. Lady moves on, will she take a brief opportunity to put it on record in this House that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have responsibility under the legislation to trigger a border poll, if there were a need for that, but that, no matter how provoked by the leader of Sinn Fein, she has absolutely no intention of triggering a border poll in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable and long future?
Mrs Villiers
I can confirm, as I have said a number of times over recent months, that I have no plans to call a border poll. The conditions that require a border poll to take place, as set down in the Belfast agreement, are certainly not present; therefore, I simply do not think it would be a constructive thing to do. Indeed, I feel it would distract from the other big challenges for Northern Ireland, which we are discussing today.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a recent meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which I co-chair, the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, also said those very things?
Mrs Villiers
There is a huge amount of common ground between the UK Government and the Irish Government in our strong support for the devolved settlement and the great progress that it has brought to Northern Ireland, so I am delighted to hear that the Taoiseach expressed similar views to those that I have just expressed on a border poll.
This Government strongly believe that we cannot stand still if all the promises and hopes of the agreements are to be properly fulfilled, so we need to address the three challenges that I have set out. Let me turn first to security. As the House will be aware, the threat level from terrorism in Northern Ireland is assessed as severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. There are still terrorist groups that continue to defy the will of the overwhelming majority of people, north and south, who voted for Northern Ireland’s future to be determined by democracy and consent. As the hon. Member for Gedling said, the terrorists are small in number and have very little popular support, but they have capability and lethal intent, as we saw with the cowardly and horrific murder of prison officer David Black last year.
I, too, would like to thank the brave men and women of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland for all the work they do to keep the whole community safe from harm. The PSNI is relentless in its efforts to stop terrorist attacks and put those responsible for them behind bars where they belong. Just one of a number of recent PSNI successes was the interception of a van carrying four mortar bombs bound for Londonderry. If it had got through, it could have led to an horrific attack. The levels of co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Siochana are unprecedented. That co-operation is saving lives. I thank the Irish Government for making it possible.
For our part, on coming to power we endorsed an additional £45 million for the PSNI, to help to address the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. Our 2010 national security strategy made tackling terrorism in Northern Ireland a tier 1 priority, progress on which is regularly discussed at the very highest levels of Government. In 2011, in response to a request from the Chief Constable, we provided an additional £200 million to tackle the terrorist threat. The shadow Secretary of State asked how the funding would be phased over the years. I think I can provide him with some reassurance on that. As a significant proportion of the funding was capital spend designed to provide much-needed equipment—not least the refresh of the PSNI Land Rover fleet—more will inevitably get spent towards the beginning of the period than at the end. From my regular discussions with the Chief Constable, I have no doubt that the extra resource has helped significantly, and I will continue to give the PSNI my fullest possible backing.
The hon. Member for Gedling rightly emphasised the crucial importance of the rule of law, now that we are back into another marching season. So far, the events have gone off well and largely peacefully, which is welcome, but it is always important to reiterate from the Dispatch Box—and indeed from both sides of the House—that Parades Commission decisions must be complied with. There are real dangers for Northern Ireland in any recurrence of the disorder that has too often marred the marching seasons in years past. Such disorder damages Northern Ireland’s image abroad, which makes it harder to build much-needed prosperity.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I endorse entirely the Secretary of State’s comments about the parades that will take place over the next weeks and months. Will she take this opportunity to set out for the House her approach to parading? The Hillsborough Castle agreement incorporates a time scale and a process for the transfer of responsibility for parading from the UK Government to Northern Ireland. We know, however, that that process has stalled, and there are no signs of it being restarted, so far as I can see. This is a continuing area of concern, and I would be grateful if she could tell the House what she intends to do to ensure that the issue is resolved once and for all.
Mrs Villiers
I have had a series of meetings with those involved in parading, including the Parades Commission, the PSNI, and the Loyal Orders, to hear their views on the prospects for and the risks associated with this season’s parades and marches. It is important for the local parties to engage with one another on this issue, and my understanding is that there is an appetite for that to happen. Should the local parties reach consensus on a way to devolve decisions on parading to a new institution or body, the UK Government would of course consider the matter carefully. As the right hon. Gentleman points out, it has always been envisaged, by the previous Government and by this one, that we could move to a devolved solution. We are open-minded and willing to listen to proposals for such a solution from the Northern Ireland political parties, but until such time as the matter is settled, it is vital that the Parades Commission should be supported and that its decisions should be obeyed.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure the passing of a legislative consent motion on the Crime and Courts Bill, which will affect the ability of the National Crime Agency to work in Northern Ireland, and the ability of the new proceeds of crime provisions to operate there? What progress is she making on that? We discussed in some detail during our deliberations on the Crime and Courts Bill the fact that, at the moment, there is a big hole in that area, and I would welcome a time scale for the action that she is taking to ensure that the loophole is closed.
Mrs Villiers
It is certainly a great disappointment that the legislative consent motion has not been adopted by the Northern Ireland Executive. I understand that policing matters are hugely sensitive in Northern Ireland, for all sorts of historical reasons, but I am concerned that the abilities and the international reach of the National Crime Agency will not be available to the PSNI. Discussions are continuing on whether it will be possible to persuade the Northern Ireland Executive to provide a legislative consent motion in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the question of the proceeds of crime, a matter currently dealt with by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It would be unfortunate if such work in Northern Ireland were not taken over by another body. If it is not taken over by the NCA, it would be a matter for the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Executive to consider developing an alternative capability. Discussions are continuing, and I have discussed the matter with David Ford on a number of occasions. He has done an excellent job on trying to build consensus for this change, and we will continue to support him on that. The Home Secretary also takes a close interest in this matter, and she is considering how the NCA will operate in relation to matters that are still the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Government, including UK border matters and matters relating to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
The Government’s first duty in Northern Ireland is to keep people safe, and it is one that we will not shirk. I fully recognise, however, that terrorism will not be brought to an end by security means alone. As well as exercising continuing vigilance on security measures, we need to make progress on our other objectives—on the economy and on addressing sectarian division—if we are to address the problems on which paramilitaries will always try to feed.
I should like to provide some reassurance to hon. Members on the economic points that have been raised today. On taking office, this Government faced the largest deficit in the G20 and the largest in the UK’s peacetime history. In three years, we have cut that deficit by a third, and more than 1.25 million new jobs have been created in the private sector. In Northern Ireland, Labour left us with an economy that was heavily dependent on public spending—even more so than at the time of the Belfast agreement in 1998. Some studies have suggested that public spending accounts for as much as three quarters of gross domestic product in Northern Ireland. Of course I understand the historical reasons that have contributed to that, but it is unsustainable in the longer term. We simply cannot go on as we are.
Under the devolution settlement, many policy areas on the economy and unemployment fall within the Executive’s remit, and I warmly welcome the work that they have done on crucial economic matters, including their great success in attracting inward investment.
Ian Paisley
There are many things that the Government can take credit for, but the biggest disappointment for anyone in the business community is their failure to take a decision on corporation tax. That failure has been a knockout blow; it is sad, and it reflects a lack of urgency to move forward for the business community.
Mrs Villiers
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Government are planning to reduce corporation tax across the UK economy. The Prime Minister has also set a clear pathway to a decision on whether corporation tax decisions could be devolved to Northern Ireland. The reality is that significant technical issues need to be resolved before a decision can be taken on the principle of whether to devolve the power. There are also wider constitutional issues to be considered in the context of the referendum on Scottish separation.
Significant economic responsibilities are retained by Westminster, and I am working with the Northern Ireland Executive on our shared objective of rebalancing the economy by boosting the private sector and pursuing a strongly pro-enterprise agenda. That is why we are cutting corporation tax from 28% under Labour to just 20% by 2015—the lowest rate in the G7 and joint lowest in the G20. The Prime Minister has made it clear that a decision on whether to devolve the setting of corporation tax rates to the Northern Ireland Assembly will be made in the autumn of next year.
Our deficit reduction programme has helped to keep interest rates at record lows, helping businesses and households across Northern Ireland, and our new employment allowance will see national insurance cut for 25,000 Northern Ireland businesses, with 10,000 small and medium-sized enterprises paying no tax on jobs at all. This will provide better help for business than Labour’s one-off national insurance tax break.
We have exempted Northern Ireland electricity generators from the carbon price floor, to provide a level playing field with the Republic. That was a key ask from the Northern Ireland business community, as well as from the Executive. We have also devolved long-haul air passenger duty to help to save our direct air link with the United States, again at the direct request of the Northern Ireland Executive.
David Simpson
The Secretary of State will know that her predecessor made a big play for enterprise zones in Northern Ireland. Is that still part of the coalition’s plan?
Mrs Villiers
We certainly believe that enterprise zones such as those being established in England, Wales and Scotland can play a positive part in boosting the private sector and in job creation. Our conversation with the Executive on a fresh economic package to provide additional help for Northern Ireland includes looking again at enterprise zones, to see whether we can make them attractive to the Executive.
Access to the £2.1 billion Aerospace Technology Institute will strengthen Northern Ireland’s reputation as a centre of excellence in aerospace. Also, when I met representatives of HBO in New York recently, I heard at first hand that the Chancellor’s tax relief for high-end TV production was crucial to delivering HBO’s plans to film a fourth series of “Game of Thrones” in Belfast, with all the job opportunities that that will provide.
The Budget gave the Executive an extra £94 million of capital spending, bringing to £900 million the total additional funding provided to Stormont since the last spending review. The Prime Minister announced in March that Northern Ireland would receive an extra €181 million of EU structural funds above what would have been the case if the Government had stuck to the European Commission’s recommended formula. The size of the block grant for Northern Ireland means that public spending per head continues to be 20% higher than the UK average.
We are delivering a £700 tax cut for over 600,000 working people in Northern Ireland, and taking 75,000 of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether. We have dealt with the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society and ensured that smaller, more vulnerable savers got most or all of their money back. Our welfare reforms, bitterly opposed by the Labour party, will ensure that work always pays and that people cannot take home more in benefits than the typical family earns by going out to work. These are the measures of a Government who are on the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life.
As for the comments of the hon. Member for Gedling on the spare room subsidy, I recognise how sensitive this issue is, particularly for Northern Ireland where so much social housing is still segregated. The reform we are making brings the social rented sector into line with the rules that the previous Government introduced for the private rented sector. We owe it to all people on housing waiting lists or living in overcrowded accommodation to use our social housing stock as efficiently as possible. A £3.4 million fund has been set up to help in hard cases, which has been doubled by Nelson McCausland over the spending review period. Discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive are continuing on whether they might fund a different approach on the spare room subsidy—at least until the Northern Ireland housing stock has more one and two-bedroom homes.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I thank the Secretary of State for her remarks, but as she is aware, the housing stock does need to transform dramatically. The cost differential between building one and two-bedroom properties and three-bedroom properties is negligible, but we end up with a less flexible housing stock as a result. Has the impact of this measure been properly thought through, particularly in respect of elevating the cost of one and two-bedroom properties through increasing demand, while not reducing the cost of purchasing those properties in comparison with three-bedroom houses?
Mrs Villiers
These matters are being thoroughly discussed between Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and those in the Department for Work and Pensions, which remains anxious about and open to finding a solution that will work for the Executive.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Will the Secretary of State inform us about ongoing discussions between the Minister for Social Development in the Northern Ireland Executive and appropriate Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions on the issue of getting further flexibility to enable the people of Northern Ireland to deal with these cuts, which are the consequence of welfare reform?
Mrs Villiers
Those discussions are ongoing, and I am confident of a positive outcome from them. The hon. Lady will appreciate that a number of flexibilities have already been obtained from the DWP by Nelson McCausland.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is explaining the depth of the discussions that are happening, and I am sure that she has been greatly involved in them as they affect Northern Ireland. Will she explain exactly how many one-bed properties are available in Northern Ireland’s social housing stock?
Mrs Villiers
I do not have the figure to hand, but this very important issue is being carefully considered in the discussions between the Northern Ireland Executive and the DWP.
Mrs Villiers
I will take one more intervention, but then I want to make some progress.
Lady Hermon
The right hon. Lady will be relieved to know that I am not going to ask her about the bedroom tax, but I do want to take her back to the reference she made to the Presbyterian Mutual Society. It is absolutely right to put on the record the gratitude felt by PMS savers, particularly those saving up to £20,000. The Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor, and indeed the Prime Minister, did a wonderful job on the repayments, but that being the case, I am bewildered, as are many of my constituents, about why she did not make more effort to ensure that the Northern Ireland ombudsman’s report into the PMS fiasco was published in full—only a summary was published. Will she give an undertaking to go back and try to ensure that the ombudsman’s report is published in full?
Mrs Villiers
Obviously, I do not have standing to dictate to the ombudsman what they choose to do with their report, but I am certainly happy to look further into that matter and come back to the hon. Lady about it. I am grateful for her praise of the work done by my predecessor and the Prime Minister.
We are all, of course, concerned about unemployment in Northern Ireland, as it remains far too high, particularly among young people. It is the case that some parts of the community feel that the peace process has not delivered all they hoped it would, so we want to do more to strengthen the economy and help Northern Ireland in the global race for investment and jobs. That is why the Prime Minister decided to bring the G8 summit to County Fermanagh in June. I am grateful for the support for that decision expressed by the hon. Member for Gedling, both in the past and today. This provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to market Northern Ireland as a great place to visit and to do business with. I am working with the Executive to make the most of all the opportunities that that brings us.
I agree that, despite the progress that has been made over the years, it cannot be right that there are still some deep-seated divisions in parts of Northern Ireland society. As I go round Northern Ireland, I see many excellent examples of initiatives designed to bring people together, such as the Jethro centre in Lurgan, Forthspring in West Belfast, and Intercomm in North Belfast. As the flags-related disorder demonstrated, however, more needs to be done to build mutual understanding and mutual trust across sectarian divides.
Policy responsibilities for community relations are devolved, but this Government have always been keen to work with the Executive and to support them in moving things forward. During his visits to Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister highlighted the importance he places on this issue.
Following the meeting with the Prime Minister and the First and Deputy First Ministers in March, we are working with the Executive on a substantial new economic package, alongside measures that we hope will build a more cohesive and stable society.
The package is in addition to the support Northern Ireland already receives from the UK Government. The Government are examining ideas on making enterprise zones more attractive, helping the Executive to take forward infrastructure projects, improving access to bank finance, and various other measures. Meanwhile, the Executive have the opportunity to use their devolved responsibilities to develop economic and social measures, including work on a shared future which we are all committed to delivering.
Put simply, this is a two-way street: the greater the Executive’s ambition, the more the Government will be able to do to support and help them. This is about partnership and working together on our shared goals, and I am optimistic about the chances of achieving a good outcome for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Gedling spoke about dealing with the past.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Before the right hon. Lady leaves the point about the provision of extra help for Northern Ireland, she will be aware that a different interpretation was put on her remarks, not least by people in the Belfast Telegraph who described what she said as tantamount to blackmail. They feared that money might be withheld unless politicians in Stormont made a certain amount of progress, as viewed by the Government. Will she clarify exactly what she means in her approach to this matter? Clearly, what she has enunciated today is certainly a more constructive way of putting it, but can she rule out the suggestion or fear among many that this money will be held as a form of blackmail to get the Executive to do certain things?
Mrs Villiers
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this package is about working together. The shared objective of the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government is to rebalance the economy and to address sectarian divisions, and we feel that we have a good opportunity to work together on those crucial issues. As I have said, the package is about new measures and new ways of supporting the Northern Ireland economy, rather than any subtraction from the existing support for Northern Ireland.
As the hon. Member for Gedling will appreciate, this is no easy issue. His party’s Government tried to resolve it, but were unable to do so, because they could not build enough support for the legislation that they were considering. It is important to accept that the UK Government do not own the past, and that progress cannot be made solely at their behest. Progress requires the building of consensus between different sides and different parties in Northern Ireland. We are certainly willing to play our part in efforts to deal with these matters, as was demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s response to the Bloody Sunday report and the de Silva review, but we do not believe that singling out a few more cases for costly open-ended inquiries is the right way forward.
I pay tribute to the work that is being done by many groups and organisations in Northern Ireland to help people understand the past and give them a chance to tell their stories. Yesterday I visited the University of Ulster to learn more about its CAIN-ARK network, a resource shared with Queen’s University Belfast which has had 64 million page views and which contains a huge amount of material on the troubles. I encourage anyone who wants to understand Northern Ireland’s past to visit the website.
Fifteen years ago, the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland made an historic choice: they decided that their future would be determined by democracy and not by violence. The Belfast agreement and its successors have given us a platform on which to build a new, confident, inclusive and modern Northern Ireland whose best days lie ahead. There is no doubt that we have come a long way—in many respects, Ireland is unrecognisable in comparison with the place that it was two decades ago when John Major made the Downing Street declaration—but much remains to be done to heal long-standing divisions in Northern Ireland society. In a number of ways, the peace process is still “work in progress”.
No one should doubt the determination of the UK Government to move forward, working in partnership with both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government, in our efforts to create a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland of which all its citizens can be proud.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 5.15 pm, and 11 Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to take part in the debate. Lengthy contributions will not be met with universal joy by others who wish to contribute, so I ask Members please to be mindful of others when making their own speeches.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State. I apologise to both the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and the Secretary of State for having been absent for part of their speeches; I had to give evidence to a Committee upstairs.
I welcome the debate and thank the hon. Member for Gedling for choosing the subject and for the way in which the motion is worded. I think it right to acknowledge the progress that has been made in recent years, and I trust that the motion will gain the full support and endorsement of Members in all parts of the House.
Both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State spoke of the enormous progress that has been made, and rightly described the present situation in Northern Ireland as being virtually unrecognisable in comparison with the situation 30 or even 20 years ago. We do not underestimate the violence and the threat that are out there, or the concern that exists among members of society as a whole and among the security forces about the harm that could be inflicted by some of the terrorists who are intent on disrupting society. We bear in mind the terrible murder of David Black, and other incidents in which members of the security forces have narrowly escaped injury and death. We know of the fantastic work done by our security forces in daily protecting life and limb, and the interventions and interceptions which, in various instances—almost too numerous to recall here—have thwarted violent attacks by terrorists. We acknowledge the great progress that has been made, and, while we also recognise the challenges that are out there, everyone in society should bear in mind the enormous strides that have been made in terms of political stability.
It is now taken for granted that the Northern Ireland Assembly will see out its full term, and will see out its next term in full as well. However, not long ago—not 20 years ago but less than five or six years ago—people were predicting that the Assembly would not last four months, let alone four years.
We opposed the Belfast agreement because of its inherent flaws and the fact that people who were in government were still not supporting the police and the rule of law; they were still with the armed gunmen and we still had no decommissioning. We opposed all that, and I remember the Prime Minister of the day, Tony Blair, telling us it was impossible to get an alternative. But we did get an alternative, and we did so because we insisted that the rule of law had to be paramount, that there had to be support for the police and that both sides of the community had to give their support and consent to the institutions in Northern Ireland. That was the fatal flaw with the Anglo-Irish agreement we debated not long ago in this House and also with the Belfast agreement.
Thankfully, however, as the opinion polls bear out, in the period since 2006-07, there has been overwhelming support for the Assembly and the institutions, on the basis that everybody is now involved—everybody has given their consent and everybody has been consulted. While it is far from perfect, it has at least gone through that important democratic test. Under the Belfast agreement, the Assembly crashed three or four times, but we have had a period of stability since 2007.
There is also increased support for the Union, as has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). One of the most important and significant developments in recent years has been the increased support for the Union in all sections of the community. Those who describe themselves as British have, of course, always supported the link with the rest of the United Kingdom, but the numbers of those who describe themselves as nationalists and those who now describe themselves as Northern Irish who say they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom or that they would not vote for a united Ireland have also increased very considerably. That, too, is a mark of the progress that has been made.
Of course people have the absolute right to wish to leave the United Kingdom and join in a different set of arrangements, as long as they pursue those objectives politically and democratically, but what is happening in Northern Ireland is clear evidence that people are increasingly content to work within the parameters of the United Kingdom. Indeed, a recent opinion poll in the Belfast Telegraph showed there was a majority for that in every county in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, a majority among nationalist voters overall. That is extremely significant, and it was unimaginable 20 years ago.
Naomi Long
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those opinion poll findings are the reason why, despite Sinn Fein having launched its campaign for a border poll with great fanfare, we have not heard much about it since?
Mr Dodds
That is absolutely right and, interestingly, when Sinn Fein voters were polled, a quarter of them also said they would stay in the United Kingdom. So, certainly from our perspective, things are changing in Northern Ireland in a positive and good way.
We face a number of challenges, however, including some major economic issues. We have heard a lot about them already today. In trying to build the economy, tourism is a key sector, and today is Titanic Belfast’s first anniversary. That is an iconic building, and I take some pride in it because I brought the project to the very first meeting of the Executive when I was Economy Minister in 2007, and we managed to get some substantial financial support for it. People at that stage queried whether it would be a success, but today it can be proved that it has been a success, because in the first year there have been 807,340 visitors, almost half a million of them from outside Northern Ireland and from 128 different countries. That contributed almost £30 million to the economy. It is a fantastic benefit to Belfast and to Northern Ireland as a whole. It is a world-class tourism project and product.
I recently visited the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre, built under the Northern Ireland Executive, which is attracting lots of visitors, again from outside Northern Ireland, which is the key point because it has added value to the economy. In 2012, the Olympic year, hotel occupancy in Northern Ireland in June was at the same level as that in central London, which is incredible when one thinks about it.
Ian Paisley
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to put his finger on where visitors are coming from. It is not a marginal outside increase. Apparently, of the million people who have visited the Giant’s Causeway and the Titanic centre this year, 60% are from outside the United Kingdom.
Mr Dodds
Yes, and these are very important figures, because in the past a lot of tourist attractions were dependent on repeat visitors from within Northern Ireland or from over the border, which is increasingly unsustainable in the long run. But sights of the magnitude of the Giant’s Causeway, the Titanic, St Patrick’s trail and Londonderry and the walls are all great visitor attractions. Londonderry is the UK city of culture this year. We have the G8 coming to Fermanagh as well, so there are lots of fantastic things happening in Northern Ireland. When we consider what it was like just a generation ago, we can see what can be done when politics works, and we all have a part to play in building on the peace and stability that has underpinned that progress.
Recently, of course, times have been tough. Despite the economic downturn and recession, we have still been able in Northern Ireland to attract high degrees of foreign direct investment. We are still the second best area in the United Kingdom outside London for attracting such investment, which is a very significant statistic. In the past five years, the Northern Ireland Executive have spent more on infrastructure—roads, schools, hospitals and housing—than at any time in Northern Ireland’s history. More jobs than at any time in history have been delivered by the Executive, at a time when we are delivering the lowest local taxes in the whole of the United Kingdom. Peace, stability and opportunity make a real difference to the lives of those who live in Northern Ireland.
That said, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am conscious of your earlier injunction—I want to say that it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, that the Government act on corporation tax. While we welcome the moves that were made in terms of the help that the Secretary of State enunciated and the financial backing given to the Executive, and although the Executive have done a considerable amount on business rates and domestic rates and in helping lending to small businesses, and in backing the work of Invest Northern Ireland, there is no doubt, and it is the consensus among the political parties in Northern Ireland, and among business and industry, that what is needed is a game changer. If we are to alleviate high unemployment and reduce dependency on the public sector, something like the devolution of corporation tax is needed to make that happen. Of course, it is important that we retain our 100% regional aid status as far as Europe is concerned.
As for the political challenges that we faced, very briefly we have come a long way to achieve the stability and durability of the Executive and the Assembly. That must not be underestimated and should never be taken for granted. We all must continue to work hard to make sure that it is not undermined. But there is a case to be made—the people of Northern Ireland on all sides have expressed this many, many times—for reducing the bureaucracy surrounding the Assembly and the Government Departments. We have too many Government Departments with too big an Assembly. Too much is being spent on governing the place.
I welcome the fact that the review of public administration will reduce the number of councils, streamlining local government. We on the DUP Benches support the reduction in the size of the Assembly, support the reduction in the size of Government and support the idea of introducing an Opposition to the Assembly set-up, but there are other parties in the Assembly that, to varying degrees, do not lend support to that. I hope that, in the coming years, we can look back on this debate and say, “From then on, there was the desire to make devolution, and the Assembly and the Executive, work even better.”
The issues to do with the shared future, the past and how we can ensure that all sections of our community benefit from peace and stability, are absolutely key. I do not have time to go into all those, but it is incumbent on us all to work together—all the political parties in Northern Ireland, with the Government here—to move these issues forward. They cannot be left in abeyance. It is absolutely critical. I know that in the constituency that I represent, North Belfast, there are many people who, when they consider the impact of welfare reforms, or the economy, or the reductions in the public sector, and the wider political process, do have a sense of grievance. While we acknowledge and address those issues, it is the job of all of us to ensure that the positive is put forward, that we continue the progress of the last 15 years over the next 15 years, and that we continue to build on the peace and stability that has been created in Northern Ireland.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I thank the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for introducing this welcome debate. I strongly approve of the balanced wording of the motion, which recognises how much progress Northern Ireland has made during the last 15 years, while recognising that more work needs to be done. As well as the politicians in this place, it is the local politicians but especially the people of Northern Ireland who have made that progress. Over many years, they have shown enormous resolve in the face of a desperately difficult time. I pay tribute to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland for everything that they have done, and for being so resolute in their determination to come through very difficult times.
Probably everyone in the House today will remember the deeply difficult times of the 1970s. Last November, I had the rather sad occasion, with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), to visit Enniskillen to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the bomb there. I was in the Republic on 15 August 1998 when the Omagh bomb went off, and I was in the Republic when David Black was murdered, and I remember the revulsion that was felt in the Republic of Ireland at those events. That demonstrates that we stand together with the Taoiseach and the Government of southern Ireland in condemning these acts and in being determined to find a way forward towards greater peace and a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
I also remember many great things from my regular visits to Northern Ireland over many years now. The hon. Member for Gedling mentioned the wonderful attractions there, including the Giant’s Causeway and the visitors centre there. I am sure the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) welcomes the new golf course that is to be built in that area. At long last, he probably says, but at least it is on its way. For Londonderry to be the city of culture this year is a tremendous accolade. As has been mentioned, the Titanic quarter has been open for a year, and I have had the pleasure of visiting it twice. What a wonderful visit it makes for. The G8 is coming to Northern Ireland. To accommodate all the visitors who have been mentioned, Northern Ireland has some of the best hotels in the world, which perhaps is not recognised or remembered. As well as meeting the people of Northern Ireland, one of the great pleasures of visiting the Province is to stay in its wonderful hotels. There is an awful lot to be proud of and to look forward to in Northern Ireland.
I have the honour of chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and one of the ways that we think will cement the relative peace that has been attained in Northern Ireland is to try to help the economy and move it to better times. As has been mentioned, the economy throughout the United Kingdom is difficult. It is difficult throughout Europe. It is difficult in various parts of the world. For the record, I for one believe that the Government are on the right track in trying to put the economy right. We are not in a mess because we did not spend enough money, but because the previous Government spent too much money. We cannot get away from that. The Government are right to try to rebalance the economy in the way that they are.
But with specific reference to Northern Ireland, there are one or two issues that we should discuss here today that have been touched upon. I have just complimented the Government, but I will make a mild criticism now. I do not think that it is right to delay the decision on devolving responsibility for setting corporation tax until after the Scottish referendum. I see no relevance at all. In fact, I think that people in Scotland would be somewhat encouraged to vote to remain in the Union if we could demonstrate that there is flexibility to do different things in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with another country, and the circumstances there are different. I certainly congratulate the Government on their reduction in the rate of corporation tax and look forward to the downward trend continuing to 20%, but we must remember that the level of corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland is still only 12.5%. If we want to know the importance of that rate to the Republic of Ireland, we need only look back to the financial difficulties it had a couple of years ago, when this Parliament tried to help. Even with all its difficulties, and despite pressure from the European Union, it stuck to that rate and would not budge, because it knew that it was the best thing it had for attracting inward investment. The Government need to speed up their decision on whether to devolve the rate of corporation tax to the Assembly.
Great progress has been made on air passenger duty. I hope that the Select Committee was influential—I think that it was—in enabling the rate for long-haul flights from Northern Ireland to be reduced and giving the Assembly responsibility for it. However, a large number of flights to and from Northern Ireland are short-haul, and we feel that more work needs to be done in that regard, because the relatively high percentage of tax for short-haul fares is a disincentive. I know that that applies across the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland is different, as the only realistic way to travel to and from Great Britain is by air, so much more thought needs to be put into that.
The third matter I want to mention in relation to the Northern Ireland economy is laundering and smuggling. Historically, a lot of money has been lost in taxation through laundering and smuggling, particularly of fuel and tobacco. The Select Committee looked at that in great detail and was horrified by a number of things: first, how much money is lost; and secondly, how few custodial sentences are given to criminals who abuse the system to such an extent. It is not a victimless crime, because it is taking money away from hospitals, schools and police forces and from the taxpayers who contribute the money in the first place. The Committee was also concerned about the small progress made on developing technology that would greatly reduce, although not entirely prevent, the amount of fuel that can be smuggled and counterfeited in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to continue their work and increase the intensity of their talks with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to move towards a better system for eradicating what is a very serious and costly crime.
I will detain the House no longer, as I am well aware of the number of Members who wish to speak. I look forward to hearing what they have to say. I finish by echoing what has been said. I think that all of us in this House are looking to create a Northern Ireland that is far better for the next generation than the era suffered by the past generation.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I am pleased and privileged to rise to support the motion, and I do so in the strongest possible terms. I want to thank the Labour party and the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for bringing the motion to the House and, with it, the opportunity not only for myself, but for others, to make comment.
I am always pleased to note the widespread support across the House for peace, progress and prosperity in Northern Ireland. The 15th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, or the Belfast agreement—whatever we choose to call it—which we celebrated two weeks ago, is a significant milestone in our steady progress away from conflict. I recently had the opportunity to pay tribute in the House to the work done by previous Governments, both Irish and British, in negotiating and signing the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985. For me, that agreement laid the foundation for a sea change in relationships between our two countries. It not only began to fundamentally change relationships between Ireland and Britain, but laid the foundations for the peace process and the Good Friday or Belfast agreement that followed in 1998, which in turn raised opportunities for further positive transformation of the intergovernmental relationships to a whole new level. For so many in both countries, nothing gave better expression to the change and transformation in those relationships than the historic visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to Ireland two years ago.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Prime Ministers of both Ireland and Britain for their commitment to securing peace over the past 30 years, and that gratitude continues to be owed to the current incumbents, Prime Minister David Cameron and Taoiseach Enda Kenny.
As I look around this Chamber, I see many Members on both sides who have made significant contributions to bring about peace in Northern Ireland and the transformation of the relationship with the Irish Republic.
Jim Shannon
Although many Prime Ministers—from Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—have made a contribution, will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge the significant contribution made by the United States Government, who have also played a great part?
Dr McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman must have been reading my notes over my shoulder—the rules of the House should be amended to prevent Members from copying others—because my next line is that we should also note that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the United States and the various Administrations in Washington throughout that period.
Yes, much of the violence has been taken out of the equation in Northern Ireland. Relative peace and increased stability have been welcomed for some years, but we have not yet reached the promised land. Before the current financial crisis there were some green shoots of economic recovery, but they have been difficult to sustain. We have not come so far that we can afford any complacency. It is not just a matter of being eternally vigilant against the residual threat presented by those who are, though small in numbers, still dangerous and still wedded to the ways of violence, terrorism and intimidation.
Although the Good Friday agreement won overwhelming support across the island of Ireland, it was, for many, perhaps, a conditional support that should not be taken lightly or for granted. Although people voted for peace in overwhelming numbers in 1998, they wanted more: they also voted for hope and the right to hope for a much better future. They voted—this is better put in the words of Seamus Heaney—that “hope and history” would “rhyme”. They voted for economic opportunity for their children. They voted for a new dispensation that would tackle the root causes of division and ensure that violence would never again gain a significant foothold in their world or in the politics of Northern Ireland.
However much our people may differ on politics or on our views of the past, present or future, there is a shared conviction in Northern Ireland that our future must be different from what went before, in that it must be much better. They know that, however difficult it may be, that future has to be a shared future.
We have had 15 years of congratulating each other that the killing has stopped, but that is not enough any more. We need to move on and get some sense of greater progress. As long as we fail to tackle the underlying causes of the division in Northern Ireland, people will not feel safe and we will not be safe. We need a credible, practical, workable and productive cohesion-sharing and integration strategy, and we need it now.
The return of devolution was such an important goal that many people got impatient with me and colleagues in the SDLP for sharing our anxieties and our concerns and preaching that anxiety at times over the past few years, but now at last that important truth is beginning to be recognised. We note that in the past few weeks the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has found it necessary to state publicly in the strongest terms that the support of the UK Government for our Executive is conditional on progress being made in tackling community division. A couple of days before that the Irish Foreign Minister, Eamon Gilmore, said clearly that our First Minister and Deputy First Minister are mandated by the Good Friday agreement, which put them in office in the first place, to work for reconciliation. The time has come for us to produce some meaningful results.
We warmly welcome these new tones, this new realism, because it had been missing from the communications between Governments and from the two Governments for some years. We must recognise that the two Governments are the ultimate guarantors of the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement.
In my mind there is another side to reconciliation, the one that gets too little recognition, and it is this: tackling division is honourable and a good thing in itself, but there is a little more to it. Tackling division is an absolute necessity if we are to have any hope of achieving the prosperity mentioned in the motion. Division carries a direct cost or an absolute cost, but worse still for me, it also carries an opportunity cost. Beyond the challenge of tackling division, there is so much unfinished business in the major challenge of building prosperity. We will have difficulty finding the road to prosperity if we do not first find the road to maturity in dealing with flags and parades and the unhealed wounds and scars of the past.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a key way of making that work is to get the right understanding and the programmes for many of the young men and women in both communities who are stuck and cannot find an opportunity and a way out?
Dr McDonnell
I agree fully with the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but unfortunately we do not have or have not had until now Government Ministers queuing up to estimate the foreign investment opportunities lost as a result of the disorder in the past few months, but let us in the House not deceive ourselves. There is an economic cost to disruption, violence and disturbance in the streets, and I believe, unfortunately, that the same young men who wrapped themselves in flags are the very ones most likely to pay that cost. They are the ones who will suffer and remain on the margins.
We have had our peace process and it was good. We now need a prosperity process vigorously backed by the two Governments. It is with regret that I say that although the current Government have done many good things for the economy, too little progress has been made in helping to improve our economy, with unemployment currently at record levels. As others have pointed out, we needed that reduction in corporation tax to give us the rocket boost—for want of a better description—to get us moving economically. The level of youth unemployment in particular is a desperate cause for concern and cannot be isolated from the ongoing social unrest.
I do not doubt the Government’s stated commitment to rebalancing the economy, but the current economic path laid out for us will not take Northern Ireland to economic stability. We need investment in our economy and we need to create the economic confidence to build growth and develop the private sector. This Government’s attachment to austerity is unlikely to do that for us. On an island of fewer than 6 million people—we have fewer than 2 million in Northern Ireland and fewer than 4 million in the Irish Republic—economic and cross-border partnership is essential. In that context, we need an enduring commitment to serious north-south partnerships and projects such as the Narrow Water bridge and the A5, both of which will open up significant economic opportunities for Northern Ireland. The SDLP will continue to make a positive case for that kind of north-south partnership.
That is not to sidestep our responsibilities and commitments within the devolved Executive in Northern Ireland. I believe that our highest priority is to tackle division and to do so now.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and to participate in this important debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) made reference to the motion, which has three important principal components that everybody is recognising today. The first is the “significant and positive developments” that have taken place; the second is the challenges that remain; and the third is that this House is committed to the process as we move forward. It is good to see consensus in the Chamber today and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House.
I have always been reticent about participating in Northern Ireland debates. They could be compared with debates on Europe, in which everybody pulls out their old speech, dusts it off and reads it. I am pleased to see that that is no longer the case with Northern Ireland debates. The hon. Member for Belfast South spoke about raising the bar. In each of these debates, we take stock of what has happened and raise the bar even further. That shows the progress that has been made and is being made.
Perhaps I am personally marred by my experience of serving in Northern Ireland in the ’90s. My life was spent in uniform, stopping cars and asking for identity documents. I lived on fortified border checkpoints, in the Strabane and Omagh areas, that would now be more associated with Helmand province. It is pleasing that that world no longer exists and that things have moved on.
I recall two striking events. On one occasion, I went into a newsagents in my uniform and asked for some chewing gum. The lady refused to serve me because she would get a brick through her window if she was seen doing so. On another occasion, I bumped into a friend from university in Strabane while he was coming out of WH Smith. We had not seen each other for a while and he wanted to give me a hug, but he realised that he could not because I was in full uniform. He was a citizen of the area and I was doing my job in uniform, and I thought how mad that dichotomy was within the UK. I am pleased to learn of the advances that have taken place.
There is a huge irony here. All of us travel abroad occasionally. Wherever we are in the world, if we want to have a good drink, make some new friends and feel at home, we end up going to the Irish bar. How different it was when I served in Northern Ireland. I would go away for two or three months on leave, go to Irish bars and then return back to the situation in Northern Ireland. I found that very strange indeed.
As we approach the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, I am pleased by how much progress has been made towards a more cohesive and stable society, as more and more powers are devolved. On security, the watch towers have all but gone and the civil police now lead on security matters. The Army is confined to barracks or has withdrawn completely.
Politically, the Northern Ireland Assembly continues to sit. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said that there had been questions over whether the Assembly would continue to exist. It is there, it works and it is making decisions. It is taking the lead increasingly using its devolved powers. Such is the progress that the UK decided that the G8 summit should take place at Enniskillen.
Economically, Northern Ireland has of course been affected by the global downturn, as have all parts of the UK. However, it is now seen as a place to invest in. Steps are being taken to renew the economy and to rebalance it away from an over-reliance on the public sector.
The tourism industry has been mentioned, and I, too, was going to mention Titanic Belfast, not least because there is a synergy with my constituency. Just down the road from my constituency in Southampton is the other museum that recognises what happened with the Titanic. I believe that the Belfast project cost something like £100 million and about 290,000 visitors a year were expected, but it is now exceeding 800,000 visitors a year. That is a fantastic indication of where the tourism industry as a whole is going. Northern Ireland is now seen as a place to invest, and we must also mention the developing aerospace industry.
Time is short, so I will not repeat the Secretary of State’s comments about the important aspects of the Chancellor’s Budget that will affect Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the country.
It is clear that more needs to be done, and we must not be complacent about the situation in Northern Ireland. There remains a minority who seek to fan the flames of violence, turn the clock back and undo all the good work. Last year there were about 60 shooting incidents and 30 bomb attacks, along with half a dozen or so paramilitary-style attacks including punishment shootings performed on both sides of the sectarian divide. Of course, compared with more than a decade ago when there were more than 600 shooting and bombing incidents annually, progress has absolutely been made, but that shows that the threat level has to remain at severe.
We police by consent in this country and expect the majority of the people to obey the law. We do not live in a police state. Long-term peace will prevail only if all of Northern Ireland condemns acts of terrorism and says that they are not the present or future that we want. We want a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland. Every time a bomb goes off, it deters another investor. Every time another shooting occurs, it deters another visitor or holidaymaker who was considering going to Northern Ireland. We must never forget that.
I welcome the debate and the House’s interest in continuing to examine the issues, challenges and opportunities for Northern Ireland. I am pleased to see the cross-party consensus on how we should move forward. I join others in saying that more must be done to ensure that Northern Ireland builds on its recent successes and strengthens democracy so that it does not turn back to the violence that it experienced in the past.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I, too, welcome the debate. Fifteen years on from the Good Friday agreement, it is timely for us to take the opportunity to reflect on where we are. I thank the shadow Secretary of State and the Labour party for bringing forward the debate. It is evidence of his active interest in Northern Ireland issues, and all of us welcome it. I also thank the Secretary of State for her remarks, and I welcome the fact that throughout what has been a difficult baptism into the Northern Ireland political scene, she has handled herself with great grace and courage. I pay tribute to her for that.
I want to acknowledge at the outset that there has been major progress in Northern Ireland, because we sometimes fail to acknowledge that when we talk about where we are now. Belfast is a transformed city from the one in which I grew up in the ’70s and ’80s, and the contrast between the two cities is stark. I think the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) would recognise that from their own constituencies and the city centre, as I do from mine.
The Good Friday agreement and the St Andrews agreement have moved us on, and the Assembly has given us an opportunity to manage the political differences and start to deliver on the social and economic issues that matter to our constituents. The right hon. Member for Belfast North is right that we should not take that progress for granted, and nor should we treat it lightly or endanger it. However, while that progress has been delivered at least partially at political level, I do not believe that the reconciliation that was hoped for has been delivered. The hon. Member for Belfast South captured something of my personal frustration about that. We have a rigidly consociational model of democracy in Northern Ireland, which was chosen as a means of managing our divisions, but in many ways it has fixed those divisions and given them a permanence that I believe is unhelpful. It has almost incentivised division, and we need to consider that carefully in how we make progress with the Assembly and its structures.
Even politically, where the Assembly has delivered, it has created stability but not necessarily dynamism, agility or flexibility. We all hoped that devolution would bring those things. Our people are patient but frustrated that progress has been slow, even on issues of policy that at first glance appear non-contentious. There is built-in inertia in the system, and reform to make it more nimble would be hugely helpful to us all. Such disaffection with the performance of devolution is a risk to something that I value as a committed devolutionist. The Assembly faces a challenge of making itself valuable for more than merely managing political stalemate and division, and for actually delivering results. That is where the focus needs to be.
Many of us who lived through the troubles will welcome and value at personal level the current peace. A whole generation of young people, however, have not had that experience, and perhaps place less emphasis on the importance of where we are now versus where we used to be. Those without direct, lived experience listen to the history of the troubles, and narratives constructed around that history can endanger it by glamorising or justifying it in terms that allow people who feel they have no stake in current society to think that a return to violence is a way to claim a place in the future. We must deal with such issues in a sensitive way.
I could say many things but I want to reflect briefly on six points that we must consider if we are to realise the potential not only of the agreement and the Assembly, but of Northern Ireland as a whole. Three of those things look backwards and are historical or legacy issues; three look forward—and all are crucial if we are to make progress.
The past is the best place to start, because we must agree a framework to deal with it. Dealing with the past properly, whether in terms of victims, or of commemorations and memorialisation, is hugely important. Lack of a comprehensive approach allows some to peddle partial and skewed narratives that perpetuate misunderstanding and compound hurt, which brings huge attendant risk. All parties to the agreement—both Governments as well as Northern Ireland parties—must address the matter, and I renew my call to the Secretary of State to look at initiating the all-party talks for which we have previously called.
The current process with the Historical Enquiries Team and the series of inquiries—albeit of individual significance—risk producing retrospective narratives that do not correlate with the reality we lived through. I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) who said that we need paramilitaries to engage in an honest discussion. If the full truth is to be told, it cannot simply be about story telling; it must be about truth telling and it must be the whole truth.
Another legacy issue is that of parades. Parades and demonstrations are sensitive and require careful management in a divided society. The right to parade and to free assembly are important and must be protected, but they must be balanced and managed against the right to live free of harassment and intimidation. Current law and legal processes must be respected and supported by all elected representatives. If people have issues with the Parades Commission, the onus is on them to find an agreed alternative process to deal with those issues. That has not been possible to date, but in the interim we must support the rule of law.
The third issue is flags and emblems—a sensitive issue as I think we all recognise, perhaps more today than ever. There are two distinct issues of policy. One concerns the proper display of national flags and symbols of Government, for example on civic and Government buildings, and the other is the use and abuse of flags on street furniture around the Province to create a chill factor in Northern Ireland that is deeply unwelcome and unhelpful. On the first issue, it is currently a zero-sum game. Flags fly in a number of Unionist-controlled councils all the time, but not at all in nationalist-controlled councils. Such a policy fails to recognise that flags are constitutional symbols, and not just tribal banners. I believe that the review of public administration going through the Assembly provides the opportunity to resolve this matter once and for all, rather than forming 11 new councils that will fight the battle one at a time. We should take that opportunity to develop a solution acceptable to everyone.
Displays on public property also need to be addressed. That is illegal under the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, and in those terms should not be permitted. If a parent-teacher association sticks a flag or notice on a lamppost it will be fined, but if someone puts on a balaclava or a mask and puts a flag on a lamppost, they will not be fined. There must be some kind of regular approach to dealing with such things. We have suggested regulation rather than an outright ban to give space to those who wish to demonstrate and display emblems and symbols. However, they should do so with consultation and assurances in place, and the time of such displays should be limited so that no area becomes permanently marked-out territory.
Let me move on to the forward-looking issues. First, and most important, is the economy. If we want a prosperous, stable and peaceful future for Northern Ireland, we must deal with sectarianism, because it puts off three key groups on which our economy will depend: indigenous entrepreneurs, who will go elsewhere; inward investors, who will take their investment elsewhere; and tourists who will take their holiday money elsewhere if we do not resolve these issues.
The economic impact not only of unrest but of ongoing sectarianism on small and medium-sized indigenous local businesses is profound. In the past three to four weeks, I have dealt with businesses in my constituency that have had to wrestle with sectarian workplace disputes and with relocation, because sectarian symbols have dissuaded workers from going to their workplace. Protection rackets run by paramilitary organisations have impacted on businesses, as has the outworking of civil disturbances. Those additional challenges faced by businesses in Northern Ireland are not faced by our competitors. We already have a higher cost base, although I welcome what the Government are doing to reduce it. We are competing on a world stage, and we need to resolve those impediments. That must be done by parties on these Benches, with the assistance of the two Governments.
Those problems disproportionately affect disadvantaged areas—not because they are more sectarian, but because the expression is more visible in those neighbourhoods. That drives jobs out of those areas and accelerates the brain-drain of talented young people from Northern Ireland. We need to deal with that.
To deliver outcomes that achieve social justice, we must work with communities honestly and talk about how we can attract investment to disadvantaged and deprived neighbourhoods. That is a problem for inward investors. As other hon. Members have said, we have performed exceptionally well in attracting investment. If the Government devolved corporation tax, we would perform even better—I could not let that go unsaid, and I am sure other hon. Members agree with me. As the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee has indicated, if the Government dealt with air passenger duty, it would be a huge help.
However, we should bear in mind that the G8 and other high-profile events that help us to promote and build our brand can be undermined instantly if scenes of bomb alerts or civil unrest are broadcast around the world. Inward investment is infected by instability. No one seeking to locate a business in my community comes to talk to me about parades or flags or the past, but they ask, “Is it safe? Is it stable?” All those things feed into the answer to the question.
The same is true of tourism. The Northern Ireland share of tourism is much lower than that in the Republic of Ireland. The entire differential cannot be accounted for by the weather—in Northern Ireland, by “weather”, we generally mean “rain”. Product has been invested in, for which huge credit is to be given to the Northern Ireland Executive and others. Derry city of culture is a fantastic showcase for the quality and diversity of our artistic and cultural offer. In my constituency, we have Titanic Belfast, a celebration of our maritime heritage. It is a world-class tourist centre that is well visited—it celebrates its first anniversary today. There are smaller projects, too. Things such as the Connswater Community Greenway in East Belfast highlights heritage in my constituency as diverse as George Best’s first home, Van Morrison’s old stomping grounds, which are immortalised in his lyrics, and C. S. Lewis’s strong connections to the constituency and that literary heritage. Those are all reasons to stay in East Belfast, to spend in East Belfast and to be part of what we are growing, but with few exceptions people will be wary of travelling to somewhere on holiday that is perceived to be either dangerous or unstable. We need to deal with those issues.
The second future issue is education. We have massive issues with education. We have some excellent schools, which we should celebrate, but we have a long, under-achieving tail. We need to address that educational disadvantage, because it can breed long-term disengagement and disaffection in communities. People believe not only that they are not getting a fair share in education, but that they are impeded in influencing the community around them. We must consider how we educate our young people—we educate them separately, and the people who teach them are also separated. Only 7% of young people are in integrated settings, but 79% of parents say that that would be their choice. We need to consider how we build on that for future generations.
Kate Hoey
Does the hon. Lady therefore welcome the motion passed in the Assembly yesterday? It was supported by all parties bar one, which I will not name. The motion supported getting rid of the exception in employment law allowing discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. The Assembly was united apart from one party.
Naomi Long
I welcome that measure—it is long overdue. That is one way of opening up the teaching profession. Indeed, it means that students could be opened up to people from different backgrounds from their own, which is important.
Finally, there is the issue of shared spaces and shared housing. We need to change the language, away from people simply saying that people choose to live segregated lives, either to an acknowledgement that the threat that makes people choose to live that way is no longer there, and that we will set out to prove that that is the case; or to an acknowledgement that the threat is there and real, that separation is safer, and that we will tackle the forces that are posing a threat, whether they are paramilitaries or others. Shared spaces do not have to be neutral, but they do have to be managed. We have to put effort into ensuring that they are available for the people of Northern Ireland. It is not easy to achieve. My colleague David Ford has worked with groups on issues relating to interfaces, and reducing and opening barriers. We have to build confidence, and get statutory support in place.
Most of the matters I have highlighted are devolved, with the exception of dealing with the past and parades. However, there is a role for the British and Irish Governments as joint custodians of this process, participating in the wider discussion, facilitating and encouraging progress, and supporting the Executive in those areas where agreement can be found.
In recent months, Northern Ireland has found itself staring back into the abyss. We are faced with the choice of going back there again or doing the work now to ensure that that does not happen. We can choose to spend our time poking each other in the eye, or we can try to find a way to treat each other with dignity and respect. I am an optimist. It is not that I think that things are better than they are; I firmly believe that they can be better. That is the challenge to each of us, and we need to show the leadership to fulfil it.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I welcome the debate and thank the shadow Secretary of State for ensuring that it took place. Looking back 20 years, I am absolutely delighted by how my party’s policy on Northern Ireland has changed radically. When I was first elected, one was almost shouted down if one said anything that in any way vaguely implied that one might not want a united Ireland. Our policy used to be that we would persuade people that a united Ireland was their best future. That changed under the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and from then things improved. We got the Belfast agreement and, as everyone has said, things have changed so much in Northern Ireland that, as someone who was born and brought up there and still goes back regularly, I cannot help but see the differences and changes, which are mostly for the best.
I pay tribute to the Prime Minister. “Risk” is the wrong word to use, but he certainly took a big leap by agreeing to have the G8 in Northern Ireland. We do not host the G8 summit that often, so to hold it in a part of the United Kingdom where a lot of people across the world will be saying, “How on earth are we going to go to Northern Ireland?” was a fantastic thing for him to do. I think it will be a wonderful experience for all those people. It may not be such a wonderful experience for any of our colleagues going in and out of Belfast international airport on 16 and 17 June, as I think there will be a lot of security, but there is security at all G8 summits. I think we have to remind people that it will be no different from the security at any G8 anywhere in the world. I welcome the decision to hold the summit in Northern Ireland very much.
There is one area in particular that I shall mention towards the end of my speech. I will be as brief as possible, because I know that my colleagues from Northern Ireland want to speak. I will deal with only a couple of matters.
On the flags issue, it was not as if there were thousands and thousands of people on the streets of Belfast demanding that the flag be taken down from Belfast city hall. We know that this was a Sinn Fein agenda—it is what they have always wanted. The sad thing was that they were given that chance by people who perhaps thought that they were working in the interests of uniting people, and all it has done is divide people.
I am concerned about the Historic Enquiries Team, and hope that the Minister will say something about it. There are real issues that we need to explore: the length of time some of the things are taking and perhaps the way it is being run now. We need to have a detailed look at how that organisation is working. I hope that the Minister will come back to that.
I want to deal today with a crucial, but non-devolved, matter. Northern Ireland has a fantastic heritage of sport, sporting opportunities and sporting people famous all over the world. I need not remind anybody that we have the best golfers in the world or of people such as Mary Peters who have done extremely well at the Olympics over the years. These people have made Northern Ireland known to those involved in sport all over the world. We have some very good young people, yet we are faced with an issue that people do not like to talk about, because they think, “Oh, sport’s not political, so let’s not make it political.” But it is a real issue. In many sports, it is difficult for a young person from a particular community in Northern Ireland who wants to be part of a British team and of the UK ever to compete for a British team, unless they move to England, Wales or Scotland.
Boxing is one example. There are some boxing clubs—probably not many—where young boxers have no desire to box under the tricolour, but they have to because boxing is organised on an all-Ireland basis. The international boxing community recognises all-Ireland boxing, so if someone wants to box for a British team, they have to join a club in England, Scotland or Wales. The Belfast agreement was supposed to ensure parity and enable people to choose whether they felt more Irish or more British, yet in sport it is very much one way. Swimming is another example. Swimming clubs in Northern Ireland cannot affiliate to the Amateur Swimming Association, even though its general secretary would love to have them. They are not allowed to because they have to affiliate to the Irish swimming association, which does not want clubs affiliated to British swimming.
It is the same in tennis. A washing machine powder advert once ran a special offer giving people special help in tennis, but Northern Ireland was excluded because it was not seen as part of the British set-up. I will not repeat the story of the Olympics, but a number of colleagues are concerned that before the next Olympics we find a way of not referring to “Team GB”. It ignores Northern Ireland. There were people from Northern Ireland in the British team in several sports. I am not saying that because I consider Northern Ireland to be a part of the United Kingdom, everyone there must be in a British team, but the House has to ensure that the rights and opportunities of young people who feel British are recognised.
When I was sports Minister, I tried to do something about this matter, but it was even more difficult then because we did not have the agreements. Now we have them, however, there is no reason for the Minister, the Secretary of State or Northern Ireland politicians not to say, “This is wrong.” Every youngster must have the right to choose. Boxing, swimming and tennis clubs should be able to affiliate to British boxing, as well as to Irish boxing, if that is what they want. They might not all want to, but they must have that right. My constituents buy their lottery tickets hoping to help a British team in the Olympics. Some of that money quite rightly helps to fund the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, because it has a team in the Commonwealth games, but some of those youngsters also compete for Ireland against British teams. So we have this ridiculous situation where my constituents are paying for people to have extra training and support to help them win a gold medal instead of a British person.
I find it upsetting that when people who feel strongly in Northern Ireland raise this matter they are accused almost of being sectarian. It is not sectarian for someone to want to be able to compete for the country that is their nationality. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and if someone feels British and they live in Northern Ireland, they should be allowed to do that. I hope that the Minister will refer to that and not just ignore it, as many other Ministers have over the years.
Let me end by saying that I am delighted at the progress in Northern Ireland, but also adding my concern that, although it is easy to talk about the bad old days and the good days now, it does not take an awful lot to go back to some of the things that happened in the bad old days. We have seen some of those and hon. Members have outlined some of the terrible things that have happened. Devolution now applies to many areas, but we in this Parliament should remember that the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, of which I am a member and which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) chairs so well, needs to keep an eye on things in Northern Ireland. We cannot just say, “It’s all finished; it’s all better.” Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Members in this House need to remember that and not be fobbed off by the idea that everything in the garden is rosy over there, because it certainly is not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I inform hon. Members that we have just under 50 minutes left for this debate? There are five Members wishing to catch my eye. If each speaks for nine minutes—nearly 10 minutes each—we should get everybody in comfortably, ready for the shadow Minister and the Minister to wind up.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me reiterate the thanks to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman and the Secretary of State for the way in which the motion was introduced, as well as the terms in which it was introduced. It was not a eulogy to the past or to one political philosophy. That is a mature way to approach things, because we are all good at trying to explain and justify why we are here and how we got to this point, when in fact our job as politicians and leaders in the community is to explain to people and give them hope, to co-ordinate and concentrate on where we are going to take them and to give them a forward-looking agenda. I am delighted that today’s debate has largely been about forward-looking policies and ideas and identity, which is important.
There is no doubt about it: Northern Ireland has changed. The legacy we have inherited has changed from when I grew up, when it was mainly a bloody and difficult politics to grow up in, to now, when it is mainly just a difficult politics to grow up and work in. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is absolutely right: there are difficulties and we should not try to brush them under the carpet, but thankfully they are no longer bloody and difficult problems, but largely just difficult problems. That is an important point.
There have been positive developments. Let me turn briefly to the employment situation in Northern Ireland, which is largely pinned to that in the rest of the United Kingdom, so we are sitting at about 8.5% unemployment. That is slightly higher than the rest of the UK, but it is certainly not as high as in the Republic of Ireland, at almost 15%, or the eurozone in general, at 12%, so there is a clear benefit to continuing with the economic link, which shows that we are stronger together than apart. Jobs have been created in the last term of the Assembly; in fact, 10,244 have been created in the life of the Assembly. That is pretty incredible for Northern Ireland, given the disadvantages and problems, which we are well aware of. Indeed, £500 million of investment from overseas has been secured, and although Northern Ireland represents 2% of the UK population, 7% of all foreign direct investment comes to Northern Ireland. Those statistics on their own are encouraging in helping us to grow, develop and find a way forward.
We are a successful region, but there are obviously difficulties and challenges, and we should look at some of those. It is disappointing that one in four Sinn Fein members still believes that it is okay to murder a Protestant. That is the stark reality—that is what they said last week at their party conference when polled by the Belfast Telegraph—so leadership needs to be shown to bring that community to the point where it is never justifiable to murder for any cause. We need to make that absolutely clear.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Micheál Martin, the leader of Fianna Fáil, when he said that a move towards a border poll would be some sort of “half-baked” gimmick. He was absolutely right, and I am glad that the Secretary of State pinned her colours to the mast today and said that she was not going to waste her time on such a poll. It is welcome to be able to clear that matter up and move on.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) was absolutely correct to identify the hard work that our Select Committee is doing on fuel laundering. I know that he has briefed the Secretary of State on that matter, and I urge her and her office seriously to pursue the issues that he has put before them. They are serious issues, and they demonstrate that there is something really rotten at the heart of things. They must be addressed eagerly and with energy, so that we can put those smugglers out of business once and for all. They are stealing money from the pockets of ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland.
I have already mentioned the issue of corporation tax, and my disappointment that the Government think that a technical matter—namely, Scotland as part of the Union—is preventing us from devolving that power. I really feel that the Government should have addressed this matter much faster. The National Crime Agency has also been mentioned, and it will be disappointing if we do not achieve a level playing field for every citizen of the United Kingdom in that regard. Each of them should be part and parcel of the area in which the NCA deals with the terrible issues such as slavery, prostitution and all the other rackets that go on. It is important that Northern Ireland should have the same standing in that regard.
I want to draw the House’s attention to a full frontal attack on £16 million-worth of salaries in Northern Ireland. I have waited some time for an opportunity to put this matter on the record, and the Government must address it. They are contemplating plain packaging for cigarettes, and they are now indicating that the proposal might be in the Queen’s Speech in a matter of weeks. We need to be absolutely clear about this. According to the response to a freedom of information request, which is in the House of Commons Library, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) was interviewed by Patrick Wintour of The Guardian on or about 28 February. Five days later, on 5 March, an article appeared in that newspaper indicating that the proposal was going to be in the Queen’s Speech. That drove 2.8% off the stock market value of the shares of a manufacturing company in the United Kingdom. The share price has not yet recovered, despite Ministers’ denials that they are going to introduce such a policy on 8 May.
The Government have a duty and a responsibility to defend employment in Northern Ireland. They might not like what is being manufactured, but that industry keeps 1,100 people in jobs in Northern Ireland and puts £60 million directly into the wage economy there. More importantly, it supports tens of thousands of other smaller companies including retail shops and other minor businesses in the locality. The Government have a serious responsibility to stop that full frontal attack on business in Northern Ireland and to address this matter once and for all. I hope that they will not put the proposal into the Queen’s Speech, and that instead they will have a serious look at defending our manufacturing industry in the tobacco sector. They will have a serious problem if they do not do so.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the freedom of information request in the Library is looked at, and to give consideration to an inquiry into whether anyone gained from the drop in share price that occurred in the five days between that interview taking place and the article appearing. Any such inquiry should look into who benefited from that share value drop, as this could be a very serious matter for all those involved in what I think was a deliberate attempt to undermine that business and to adjust share pricing, which has affected business in Northern Ireland.
I shall turn now to two events that summarise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland. I had the sad duty, and honour, of accompanying the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) to the 30-year anniversary of the Ballykelly massacre. When I stood with him in that little church and helped to lay the wreath, I remembered how, as a 16-year-old, I had heard about that awful atrocity and witnessed the pictures of what had happened at the Droppin Well discotheque. It was awful, but it was the signature that appeared in most of our lives as teenagers growing up in Ulster during the ’70s and ’80s.
If we fast forward to last weekend, I spent the day with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). We toured around our constituencies and visited the Coleraine football club and its liaison officer, Andy Alcorn, and the community liaison team. We looked at 600 young people from all across the region—from Magherafelt, Cookstown, Ballymoney, Ballymena, Coleraine, Bushmills and Ballycastle—who came into the heartland of Coleraine. There they were—whether it be the Magherafelt Celtic team or the Carniny football team from Ballymena—working together, playing soccer together and enjoying sport together, even though they were from a divided community. That signifies the hope of what our future might be, as our children grow up in a much more peaceful Ulster than my generation had the chance to do. We therefore have the opportunity to create and to develop the change—not just to hope it happens, but to create it and make sure that it does.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
When I was growing up, Northern Ireland was in the news on an almost daily basis, with reports of the latest bombing or shooting. It felt like a world away, and most people of my generation watched from England with confusion and trepidation about what was happening in a place from which most of us could claim some ancestry.
My mother’s grandfather was from County Tyrone. Like many people from Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland he moved to Port Clarence to work as foreman at Bell’s Steel in Middlesbrough, criss-crossing the top of the Transporter bridge on the River Tees every morning and evening to save himself the cost of using the transporter below. It was in Middlesbrough that he met my grandmother. I thus feel a real sense of pride to speak in today’s debate as a Labour MP, as many of the leading lights of the labour and trade union movement came from the diverse and various communities from across the UK and Europe to find work in my area’s blast furnaces, iron stone pits and chemical factories.
The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has already spoken about the importance we on these Benches place on our relationship with Northern Ireland, and about the attachment many of us feel towards it. Important work still needs to be done to drive the peace process forward, and there is a vital role for Westminster to play. Because the Government have a responsibility to work with the Executive and the Irish Government to keep things moving forward in Northern Ireland, we as MPs also have a part to play in that—and not just within the confines of this Chamber.
The recent heightening of tension in Northern Ireland made me ask what I was doing about what was happening. My assessment is that we should make links with Northern Ireland, and learn and share experiences and practices across a whole range of issues, from health to education, business and the environment. There are many similarities between my own Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency and Northern Ireland, as both have rich rural and industrial conurbations and both have traditional shipbuilding heritages. Unfortunately, too, prior to the 2010 general election, both regions were targeted by the Prime Minister for the hardest public sector cuts.
Parts of Northern Ireland face similar challenges to those faced by my native region of the north-east. As other hon. Members have said, the Government’s economic policies are affecting the whole of the UK. That is why we have put forward a plan for jobs and growth for the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland. We are an interconnected and interdependent United Kingdom. Unemployment and lack of growth in Northern Ireland can only have damaged my region, and vice-versa. If we are to succeed, we must work together. The economy needs action now; there needs to be a plan B.
Our five-point plan for jobs and growth would get the economy moving. We would enable the Executive to bring forward long-term investment projects to get people back to work and to strengthen our economy for the future. After shedding 5,000 jobs in the last two years, Northern Ireland’s construction industry needs that help. We would give a one-year national insurance tax break to every small firm that takes on extra workers, helping to create jobs and grow the local businesses that make up over 90% of Northern Ireland’s private sector. We have urged the Government to reverse their damaging VAT rise for a temporary period to give immediate help to high streets, struggling families and pensioners in cities, towns and villages across Northern Ireland. Reducing VAT on home improvements, repairs and maintenance to 5% would help to create work for our trained men and women and stop them having to move away. We need to build skills through apprenticeships and training that will equip our young people for the future.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with my hon. Friend that for the construction industry a cut to 5% in the rate of VAT is an ideal way of boosting investment in repairs and maintenance. However, it has been argued, in Northern Ireland as well as in my constituency, that there should be a reduction in VAT, at least temporary, to help the tourism and hospitality industry. I know that not much can happen overnight and that we cannot issue too long a list of demands, but does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important issue for Northern Ireland? It has certainly been raised by my constituents.
Tom Blenkinsop
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. A number of Opposition Members have mentioned Northern Ireland’s tourism economy. Northern Ireland has a fantastic record of bringing in foreign direct investment, but it also has a fantastic Province to sell to tourists. That is something of which our nation—the United Kingdom—should take advantage, and a reduction in VAT would certainly help the tourism economy.
Because we know that young people will be the driving force behind further progress in Northern Ireland, Labour would levy a £2 billion tax in bank bonuses to fund a real jobs guarantee that could help 2,000 young people in Northern Ireland to go back to work. As in my constituency, young people are suffering the most as a result of the Government’s economic policies. They are being let down daily by the Government—let down by failed policy after failed policy. The young people I meet are ambitious for themselves and their communities, but they cannot realise those ambitions unless they are given a chance to learn skills, be trained and find jobs. As we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, no job, no hope and no future are no choices at all.
We each have a responsibility to go on working hard to keep Northern Ireland high on the agenda. The Government must play their part by helping to get its economy moving, and devising a real plan for jobs and growth.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I welcome the motion, because I think that the House should remind itself occasionally that the hard-won peace—and political—settlement in Northern Ireland remains very much work in progress, and that, from the perspective of London, there is much more work to be done and more help to be given. I also remind myself that the motion gently invites criticism of those who should be making more progress and doing better—perhaps those who lead the Northern Ireland Executive; perhaps the British Government. However, if I offer criticism in my short speech, it is intended to be of the constructive variety, and I hope that I strike, overall, a positive note.
Northern Ireland has come a long way, from the constant, daily violence of my childhood, to a relative peace and some measure of political stability. However, it is some 15 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, and while people would have expected little more than that relative peace and some measure of political stability in the first, say, five years, there has been growing frustration about the fact that it is taking for ever for us to see the full promised peace dividend. I am thinking particularly of the economic dividend from peace, namely investment and jobs. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) saying that we must move from a peace process to a prosperity process. Where is the prosperity process in which the British Government should be engaging?
Although regionally Northern Ireland has always been a net beneficiary of any Treasury settlement, we here are not the most culpable when it comes to the vital process of economic rebalancing. Although we may have been slow to identify new revenue streams and capital receipts in the north of Ireland, it was the UK Government who reneged on their promise of a £20 billion capital programme which would, in part, have allowed the north to catch up on years of under-investment in productive infrastructure. Perhaps the Minister of State will respond to that point when he winds up.
Again, it was the UK Government who, having held out the prospect, reneged on the question of devolving corporation tax-varying powers to the Northern Ireland Executive, despite the fact that all five Government parties were in favour of it and were prepared to pay for it. I am sure all Northern Ireland Members would welcome an update on that potential economic dividend. Despite some local criticism, our Executive Ministers have put a lot of effort into visiting major, current and emerging economic powers in order to win jobs and investment for Northern Ireland, and they have done so against the challenge of worldwide economic recession, so if I had to apportion responsibility for the Northern Ireland economy failing to meet the expectations of our people, I would not start by blaming the Northern Ireland Executive. However, I do believe significant economic progress is possible—but that must be accompanied by greater political progress.
The Secretary of State herself has linked further economic support, through an economic package and enterprise zones, to greater progress toward a shared future. Although I hesitate to see that as a necessary connection, I agree that we have not done enough in that area. The recent report from the Community Relations Council highlighted that one of the failures of the Northern Ireland Executive was in not doing enough on a policy for cohesion, sharing and integration. We are still a divided society, and we must move towards living together, whether through shared housing or shared neighbourhoods.
There is no alternative to a shared future. Our system of power sharing was not designed so that Unionist Ministers would cater for Unionist citizens and nationalist Ministers would look after nationalists. It was created so that we would share Government in the north of Ireland and act in the interests of everyone. That was the promise and potential of the good Friday agreement, and in many ways it has not been lived up to. While I have commended the Northern Ireland Executive, and in particular the First and Deputy First Ministers, on the genuine efforts they have made to attract investment, they have not distinguished themselves in other areas. On the flags issue, I would hope the DUP could provide the kind of leadership that it has not provided so far, and on the issue of parading, the Unionist forum is not the answer.
I have a question for the Minister—who represents a Government who are co-guarantor with the Irish Government of the Good Friday agreement—about north-south institutions. The Northern Ireland Executive, and in particular the Department of Finance and Personnel, which is led by the DUP, have again dragged their feet over a central project. The Narrow Water bridge project has enormous economic potential, and not only for my constituency where it will be situated. It will be a bridge between Warrenpoint in County Down and Cooley in County Louth, but it will create enormous investment, trade and tourism opportunities for all of the island of Ireland, and especially Northern Ireland. Let us grasp this opportunity and make everybody realise it presents a win-win opportunity.
Sinn Fein cannot have an à la carte approach to supporting the police. It needs to support the police even when they act against criminal suspects who happen to be republicans.
What we need from the First and Deputy First Ministers is real leadership around areas of division. We cannot work effectively at the heart of Government yet be attacking the very institutions—the PSNI, the Parades Commission—that have been set up to deal collectively, and fairly, with divisive issues.
My party above all still retains its belief in the promise and potential of the Good Friday agreement, and we remain committed to a shared future where all the parties do their very best to deliver for all the people of the north, in every area of Government. There is no doubt that devolution needs to work better for all the people of Northern Ireland, and I believe there is a will to do that, so let everybody—all the parties and both Governments—get on with it. I can say that my party is committed to meeting that challenge. I hope others are, too.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, how nice it is to see you back in your position again after your time away. We look forward to seeing much more of you in the Chamber.
As a young man growing up during the troubles, I saw many sides to Northern Ireland. I saw evil people carrying out horrific atrocities. I saw fatherless children and childless parents who had seen loved ones so brutally taken from them. I saw fear in people’s faces and sorrow in their eyes. To sum it up, I too often saw despair. However, on the opposite side of that same coin, I saw the strength of the local communities. I saw the dedication and the sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, of the Ulster Defence Regiment, of the British Army, in defending and upholding right. I saw the togetherness that the troubles often brought, and I saw a hope that we could and would survive this.
Now, many years later, we have come through the troubles, not only surviving but thriving. We are trying to move forward while never forgetting our past, and I feel that this is being achieved. Ulster is in a different place today than it has been in the past. Indeed, the recent Northern Ireland life and times survey shows that only 21% of nationalists show a desire to have a united Ireland. Indeed, in no single group do even a quarter of people want to be part of a united Ireland. It is abundantly clear that there is little desire to see the “green dream” become a reality, and that is good news.
When we take a look at the Irish economy and the fact that, despite our recession, we are in an infinitely preferable situation, it is no wonder that people are stating that the way forward is not to unite with the Republic but to stay within the Union in one way or another. We have listened to calls for border polls, and today the Secretary of State has replied very clearly in relation to the border poll: it is unnecessary, it is costly and it should not happen. That said, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done within the infrastructure, within the business sector, and within communities in Northern Ireland. Those are the three areas that I wish to focus on.
Back home, the Minister for Regional Development is well aware of the needs of my Strangford constituency in relation to roads and infrastructure. Clearly, we need infrastructure. There would not be a day or a week that passes when my staff and myself are not in touch with my local Department for Regional Development office to make complaints about the roads, whether about potholes, claims, or accidents caused by slippery roads. Clearly, my constituency is like others across the whole of Northern Ireland. Just to give a figure, we spend £2,800 per kilometre on road maintenance in Northern Ireland, whereas £12,000 per kilometre is spent in England, and in Wales £7,500. We need improvement in our roads infrastructure, which will attract investment and yield a return in the long run.
Belfast is slowly beginning to attract more outward investment, and it is my belief that we can build on that and bring it into my constituency. The links to the mainland from Belfast are tremendous, with regular flights, boats, and the links that mean anywhere in the Province can be reached within approximately two hours. That is significantly important when it comes to air travel, and to making us accessible for investment and for infrastructure. We have educated young people, eager to work, and those businesses that make the decision to come never regret it.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
We have the international airport in my constituency, and yet we do not have a link to the major hub of Heathrow. Surely that must be put right, and it should be treated as a matter of urgency.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, and I wholeheartedly agree with him that it is something that must be put right. I understand that he and others are working to address that issue.
Our team at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment work hard to promote new business investment and also to support our home-grown businesses. In my constituency we have some of the foremost manufacturing in the world for aerospace, which has been mentioned, and we have room for more. We have John Huddleston Engineering, now Magellan, which has a great potential for Northern Ireland. There are extra jobs, and apprenticeships and opportunity, and that is good news.
Small businesses employ 65% of the private sector work force in Northern Ireland, compared with 62% in Wales, 48% in Scotland and 46% in England. In Northern Ireland small businesses account for a greater proportion of turnover than in the UK as a whole—60% of all private sector turnover in Northern Ireland, as against 46% in Wales, 40% in Scotland and 36% in England, which takes a poor fourth place. Those statistics show just how essential those businesses are to the economy, and those businesses are playing their part for economic recovery.
The question is: can we do more to make it happen? Are we doing enough to encourage businesses and apprenticeships? We have a high level of youth unemployment, although I have seen statistics today that show that there has been a small marginal fall throughout Northern Ireland, and that is good news. What are we doing to provide more jobs for them? We must encourage small businesses and make decisions to create growth in local economies and encourage business investment in our areas, creating employment and spending power.
Time is slipping by and I am conscious that one more Member wishes to speak, so I will make a final point on communities. We have come a long way, but this is not simply because of an agreement to power share, but because of hard work on the ground within the communities. We have some of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom within Northern Ireland. We have many young people who are not working, and this breeds despondency in communities.
I recently visited the Ards campus. More than 300 students are involved in the steps to work programme. All ages are involved and all have job opportunities at the end of that: good news. There is also an initiative for young Protestant males who leave school without qualifications. Local colleges ensure that even after leaving school they can gain qualifications. The South Eastern Regional college, with campuses at Bangor and Ards, has 5,862 students on further education courses, 240 above target, and 2,275 in higher education, against the target of 1,289. There is a big push to see 16 to 24-year-olds with essential skills, further training, and ultimately a job. Good qualifications are important for their CV, and this year 3,000 students will complete their courses. Work is also done with the Prince’s Trust on apprenticeships.
Local community groups work hard within their communities and do great work with women, young people and men in their areas to provide new skills, new qualifications and learning, and this has to be respected and encouraged.
We must address the issue of the flying of the Union flag, which has spread to many communities outside the capital. We very much see the flag as an indication of our foundation and a mark of respect to all those who laid down their lives to protect the inherent freedom that comes through being a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To remove this appeared to be an attack on something we hold dear—our Britishness. This of course provoked a reaction, but the hard work of local representatives and those on the ground stopped the escalation. The vast majority were on the streets peacefully, asking to be listened to in the only way they knew how to, saying that a shared future does not mean an erosion of the identity of the majority to pacify the minority, but respect for each other.
This is a process in Northern Ireland that is ongoing. There is no easy fix. It takes a lot of time and support, and I look to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to see what can be done to lend support to all communities. This can be done in a practical manner by securing the funding for the work to continue in communities, and by coming to visit and listen to the people who struggle to feel of value and worth, and appreciating how far we have come and how many compromises we have made to make this happen.
Few countries have what Northern Ireland has to offer, including business opportunities and unrivalled beauty. The shadow Secretary of State visited my area and said that it was one of the nicest places he had ever been in, even after his own constituency. We have a people whose warmth and friendship belies the pain that they have come through. This must be respected, promoted and encouraged, and Government and Opposition must continue to work together to do even better.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has revealed that the shadow Secretary of State is consistent in his geographic flattery as he tours the various constituencies of Northern Ireland, and no doubt constituencies elsewhere as well. I join others in welcoming the debate and commending the terms of the motion and the way in which it has accommodated a range of contributions on such a number of issues.
Northern Ireland is in a much better place than it was. As Martin Luther King often said,
“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability”.
It took real choices and commitments to bring about such change. It took people standing by some of those choices and commitments in helping to deliver a new beginning to politics and a new beginning to the British-Irish relationship––against the shrill opposition of many––and delivering on the new beginning to policing as well. One party said that it was not needed and another said that it would not happen. Those things had to be delivered so that we could move to the situation that we now have.
When we negotiated the Good Friday agreement, I made the point, in leading the referendum campaign for my party, that it would be a new covenant of honour between the two traditions in Ireland. It would recruit and respect the sense and source of legitimacy of both the Unionist and the nationalist traditions by requiring endorsement by a majority of people in Northern Ireland and by a majority of people in the island as a whole. We would have institutions that would earn and enjoy the allegiance of both traditions and would be legitimate in their eyes because they had respected and recruited their respective senses and sources of legitimacy. Many people doubted that at the time, but that is what we now have.
We now have a settled process, despite the turbulence and the issues we faced. During the first period of devolution, the First Minister and his Ministers were walking around with letters of resignation in their pockets, and we had other parties saying, “Jump out of the Executive now and we’ll jump out with you.” Of course there was instability, but it was not the result of inherent difficulties in the institutions themselves. The strains at that time were the result of difficulties outside the institutions relating to the various positions on decommissioning and reactions to policing changes and, especially, prisoner releases.
In particular, we had difficulties because the two Governments at the time, although guarantors of the agreement, decided that an inclusive process had given us an inclusive agreement but that the way to resolve difficulties of interpretation and implementation was to have an exclusive process focusing on Sinn Fein on the one hand and the Ulster Unionist party on the other. That brought us into a situation in which the institutions were not centre stage in relation to the peace process. The Governments acted as though the institutions were secondary to the peace process.
Thankfully, we are now in a situation in which even here we have a British Government saying clearly that devolution, where it has responsibility, needs to get its act together. I, for one, am glad that we do not have everyone running in and out of Downing street and going to their different party ATMs to try to get goodies and sweeties or whatever. We are being held to the level of our shared responsibility and we need to live up to it an awful lot more, as many Members have said.
I particularly welcome what the shadow Secretary of State said about there still being a need to address the past. I have quoted before the Russian proverb that says, “To dwell in the past is to lose an eye, but to forget the past is to lose both eyes.” We need to address the past properly. I point out to the shadow Secretary of State that if the previous Government had managed to get away with passing the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which he tried whipping through in Committee and in this Chamber, we would be in no position to deal with the past. All sorts of people would have gone to the secret tribunal and got their indemnity certificates, so the only people who might have faced any question about the past would be the relatives of victims who dared speculate that somebody had received such an indemnity or about the crime for which they had received it, because the Bill provided that that was who would go to jail. It would be journalists reporting or speculating on that or victims saying it who would go to jail. It was a horrendous Bill. Thankfully, we created a situation in which Sinn Fein was forced to withdraw its support from what we dubbed the Hain-Adams Bill and it was subsequently dropped. That at least created the space in which we can address the past, and that is what we must do. We, as parties, must stop patronising victims on the one hand and ghettoising them on the other. We have to face up to the past fully, and not just for the victims, but for future generations.
Similarly, hon. Members have mentioned the whole question of flags, symbols and emblems. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) made a point that I have made in this Chamber before. As we arrive at 11 new councils, we must ensure that they are not faced with all sorts of difficulties about flags, emblems or even the very symbols of the councils themselves. Similarly, there will be issues about the naming of properties and sites in their areas and the renaming of older ones. Again, we need a common framework for dealing with those and setting mature and responsible standards, rather than being left in a situation of “what aboutery” in relation to things that go on in different council chambers.
In their own way, the two flags that are cherished by the two traditions in Northern Ireland are, at best, symbols of unity, yet they end up being used as visual aids for sectarianism in a deeply offensive way. Combating that requires political leadership. The Good Friday agreement committed us to providing that shared leadership, but the parties have never got around to delivering it. Similarly, the agreement committed us to a Bill of Rights. I believe that we must achieve progress on the Bill of Rights.
If we achieve a robust and articulate Bill of Rights, we might then see that parties need to rely less on the vetoes and negative features and protections built into the agreement. So long as people do not have the positive protection of a Bill of Rights to hold the Government and their different agencies and Departments to account, parties will rely on the agreement’s remaining negative provisions. I drafted some of them, including the designation paragraph, and I know why I did so—it was in the rules of the talks and had to be in the rules of the institutions that came out of those talks—but it was always our hope that some of those features would prove biodegradable as the environment changed and improved. I am glad that even Sinn Fein now seems to be talking about relaxing some of those provisions.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am sure it is unnecessary to pay tribute to all Members who have spoken in an extraordinarily timely, appropriate and long overdue debate. It is a tradition of this House—it has grown over the years—for the wind-ups of Ministers and shadow Ministers to name-check every single speaker and credit them with the most extraordinary oratorical flourishes. I do not think that that is necessary and will simply concentrate on the finest and best speakers that we have heard this afternoon.
I will start, of course, with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who, as ever, commanded the House and held us in the palm of his hand when he described the economic and cultural renaissance that exists not by coincidence, but by virtue of examples such as the Titanic quarter, which is an extraordinarily interesting place to visit.
The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee ran through its greatest hits. I congratulate him on eschewing the false modesty to which others might have succumbed when he told us about his successes with regard to air passenger duty, corporation tax and fuel laundering. How right he was to avoid excessive modesty. The respect that many of us who have served on the Committee have for him probably grew today.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) made an extremely thoughtful speech, in which he spoke from a position of almost unrivalled authority. I have no doubt that his positive and forward-looking comments will have impressed themselves on all Members.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) made an unusual comment. It is not for me to criticise my betters, which I entirely accept he is, but to refer to hon. and right hon. Members dusting off their speeches and running through their old prejudices on occasions such as these was outrageous, even though one should not criticise an officer. However, we respect him for his contribution and I hope that he will accept that there was no dusting off of stump and set speeches. I think that everything we heard this afternoon was fresh, new and positive and very much in the best traditions of this House.
When the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) spoke about a transformed city, she did so from an unrivalled position of authority. If there is one person in this House who stands as an example of the resilience of the people of Northern Ireland and their refusal to bow to sectarian assault, it is her. She has immense courage and her words resonated throughout the Chamber. When she spoke of the agonies of segregated lives, she described not only a current problem, but a future direction of travel, which we will simply have to address at some stage.
I enjoy it when my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) speaks of sport. She could have mentioned her own remarkable achievements in that area. When I met her and the Sandy Row boxing club the other day, we did not discuss all-Ireland boxing, but we have now been educated on it. Sports groups and organisations in Northern Ireland are providing leadership. Two football teams from slightly different traditions in Belfast—Crusaders and Cliftonville—have for the past two or three years, very quietly and peacefully and without great fanfare, been getting on with cross-community working. I am not sure whether they have ever been given credit on the Floor of the House, but I would like to give credit to the Crus and to Cliftonville for their achievements in that area. I also congratulate the appropriate Members of Parliament for the support that they have given.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) demonstrated yet again, as if reminding was needed, what a superb constituency Member he is. Should there at any stage be the remotest threat to any business, any entrepreneur, any start-up, any lock-up garage, any car boot sale, anything within the environs of glorious, beauteous Ballymena, who will come riding forth on his white charger to protect them but the hon. Member for North Antrim? He referred to tobacco packaging. One would almost think there was a constituency interest there. Now that I come to think about it, I remember that Roy Beggs, when he was a Member of the House, and I visited that factory and I discovered, when the free samples were being given out afterwards, how extraordinarily capacious the poacher’s pocket of Roy Beggs’s ulster could be. That was the large coat that he used to wear. I do not think I have ever in my life seen so many packets of Silk Cut disappear into one garment. Yet again the hon. Member for North Antrim has proved that he is a first-class constituency representative.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). He proved the old adage that if every single President of the United States is entirely Irish, particularly the present one, most Members of the House have some Irish ancestry. The interdependence and the links between our two nations, the shared ancestry, come across as a very important fact that we should never forget, because we are tied together in these islands by ties not just of history, commerce or convenience, but very often of blood, culture and shared history. It was salutary to hear his story of how people came to his constituency from Ireland and made a success, but he has never forgotten where he came from. We need to respect that.
The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to a work in progress. As ever, she brings oratorical flushes and realism in one glorious melange of accuracy. Although her comments were slightly warning, she was optimistic but realistic. That is the reputation that she has. Were we to get into a competition with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the beauty of various constituencies, South Down would be very high on my personal list. I mean to cause no offence to more than 99% of the House when I say that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is, in my opinion, one of the most decent, God-fearing and good-hearted Members of the House. He also has an oratorical skill and the skill of language and poetry. If I could understand what he was saying most of the time, I am sure that I would never forget his words. I did have the advantage of a translator. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, who has spent much time in Strangford, gave me a running commentary.
The hon. Member for Strangford referred to the fear in people’s faces and the sorrow in their eyes. That is poetry, and it is poetry from the heart. It is not an artifice but a genuine poetic instinct and an urge. If I may say so, it is an honour for us to hear that. He also used an expression that we should remember. It is one of the most important things that has been said today. He said that in Northern Ireland people are not only surviving, but thriving. That is something we should certainly remember. He also talked about how people are managing to overcome the difficulties that they face, and he did so with immense courage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), as ever the Pericles of Derry, the man who somehow manages to produce these wondrous verbal confections at which the rest of us simply stand back in amazement, identified an extremely serious point when he spoke about instability. He said that the instability is not to do with the inherent difficulties with the institutions; it is to do with other factors. We need to concentrate on that. As ever, he came up with a glorious expression that we will never forget, when he said that we should not be patronising people, nor ghettoising people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling made one of the best speeches that I have heard on the Floor of this House. It was a speech that was positive and realistic. It contained one line that meant an enormous amount to me: devolution does not mean disengagement. When my hon. Friend made that point, he put down a marker. It was not a party political point, but reflected the attitude of the whole House. That line resonated in what the Secretary of State said and she echoed that emotion.
Anyone who is listening to this debate should be sure of one thing: there is a cool, calm and determined attitude in this House. We have an unbreakable determination that the benefits of the peace process will not be lost. We will not, under any circumstances, go back to the cold, chill days of carnage and slaughter. We will move forward and it will be difficult, but there is an absolute commitment on the part of every single Member of this House, for the sake not just of our united nation or Northern Ireland, but our common humanity, to see this through and not to be beaten. The one message that comes from this afternoon’s debate is that there is a unanimity of view, emotion, strength and determination throughout this Chamber and, dare I say it, this country. If this debate has underlined that one point, we have achieved a great deal this afternoon.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mike Penning)
It is with some trepidation that I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)—that is an unusual thing to call somebody from a party that is so diametrically opposed to my own—because he is such a great orator. Anybody who listened to his speech might not have understood the seriousness of the debate that we are having. However, the tone and humour that he brings to these debates bring us forward. It is a sign of where we are in the process that 18 Members have contributed in the past three hours, and that we have heard a speech that had so much humour and that got the whole House laughing on such a serious matter. I pay tribute to him for that and I look forward to working through the Bill that might come forward in the near future with him in Committee.
I am looking around to see how many Whips and business managers are in the Chamber, because I am about to upset them. This afternoon was the perfect time for this debate. The tone of the debate and the motion were spot on and allowed everybody to contribute. I put it on the record that I think it is wrong that there is not an annual debate on Northern Ireland. My Secretary of State is behind me on that. It should not be down to one party or another to bring it forward. Perhaps that could happen through agreement with the business managers.
The tone of the speech by the shadow Secretary of State was spot on. It is all too easy to make political points, but this is not that sort of debate.
I want to say from the outset that I will not take interventions because I am conscious of the business that is to come after this debate. As the shadow Minister said, it will not be possible to respond to every point that has been raised by the 18 Members who have spoken. However, as always, my officials are listening and when I do not answer a question fully enough or at all, we will write to hon. Members. If more information is needed, we will have a subsequent meeting to discuss those matters.
The Secretary of State reiterated the support of the Government and the House for Northern Ireland and the peace process. The peace process is not stationary or frozen, but is moving forward. Praise has rightly been given to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, including those who have retired with injuries, whom we must not forget, and those who have lost their lives serving this country. We must also remember the prison officers who have lost their lives over the years. One of the saddest things that I have ever attended was the funeral of David Black, with the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State.
Although members of the Army are not patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland, as I did many years ago and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) did in the ’90s, they are acting there in two ways. First, they are there for the purposes of normalisation and are based in their normal bases, free to go where they need to with their families and loved ones and to train unfettered. Also, the boys and girls of our armed forces are going out more and more regularly to devices that are designed to kill. There are also an awful lot of hoax devices, including sophisticated ones. Until they go there and touch them, and do the job that they have been trained for, they do not know that they are hoaxes. I therefore put on record our praise and admiration for our armed forces and their bravery. Many of them have served many tours in Afghanistan doing a similar job, and sadly, they see similar devices in Northern Ireland as in Afghanistan and Iraq. They dedicate their lives to their country and its people.
The members of our Security Service are the forgotten ones at times. We sometimes hear about them in the press, but it is a secret organisation. However, they are important to us in continuing to keep the peace and ensuring that the good guys continue to have good days. We have had some really good days recently when we have picked up devices and picked up people who want to kill. They need to know that they are highly likely to be arrested and go to prison for an awfully long time, and I am sure the House would reiterate that point with me.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) sold Northern Ireland brilliantly. One thing that it has is compassion—there is a welcoming spirit when people arrive. I have found it warm and welcoming, as I know the Secretary of State has. That is why tourism does so well there. It is also because of the open border—people want to visit Ireland, and then they have the facility to come up to Northern Ireland. When I was the Minister responsible for shipping, I was involved in many controversial matters, but also in the Titanic centre and in bringing HMS Caroline to Belfast, which is another great coup. The coups have been such that my wife is insisting that I take her to the Titanic exhibition the next time she is over. I think she also wants to do a bit of shopping in the large shopping mall that is close to it.
The Secretary of State and I are keen to open up Hillsborough castle not only for tourism but for the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland who want to come and see one of this country’s great houses. We are working on that as much as we possibly can.
As we have heard, one great thing that is happening this year is the G8 summit. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister showed bravery in confronting those who were sceptical—there were plenty of them—and saying that if normalisation is to work, it means that when the G8 comes to the United Kingdom it should come to Enniskillen. Having visited, I think it is one of the most beautiful areas of the United Kingdom. It is not quite as nice as the Chilterns, in my constituency, but it is very close. I would not sell myself completely on the matter as the hon. Member for Ealing North did, but I understand where he was coming from. The beauty of Northern Ireland is there for all of us to see.
The Derry/Londonderry City of Culture year is also hugely significant. I went the other day to the organisation’s head office, which is in an old barracks that I know well. Coming in the back way, it still looks like a barracks, but coming in round the other side I saw the transformation that had taken place. I walked across the Peace bridge and had lunch in a wonderful hotel just on the other side, and then walked on the wharves across Butcher’s Gate, which is something that I will remember for the rest of my life. I never thought I would be able to do that, whether I was a Minister or anybody else.
I am conscious that we have other business, so I will conclude. This has been a fantastic debate, and I have not had time to congratulate Mary Peters on the world fire and police games or to talk about boxing, which I know from experience probably has more politics involved in it than what goes on in the Chamber. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the significant and positive developments in Northern Ireland in recent years; acknowledges that challenges remain; and reaffirms its commitment to supporting peace, progress and prosperity in every community.
Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 16 July 2012 relating to the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards shall have effect in the next Session until the day on which the Commission makes its report on standards and culture of the UK banking sector.
That a message be sent to the House of Lords to desire their concurrence.
This motion is to allow the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards to continue its work in the new Session of Parliament, and to give it time to publish its final report on standards and culture in the banking sector. The Commission was established in July last year following the LIBOR rate-setting revelations, and it had a dual remit. First, it was to report on the lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency, conflicts of interest and their implications for regulation and Government policy. Secondly, it was given the role of looking more broadly at standards and culture in the UK banking sector, taking into account regulatory and competitions investigations into the LIBOR rate-setting process.
The Commission reported on the first part of its remit on 21 December last year in its report on banking standards. It has subsequently published three further reports on structural reform of the banking sector, proprietary trading, and the failure of HBOS. Its final report is now awaited, and I understand that it is hoping to report early in the new Session. That would allow its conclusions to be taken into account in the House’s scrutiny of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, which has completed its Committee stage in the House and is awaiting Report.
The motion is required because under the rules of both Houses of Parliament, Joint Committees cease to exist at the end of the Session in which they were established—unless specific provision is made for reporting by a specified date—or when they have reported on the matter entrusted to them. The motion does not specify a particular date by which the Committee must report, in order to provide the Commission with flexibility to complete its work on its own terms.
The motion makes clear that the Commission will cease to exist when it produces its main report. Of course it is important to ensure that change in the banking sector is carried through, both through the Government’s commitment to introduce any necessary amendments to legislation arising out of the Commission’s work, and through appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of progress in the banking sector and its regulation after the Commission ceases. The Government welcome the valuable work the Commission has already done in examining the banking sector, and look forward to the publication of its final report in the near future. I commend the motion to the House.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this—hopefully short—debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, and I congratulate the Banking Commission on its work to date. Its reports so far have won cross-party support, which I am sure is in no small part due to the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie).
There can be no doubt that the Banking Commission’s inquiry into malpractices at HBOS, which received so much merited attention recently, was the direct cause of James Crosby’s correct decision to return his knighthood. However, the success of the Banking Commission should not be measured by whether it generates headlines or compels one or two of the banking executives who caused the financial crash to apologise. It has made—and I am sure it will continue to make—a thoughtful and important contribution to the debate about the future of the UK banking industry.
The Commission’s contribution will be best measured by how Parliament reforms the banking industry. It is therefore disappointing that the Treasury seems intent on pressing ahead with its plans, without awaiting the full conclusions of the Banking Commission’s deliberations. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider their timetable for future legislation to allow the Commission to finish its important work.
I confess that I was not always the most diligent of students, and from time to time I had to ask for an extension to complete my work. The Opposition are clear, however, that that is not the reason for the sensible request for the life of the Commission to be extended. I understand that the Commission has worked tirelessly in recent months, and has met on many occasions a week in order to make progress. We see the short extension into the next Session of Parliament as a sensible and pragmatic step to ensure that the Commission is able to complete its work, and we commend the motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
Does the Deputy Leader of the House wish to respond? I do not think he needs to do so—he has moved the motion. If he is desirous of doing so, he can. He does not appear to be especially desirous. This is decision time! Does the Deputy Leader of the House wish further to favour the House with his thoughts?
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do want to share my thoughts with the House, but they will be pleasingly brief.
I welcome my Opposition counterpart back to the Dispatch Box after his thoughtful contribution to the tributes to Baroness Thatcher. I wish to respond to one of his points. I do not share the pessimism he displayed on the timetable or timing. I am confident that, if the Commission reports promptly, there will be time for its recommendations to be taken fully into account in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
With those brief points, I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
House of Commons Administration Estimate
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That the following new Standing Order be made—
‘Motions and amendments with a financial consequence for the House of Commons Administration Estimate.
(1) Motions which would have a direct consequence of additional expenditure under the House of Commons: Administration Estimate estimated to be £50,000 or more shall not be considered by the House unless a memorandum setting out their expected financial consequences has been made available to the House.
(2) The Accounting Officer shall make such a memorandum available to the House within a reasonable time of a motion to which this Order applies being tabled.
(3)(a) This Order shall also apply to amendments to motions which would have the expenditure consequences set out in paragraph (1), but the absence of such a memorandum shall not prevent the House from considering such an amendment.
(b) In his decision as to the selection of such an amendment, the Speaker shall, in addition to such other considerations as may, in his view, be relevant, take into account whether sufficient time has been available for the House to be provided with adequate information regarding the financial consequences.
(4) The Speaker shall decide whether a motion or amendment falls within the terms of this Order.’.
The motion is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Finance and Services Committee’s first report of this Parliament begins:
“In the current Parliament, we have been seeking to ensure that the House Administration’s financial priorities are determined on a coherent basis by Members of this House, so that the House’s spending meets the needs of the House as a whole”.
Enabling hon. Members as a whole to continue to determine that on a coherent basis is at the heart of the motion.
Earlier in this Session, we had an excellent debate on the savings plan and the medium-term financial strategy, which enabled Members to vote on various aspects of our financial proceedings and to take charge of both the budget and the plans of the administration estimate. I welcomed that move, and I believe it was welcomed by many other Members. That goes to reinforcing the concept and the process by which the finances of the House are dealt with on a coherent basis by Members of the House. The motion is based on the simple proposition that, if the House is making a decision with a significant financial impact on its budget, it should have access to the basic information required on the cost and other financial consequences, so that it can make the decision in a coherent way.
For example, in the past we have had Government proposals to set up Select Committees. Each Select Committee has a considerable cost impact—it is in the order of £500,000 a year. When the Government introduce legislation, we expect them to tell us what the financial impact will be. It therefore seems entirely reasonable that the House should know about such financial impacts. Previously, there has perhaps been an expectation that extra costs could always be accommodated regardless, but in these days when we want to ensure that costs are properly considered, it is right that we have the knowledge to make such decisions.
The proposal was made by the Finance and Services Committee. Before we arrived at the current text, it was discussed by the House of Commons Commission, and discussed on a number of occasions by the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House. The current text is broadly agreed by all in principle. There were a number of doubts about the wording among members of the Procedure Committee, but I hope they have been dealt with in the current text.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether, if this proposal had been in operation two or three years ago, Members of the House would have had any say in the last remaining day switchboard moving to Southampton on 8 May? Anyone phoning the House of Commons, night or day, will be talking to someone based in Southampton, and when I rang in the evening last week—the night switchboard has already moved—the location of Derby Gate was not even known. Would that have been any different? Would we, as Members of Parliament, have had any say?
John Thurso
The hon. Lady has raised this matter tenaciously; indeed, she has raised it with me. The answer is that if the matter were put before the House in a motion, the financial consequence would have to be revealed. If it were not, and was put together by way of the financial plan, the debate such as the one we had last year would have been exactly the place to have raised such a matter. The two things go together, and that is entirely in keeping with allowing Members a say on such things in future.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
One potential consequence of the Standing Order would be that, if the accounting officer so wished, he could decline to put the financial details into the House domain and therefore the debate on the motion could not happen. What does the hon. Gentleman understand “a reasonable time frame” to mean—a day, a week, five years?
John Thurso
I am blessed by the fact that I would never have to make the decision; it would be a decision for Mr Speaker and his advisers. As we all know, the Speaker is always right. Therefore, whatever decision he made would be both reasonable and appropriate. It was written deliberately in such a way that the final word is with the Chair for precisely the reason that if something came up where an exception were needed, it could be dealt with. That is very important.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
May I confirm that the absence of a financial memorandum would not necessarily mean that a debate would be denied?
John Thurso
It is my understanding that a financial memorandum would be expected, and there are a number of occasions where it could be short and simple. If a circumstance arose in which a financial memorandum could not be prepared, it would be in the hands of Mr Speaker to make a decision. That is my understanding. If I have got that wrong, and there is a small percentage chance that that is the case, I will certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The effect of the Standing Order would be to require the accounting officer to provide a memorandum for any expenditure of more than £50,000 to the administration estimate. An example of such a motion, as I mentioned earlier, would be a proposal to establish a Select Committee. The Standing Order would also require a memorandum to be provided in respect of an amendment to a motion, if it would have a similar financial impact. As less notice might be given of an amendment, the absence of a memorandum would not necessarily prevent it from being debated, but the Speaker might take that factor into account in his selection of amendments. I therefore suggest, in partially addressing my previous answer, that there would nearly always be time for a motion, but the Chair may take a view where amendments are tabled. That is the most likely consequence.
This is a very small, but important change. It follows the principle that our decisions should be coherent and based on facts, so that we can make a measured judgment, and in the hands of the Members of this House. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box so quickly. I welcome the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) to his place. He probably regrets deeply having moved on to DEFRA and not having an opportunity to respond to this exciting and important debate.
The Opposition believe in fully informed decision making, and I say that not just because my deputy Chief Whip is sitting next to me. We see this as a sensible and pragmatic move forward. It is obviously correct that Members be given as much information as possible about the financial consequences of House decisions.
I congratulate the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on his persuasive powers in getting this tabled for debate today. It has cross-party support and has been signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Leader of the House. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the Deputy Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who represents the Commission. We have just had a good short debate about the Banking Commission. In the spirit of informing the House, perhaps it would be appropriate for the Deputy Leader of the House to give an estimate of how much the Banking Commission has cost so far and of what it will run to in the next Session. If he does not have it to hand, I am sure he can write to me.
The Deputy Leader of the House will also be aware that this is the first of many Committee reports that will require the House’s attention. By my count, there are currently five more Procedure Committee reports, including on such things as e-petitions and how we elect the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Will he give us some indication of when they will be taken? I hope he will not say “soon”. I hope for something slightly more substantive than that.
Finally, I have a quick question for the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. The House will have seen yesterday that the Procedure Committee published a commendable report on the debating of e-petitions. It has estimated that the cost of making Westminster Hall available on Monday between 4.30 pm and 7.30 pm for the debating of e-petitions that get 100,000 signatures would be between £11,000 and £100,000, depending on the number of e-petitions. Given that the lowest estimate would fall below the £50,000 threshold, will he clarify whether he intends all such motions brought before the House to come with cost estimates?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House. It has been on the Order Paper for some considerable time, and it is good that the House now has the opportunity to consider it.
The motion arises out of the work of the Finance and Services Committee. The reasoning behind it and the process undertaken in coming to this solution have been expertly outlined by its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I am grateful to him and the rest of the Committee, which conducts important work on behalf of the House, for their constructive approach in seeking the agreement of the House of Commons Commission and working collaboratively with the Procedure Committee in reaching this solution.
As right hon. and hon. Members will see from the Order Paper, both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House have signified their support for the motion by adding their names to it. The proposed Standing Order addresses the issue that at any time the House can pass a motion that adds costs to the administration budget. As the Finance and Services Committee recognised in its report, that is not a creditable way for the finances of a major public body to be run. The proposed Standing Order will not prevent the House either from debating the motions it wants to debate or from making the decisions it wants to make, but it will ensure that decisions are made on the basis of access to basic information about the financial consequences of those decisions. The House has rightly set itself the target of reducing the administration estimate, so it is a matter of good governance that the attached Standing Order be approved to support the House in that aim.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) asked me a couple of questions. First, I can assure him that at an appropriate point the full costs of the Banking Commission will be confirmed, but I am not in a position to do that now. Secondly, he has rightly pointed out that there are other matters relating to the work of the Procedure Committee that could usefully be discussed—under Remaining Orders, for instance—and to which he has put his name. He will be pleased to hear, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has discussed with the Procedure Committee’s Chair the priority placed on the different motions. I hope that the House will get the chance to resolve these issues—I will not say “soon”—without undue delay. I am happy to support the motion on the Order Paper.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Upland Sheep Farmers
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
A few weeks ago, an unusually late and heavy snowfall, accompanied by extensive drifting in the uplands of Wales and other areas of Britain, hit the farming industry and visited disastrous consequences on sheep farmers in all those hill areas. There were dramatic, heartbreaking reports in the media of farmers digging sheep out from under 10-foot drifts of snow—many of the sheep were obviously near death—and the despair of knowing that hundreds more sheep were dying under the snow.
Today the snow has gone. It was a lovely sunny morning as I walked over Westminster bridge today. The images of despair have disappeared from our screens. As the world continues on its way, those images have inevitably disappeared from the minds of most of the British people, but they have not disappeared from my mind, probably because I was an upland sheep farmer for most of my life.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. Given the 22% fall in lamb prices last year and the fact that, as he rightly points out, this year’s unseasonal snowfall has made the situation acute, is there not a duty on the processors and the large retailers to pay a fair price for this produce?
Glyn Davies
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman, although today I will try to avoid dealing with some of the consequential commercial issues relating to the current position. What I want to address—I will come to this—is what I see as the disconnect between hill sheep farming today and what the wider general population thinks. If I can, I will keep away altogether from what might be deemed to be political issues, where there might be divisions of views.
The impact of the recent snowfall on the sheep-farming uplands remains, despite the snow having gone. It has not gone away with the snow. Today it is not about digging out sheep from under snowdrifts; it is more about collecting and disposing of the dead bodies of sheep and planning how to put businesses back together. I am probably one of few MPs—I might not be the only one—who has been out digging sheep out from under 10-foot snowdrifts. I particularly remember 1963, when the United Kingdom experienced far more snow and far colder conditions, and for much longer than this year. I was a teenager working on the family farm when the drifting snow buried hundreds of our sheep as they sheltered near walls and hedges. My father and I spent days searching under the snow for them. It was heartbreaking work. Most heartbreaking of all was having to stop at nightfall, knowing that there were still hundreds of sheep asphyxiating beneath our feet.
What was particularly devastating about the recent snowfall was that it was so late in the year. In 1963, the snow fell on Boxing day and lasted until early March, but this year it fell at the end of March, which is the traditional lambing season in the uplands. As the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) has pointed out, the sheep sector was already facing what the Prince’s Trust called a “perfect storm” of negative influences in March. I shall not go into all the details, but the upland sheep farmers were already facing severe problems, and the impact of what has happened has been devastating.
I want to make it clear why I have sought today’s debate. Initially, I had not intended to make any public comment. Agriculture in my constituency is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. Naturally, I was in conversation with friends and members of the farming unions about what had happened, and at first I was heartened by the fact that the Welsh Government Minister had arranged to come to Montgomeryshire to meet local farmers and union leaders. However, when farmers contacted me after the meeting, I was horrified by the Minister’s approach, which had been totally unsympathetic and dismissive. Everyone was deeply upset by that.
I felt that that was unacceptable, and I discussed the matter with the Assembly Member colleague in Montgomeryshire, Russell George. Together, we set about seeking to change the tone of the debate. I posted my thoughts on my blog, “A View from Rural Wales”, which had quite an impact, and resolved to seek a debate in this House as soon as Parliament returned from the Easter recess. My Assembly colleague raised an urgent question in the Welsh Assembly. For whatever reason, the Welsh Government Minister responded with a far more sympathetic approach, and made a realistic and positive statement. I congratulate him on that. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) also published a statement here last Thursday, and again it was realistic and positive. So the terms of the debate have changed to some extent. It is clear to me that both Parliaments, in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster, now recognise the scale of the disaster that has struck upland sheep farmers.
I should also make it clear that I am not calling for more compensation or more subsidy for sheep farmers. Some might wish to do that, but I do not want to do so today. There will be other debates about agricultural support, and in particular about how British agriculture can remain competitive with the subsidised agricultural systems across the European Union. There might be an occasion for a debate in Wales about the controversial issue of hill farming subsidies, but I do not want to deal with those matters now. My aim today is to address what seems to be a growing disconnect between the business and tradition of farming in the uplands and the rest of the population.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I am glad that we are having this debate today. What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the level of support given to farmers in other parts of the UK, given that agriculture is a devolved matter? I have seen correspondence from representatives of various countryside organisations in Wales pointing out to the Minister in Cardiff that there are advantages to be had in other parts of the UK. What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the situation?
Glyn Davies
I have not made such an assessment. I have seen two of the statements, but I have not looked at what has happened in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. I know that there are differences, however, and it is inevitable that they will be pointed out. At one stage, I thought that I might do that today, but I specifically decided against it because it would inevitably have led to the kind of debate that I did not want. I am probably a bit unusual in that I did not want a debate with a great deal of confrontation. Instead, I want to highlight the issue so that people can understand what has happened.
I want to say something about the sort of things that happened when the snow fell and re-formed itself into huge drifts. Yesterday, in a sort of surgery, I talked to union leaders and upland farmers at Welshpool livestock market. I spoke to one farmer who had just sent 72 dead sheep away in a lorry. He had also picked up another 72 dead sheep and they were awaiting collection. That illustrates the scale of what is happening. To make a terrible situation worse, he will have to pay several thousand pounds to have them taken away. That is not an uncommon experience.
On Sunday night, I switched the television on and watched the excellent Adam Henson covering the scale of the deaths on “Countryfile”. I caught the latter part of the debate. There was a large pile of carcases in the corner of the yard, but it was noticeable that the image was blurred to accommodate the sensitivity of the viewers. It was felt that they should not have to see all those dead sheep piled up like that. However, the vision of piles of dead sheep is not blurred for the owners of the dead sheep. For them, it is all too real. If people are to understand the impact, they need to know what is happening.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very timely debate. From experience, he will understand the horror that happened in Northern Ireland when 20,000 dead animals were buried beneath the snow. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that many of these farmers are heartbroken, not only because of the death of the sheep but because of what it meant for their future as well as their past.
Glyn Davies
That was the very point I was coming to.
I spoke to another farmer who came to see me with his wife yesterday, desperately worried about how his family business was going to survive. Normally, his flock produces 340 lambs to sell in the autumn. This year, he will have but 120, and some of those will have to be retained as replacement stock. The only chance of survival will be from off-farm income, and so many others are in the same position right across Britain.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on an extremely important subject. From what I hear from my sheep farmers in Teesdale, I know that they face similar issues. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the media coverage. It seems to me that we have heard endless news from the United States over the last fortnight, but extremely little coverage of this problem. I hope that his excellent speech will be heard beyond “Farming Today”.
Glyn Davies
I certainly agree with that intervention, and I share the hon. Lady’s hopes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so gracious in giving way. One issue brought to our attention in Northern Ireland—the same will be true of Wales, too—is the fact that building up all the pedigrees of some of these sheep herds can take 10 or 20 years, which makes them quite expensive. To lose them all in one go is a tremendous tragedy for the families concerned. Does that underline the fact that there must be help from both the Government and the Welsh Assembly?
Glyn Davies
The point about losing whole flocks is an important one, in view of the breeding that has gone into them. I know from my experience when I was actively sheep farming that one particular line in the flock could be hugely valued. Along that particular line, it was possible to get to know the sheep as individuals. When all those sheep are just suddenly taken, it is devastating.
This is such a wide-ranging debate and I could have picked a thousand different aspects to discuss, but I want briefly to cover two further aspects and I ask the Minister to help me on one point of clarity. First, there is the emotional impact of what has happened. Working with livestock is not the same as working in other forms of industry. Animals are living creatures and farmers, in a funny sort of way, get to know them as individuals. My flock comprised about 1,000 sheep, but there were lots of individuals among them whom I got to know. It is not the same as producing widgets, for example, because it is dealing with living animals.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland that was badly affected by the snow. Many upland farmers in the Mournes and in Slieve Croob were affected. I travelled through tunnels of snow to visit those farmers, and on one particular farm, I saw about 29 ewes and lambs lying under a tarpaulin. When that was pulled back, I could see that they were all dead. I also noticed collapsed livestock sheds. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because of the bond between the farmer and his sheep, we need a particular taskforce to deal with the restoration and renewal of upland farms for upland farmers?
Glyn Davies
Again, I agree with that intervention and I feel certain that the agriculture departments in the three devolved countries and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be doing that very thing. I certainly hope so; perhaps the Minister will address that point in his response.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
My hon. Friend is very generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that we need to put this issue in the much broader context of the very difficult time that sheep farmers are having in general? Across the Bailey and Bewcastle valleys in my constituency, there have been two years of horror with poached soil, fluke and the snow coming at the end of that. If we are to retain the fabric of small farms, which I think we would all like to do, we really need to think over the next two to three years of what kind of measures can be put in place—apart from the particular issue of snow—to preserve small farming for the future.
Glyn Davies
That is a very good point. Earlier I mentioned the description by the Prince’s Trust of the circumstances that we were experiencing before the snowfall. A number of elements, connected with the weather, the Schmallenberg disease and other issues, had combined to put the sheep in a very difficult position. The businesses of the farmers who were hit by the huge snowfall, however, have been put under real threat.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the issue of the plight of sheep farmers; my Pennine constituency was also badly hit by the snow. Does he agree, however, that sheep farmers were already struggling because a wet summer had reduced the quality of hay feed? Some of them told me that they were having to rely on sheep nuts and sugar beet shreds, both of which cost about £7 a bag. They were already challenged by the financial cost of making up for a very wet summer before the snow hit.
Glyn Davies
I agree, and I was interested by my hon. Friend’s reference to sheep nuts. Lorries have not been able to deliver them, and everyone else wants them to feed to their cattle. A huge shortage of food has made a disastrous position even worse.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, to which he brings considerable experience. As well as the problems caused by energy and food costs, there is the problem that many small businesses were encouraged to diversify into tourism, which has also been affected by last year’s long periods of adverse weather. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a special review of the situation, covering not just agriculture but tourism and other aspects of the rural environment?
Glyn Davies
I do agree. I contemplated the possibility of expanding the debate to include other businesses—and, while tourism is the obvious example, other businesses will have been affected—but decided that that would weaken the thrust of the point I wanted to make. I do not seek in any way to belittle the issue, but I wanted to concentrate on something else today.
Most of the livestock that we are discussing would eventually have been sent to an abattoir. Strangely, that is accepted among farmers as being the natural order of things, but what happened in this instance was not the natural order, and it has been hugely stressful.
During the most recent foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, I was Chair of the National Assembly’s Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee. For several months, I spent most days—and it often continued late into the night, until the early hours of the morning—talking to people in distress who were unable to cope with the fact that all their animals, many of them prized animals, were being put down and burnt as a consequence of contact with the disease. Interestingly—I say that it was interesting now, but it was tragic then—it was not the farmers who were ringing me, but their wives and parents, who were deeply worried about the men. It is mostly men who work in that industry. Livestock farming is a lonesome life, and those wives and parents were hugely worried about the mental state of the farmers and about what they might do. Indeed, the tragedy is that some of them did the very worst.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the Welsh Minister, Alun Davies, has asked the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution to tackle the problem? The institution can speak to farmers and their families individually, and offer them the support to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Glyn Davies
I was not going to make that point myself, and I thank the hon. Lady for making it. I am very pleased that the Welsh Government have given half a million pounds to charities that are in a position to identify and support those who are suffering from stress. They can do that better than a Government could ever do it. Although I was disappointed by the approach taken in the first three or four days, I think that the Minister’s response since then has been entirely positive, and I congratulate him on it.
The fact that animals have died under the snow is not the only issue, although that has received a lot of attention. There are also the issues of the other animals that have died, the loss of the grass that has been killed off by the snow and the consequent widespread shortage of feed.
Many people who do not understand hill farming do not understand that hill ewes will not readily take to artificial feed, as lowland breeds do. There will be heavy losses from snow fever and twin lamb disease, and as a result of animals that simply will not eat feed when their natural grass has gone. Huge numbers of animals will be dying from mineral deficiencies. The inevitable shortage of milk will result in lambs succumbing to illness and dying, too. They will be crushed into confined spaces, where there is much greater incidence of disease. Lambs will die in large numbers of joint ill and infectious scour, which can go straight through a flock. I remember when I had my whole flock in as a result of adverse weather conditions, but I had to turn them out into the snow, because disease arises when the animals are crammed into small spaces. Hill farmers are not used to that. They are geared up to lambing in April and lambing out. All of this adds to the direct losses from snow.
The Governments in Cardiff Bay and Westminster have responded with statements, both of which are positive and hugely welcome. I want to inject that positive note into this debate.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the concept of cynefin—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) tells me that the word in English is hefting. There will be difficulties and costs involved in replacing these sheep. This will not be a one-off incident; the effects will be felt for many years.
Glyn Davies
I entirely agree. I remember that when foot and mouth disease spread on to the Brecon Beacons, huge flocks were lost, and were lost for ever.
Most of the farmers I have spoken to are unsure what to do with their dead animals, of which they have large numbers. Normally, they would have them collected, at considerable cost, and taken away to be incinerated, but the National Fallen Stock Company could not reach the farms because of the snow and the farmers were told by the Welsh Assembly Minister that he was considering a derogation from the relevant EU regulation to allow farmers to bury dead animals on their farms. My understanding, however, is that that derogation is a matter for local government and that there was no requirement for farmers to wait for an announcement from the Welsh Minister. All that was needed was an agreement with the relevant local authority. That situation seems odd and I find it confusing. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for securing this timely and important debate. It is also good to have so many colleagues present, expressing their concerns about the communities in their areas. We have heard from Members representing at least three of the nations of the United Kingdom. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) from Wales. From Northern Ireland, we have heard from the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie). From England, we have heard from the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney).
They all expressed the point of view of their constituents: a sense of horror at what has happened and a sense of the need to do everything we can to support a very vulnerable group of people and a vulnerable industry, because the last few weeks have been a disaster for many farmers in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. To experience such severe spring snowfall is almost unprecedented. We have never seen 10-ft drifts this late in the year. The point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was making, and others were reflecting, is that it hit some of our most economically vulnerable farmers at their busiest time, with the lambing season in full swing. No wonder there are people who are experiencing genuine trauma as a consequence.
As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, in the past few days the weather has improved, but when I visited Cumbria recently I saw a lot of snow still lying in the affected areas. Until that clears, which may take a considerable time in the highest areas, we will not be able to quantify the damage fully, but we know that in some individual cases it will be enormous.
I should stress that this problem is very geographically limited. There are some farms next to each other, one of which has been devastated and the next hardly touched. It is remarkable that some farms were very deeply affected and others were not. But for those that are affected there will be, as we already know, many thousands of dead sheep and lambs. As the hon. Member for Arfon said, although he said it in Welsh and I shall not attempt to do the same, a lot of those will be hefted sheep. They have been bred for generations on some of the roughest, highest, most isolated parts of the fells and uplands, and the loss of those animals only adds to the weight of the blow. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire told the House, he has had first-hand experience of the emotional trauma and the financial pain caused by losses on that scale.
I visited the north-west of England 10 days ago, to see the damage for myself. It was deeply shocking to see the effect on individual farmers. There is a real sense of devastation and there are people with massive worries about the future.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
That position was compounded by another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) made, about the burial arrangements and whether the EU burial regulations are robust enough to deal with those very exceptional circumstances. What is the Minister’s view on that?
Mr Heath
I will return to that, if I may, in just a moment.
I met farmers who have lived their entire lives in the uplands. These are not soft people. These are not weak people. These are some of the strongest, hardest men and women that you would care to meet in this country. They were feeling quite clearly devastated by the position they now find themselves in. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows, I was in Northern Ireland a few days ago as well, just talking to people about their experiences there—not my responsibility, as he will appreciate, in terms of the devolved settlement—and I heard exactly the same stories; exactly the same pain was being felt.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. The Minister is quite right that a lot of the effect of the snow was very local. Certainly in the Radnor forest in my constituency it was particularly difficult. I want to make the point that the whole sheep industry has suffered a very long period of very severe weather, which has left a lot of those ewes very weak going into lambing, so it is not just the people that have been affected by snow but almost the whole of the sheep industry that has had a very difficult time.
Mr Heath
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In those extreme conditions of very heavy snowfall, with violent winds—in Cumbria, violent easterly winds coming in off the sea and causing the drifting—the sheep did what sheep do, which is to turn their backs to the wind and walk, and they found themselves trapped against walls or obstacles or under drifts. But what compounded that was that our sheep flocks, sadly, are not in good condition—because of the weather, because of events over many months now, because of the fact that, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, fluke is a real problem at the moment. Many issues have come together in a concatenation that is causing the difficulties that many of our livestock farmers face.
Jim Shannon
It was a pleasure to have the Minister in my constituency last week so that he could hear at first hand from the farmers in the area what the issues were. He will have heard from the farmers, but also from elected representatives from the Assembly, from Members of Parliament and from Members of the European Parliament, what measures the Northern Ireland Assembly had taken to help to address some of the issues for the farmers in Northern Ireland. Will he be able to use those examples to help other regional bodies, such as the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament?
Mr Heath
It is important that we all learn from one another. The answers will not be the same in every part of the United Kingdom, and the proportional scale of difficulties will be different. We must listen to what each other are doing and hopefully come towards the right solution, but also listen to what the farmers themselves in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are telling us. Certainly that is what I wanted to do with regard to England. I cannot speak for what happened in Northern Ireland and say whether it was the right solution, and similarly for Wales. I can see what has been done, but it seemed to me that my responsibility was to listen to the farmers and their representatives in England, and to do what they asked me to do so far as I could, in order to mitigate the difficulties that farmers were facing.
Helen Goodman
My constituent, John Warren, has specifically asked me to raise this point with the Minister. He is concerned that in Scotland the National Fallen Stock Company was used to distribute state aid. He asked me to urge the Minister not to go down the same route in England. He was concerned that if he did, the aid would not necessarily reach the right farmers and the farmers who had been most severely affected. He asked if a more direct mechanism might be used for distributing the aid that will be consequent on the losses due to the bad weather.
Mr Heath
I will come back to that point in a moment if I may, but the most important thing is that we reach those farmers who are severely affected, irrespective of whether they are registered with the National Fallen Stock Company. I want to make that absolutely clear, and I hope that that will help the hon. Lady’s constituent.
I want to put on record how grateful I am to the local NFU in Cumbria and the farmers themselves. I will mention Alistair Mackintosh and Robin Jenkinson in Corney Fell who gave their time to explain the consequences to me and to help me to understand what they were up against. I strongly feel that as a Minister one of the best ways to respond to a problem of this kind is simply to talk to people and see for oneself, and then, I hope, take the appropriate decisions.
I also want to put on record the strong impression that I had in Cumbria that the farming community and the wider rural community have responded in a positive and big way. A lot of mutual support went on and continues to go on. People helped one another, and farmers who were not affected searched for sheep on their neighbours’ holdings when they realised that they were in trouble. That is the country way and it is what we expect, but it was happening.
People who were not connected with farming also lent their support. I will mention one group of people, an organisation that occasionally we have differences of opinion with. It was pointed out to me how profoundly helpful the RSPCA officers in the area had been, lending a hand and getting stuck in, not in strict pursuance of their duties as RSPCA officers but because they cared about the animals and the farmers and wanted to do their bit.
I will also mention the banks, because they almost universally get a bad press. It was pointed out to me how helpful HSBC has been in the area and how it has gone out of its way and bent over backwards to offer local farmers support at a time when they desperately need it. I do not know whether that was universal and whether other banks followed suit, but it is important to put it on the record when people help and are prepared to be supportive.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. There has been a lot of talk about sheep, but I hope that the Minister also recognises that the dairy industry has been significantly affected. In some cases, cattle condition and milk yields have gone down as a result of the weather, so perhaps the banks and the companies that—
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that I understand that his intention is good, and why he wants to draw a parallel, but I am afraid that it is not relevant. We are on sheep farmers and we must stick to that, not start to stray into other matters, which he has done.
Mr Heath
Of course, I am happy to take your guidance on that, Mr Speaker. I will say that in the parts of the country I visited the casualties, almost exclusively, were sheep. It was the sheep flocks that were devastated, although of course other livestock are affected in such extreme circumstances.
I also want to say—this point was made by the hon. Member for Llanelli—that charities are playing a crucial role in supporting those in real hardship, sometimes simply by acting as a compassionate friend, which is exactly what is needed by people who often lead very isolated lives. Sometimes they just need a shoulder to lean on, and I think that it is extremely important that the charities provide that.
I have received many hundreds of e-mails and letters from individual members of the public who want to support the farmers affected through donations, directly with a pick and shovel, or in the supermarkets by buying British lamb. That is a message I want to get across: one thing that every single person can do to support the British sheep meat industry, wherever they live in the country, is go out and ask the supermarkets for British lamb. I hope that is recognised as one of the most powerful things they can do. Retailers—this is something the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said—can play a part in that, not only through the price of meat, but by highlighting the quality of British lamb and sheep meat.
Albert Owen
The Minister is absolutely right that we should be buying British lamb, and Welsh lamb, as a priority—[Interruption.] It is British, of course. Has he or his Department contacted other national Governments and Assemblies in this country to assess the impact the adverse weather has had on the sheep industry and other food industries and on the price for the consumer in the United Kingdom?
Mr Heath
As I think I said earlier, it is actually quite difficult to assess the impact now, but of course we will continue that dialogue with the devolved Administrations. At the moment, we are still effectively dealing with an emergency situation. Many factors affect the price of meat, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but it is an assessment that we need to make, and I am happy to work with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to do that.
Albert Owen
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I understand that this is a crisis and that it takes time to assess it, but as we have discussed in the debate, a number of adverse weather conditions have impacted on the industry. Will he, working with the other Assemblies in the United Kingdom, conduct a proper assessment of the impact on food prices now, and not just for this crisis, but for previous adverse weather impacts?
Mr Heath
As the hon. Gentleman says, there is the cumulative effect of a number of things. To be perfectly honest, this particular event, devastating though it has been for a significant number of farmers, but luckily not so many, will not in itself have a real effect on food prices, but I think that, in a wider context, what we have experienced over the past six to nine months will. We must also look at the effect that imports from other countries might be having, particularly on the price of British lamb—I will persist in saying British lamb, because I am the Minister responsible for agriculture in England as well as in the UK.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Is the Minister considering the issue of derogation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), and should the Prime Minister not be addressing this in his review of the European Union? Should not we in this country be able to make a decision at a local level about how farmers get rid of their stock?
Rory Stewart
Derogations have been important, not just for livestock disposal, but for the use of red diesel and the working time directive, and farmers in Cumbria and across the country have been grateful for the flexibility shown by the Government in all those derogations.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and perhaps this is an opportune time for me to set out some of the things we have done. I will not pretend that any of them provide the complete answer, but I hope that they have been of help. As he said, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has, as we have done previously, allowed farmers to use red diesel in their tractors to help grit and clear snow from public roads. That has been important in getting access to some areas. Without that derogation, I think it would be impossible to reach some isolated communities.
Importantly, we have also secured a temporary relaxation of the enforcement of the European Union drivers’ working hours, in order to ensure that essential supplies of animal feed deliveries have been able to get through. That is crucial for farmers who did not expect their sheep to need to be fed—that is despite the palatability or otherwise, and I entirely understand the point about how difficult it is to persuade a mountain sheep to suddenly switch to sheep nuts, but better that than the alternative, and it is important that those feed supplies get through.
We have also worked closely with the National Fallen Stock Company to arrange the best possible terms for the collection of dead animals. One of the most striking things is that every farmer has casualty animals and needs to call somebody to take away the carcases. Some have skips full of 50, 60 or 70 dead animals and the cost of disposing of them individually would have mounted up and become unsupportable. It is important, therefore, that the cheapest possible bulk terms were negotiated at an early stage with the NFSC.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others mentioned the rules for the burning or burial of livestock on farms. The rules for the disposal of carcasses are governed by the European Union’s Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, which make it illegal, normally, to dispose of a carcass on-farm. However, a specific derogation in those regulations that the UK has authorised and continues to authorise allows for the on-farm disposal of carcasses if the conditions are too difficult to get them to a collection vehicle. That applies in a number of circumstances. I reminded local authorities, who can prosecute if they believe that there has been an infringement of those regulations, that they have the capacity to take into account the individual circumstances under the derogation, and that they should apply maximum flexibility in the affected areas. I am very happy that they were able to do that. I understand that precisely that provision was also used in Wales in order to provide for the local authorities there. The local authorities had the power to do so; we simply reminded them that they had that power, because it was important.
That has been helpful for some farmers, but not for all. What struck me in Cumbria was that on some high fell farms there was no way that an animal could be buried on that sort of terrain. I can perfectly well understand the strength of feeling against pyres being built and operated on the farms, but in a way it surprised me by its intensity. It is clear that farmers did not want to be reminded of very difficult times not so long ago, when the countryside was littered with funeral pyres of dead animals. They did not want that—they wanted those dead animals off the farm. That very much influenced my view of what we should do next.
To complete the initial variations that we made, Natural England has at our request temporarily lifted some of the land management requirements that normally apply to environmental stewardship agreements, which gives farmers a bit more flexibility to deal with the impact of the recent extreme weather.
Last Thursday I made a statement to the House about the effects of the severe weather. It confirmed the latest move that we have applied in England in our programme of support for English farmers. We have made up to £250,000 available to reimburse farmers for the cost of removing sheep killed in the snow. The funds will go towards the very specific problem of removing animals that have died on-farm as a direct result of the March snowfall. I have seen some comment and some suggestion that that is not enough. It is enough, according to our best information from the National Farmers Union—the representatives of the farmers. We have relied on the information that they have given us in order to meet the immediate needs.
Ms Ritchie
Could the Minister find out whether it would be possible to get permission from the European Union to use any unspent rural development moneys to help regenerate uphill sheep farmers and their farms?
Mr Heath
I think the situation will be different for each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, so I hesitate to give the hon. Lady an answer that might mislead her about the position in Northern Ireland. We are currently negotiating pillar two payments. We are not in a position to know what the future funding arrangements will be there. In negotiating the CAP, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are very aware that the needs of upland farmers must be met because, as we have already indicated, that is an extremely vulnerable sector of the agricultural industry.
Mr Heath
We have investigated that, and the honest answer is that there probably are not at present, because we are talking about total sums that are below the threshold level for the crisis payments. We have a further difficulty in the United Kingdom: the rebate arrangements come into play, which sometimes makes it difficult for us to avail ourselves of specific funding streams from the European Union in any case. In this instance I do not believe there is any immediate funding that we could draw on which would alleviate the situation.
To return to the scheme that I announced, the amount that I indicated reflects the very latest information on stock losses identified by the National Farmers Union. We are working closely with the NFU, the National Fallen Stock Company and other industry representatives to finalise the arrangements for funding and ensure that that goes to farmers in the worst affected areas and those who have suffered the greatest losses.
Details of the scheme and how to apply will be made public as soon as possible. Farmers should retain receipts and other documentary evidence, so that the collection of fallen stock can be verified once the scheme is under way. I hope that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will make her constituents aware of that. It is certainly not my intention to limit payments to those who have registered with or used the National Fallen Stock Company, but I want to find the most efficient mechanism for distributing public funds so that they get to the people who need them as quickly as possible.
Funding has been made available in Northern Ireland and Scotland to meet the costs of fallen stock collection services for farmers affected by the severe weather. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire said, the Welsh Government have taken a number of steps to help farmers, including making a donation to farming charities to assist them in supporting farming families.
I am pleased that a robust programme of support has been made available. However, I emphasise that many individual farmers will face a huge bill to replace their lost animals. We have to make that point to people who do not understand this matter. There is not only the cost of recovering and looking after rescued animals, including the extra feed costs, but the loss of a significant part this year’s lamb crop. Because of the loss of hefted ewes, a number of the surviving lambs will also have to be retained. There is therefore a cumulative effect on farmers.
It is right that we have focused on what is happening immediately on the ground in north-west England and the Welsh hills, but we also need to look towards the longer term, as has been said. In May, the Secretary of State will therefore host a summit of farming sector representatives, farming charities and banks. The meeting will highlight the financial impact that the exceptional weather—not just this event, but across the board—is having on some farm businesses. We will see what more can be done to support farmers who are struggling financially.
This is an exceptional circumstance, and I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to discuss it this evening. I make no apologies for the number of interventions that I have taken from hon. Members, because this matter is crucial to the communities that they represent and I wanted them to have replies. Farmers are by no means out of the woods yet. DEFRA officials and Ministers will remain in close contact with farmers’ organisations and those who are helping to deal with the problems on the ground. I thank them all for their tremendous efforts to deal with this huge problem. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and other hon. Members for giving us the opportunity to discuss a matter that we should be discussing. I hope that the things that we have done have lightened the load of those who have been seriously affected by this disastrous situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
A and E Waiting Times
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
It is a huge privilege to chair the debate. Had I not been in the Chair, I would have asked to speak, because there is an issue with accident and emergency waiting times at Kettering general hospital, but as it is, we go straight to our main speaker, Ann Clwyd.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship. I am sorry that you are unable to be on the Floor making your own points, but I am sure you will find other ways to do so.
I shall start by going through some press headlines from the past few weeks: The Mail on Sunday, “Shock 250% rise in patients waiting more than 4 hours in A and E: Six-month total soars by 146,000”; Mail Online, “Major hospitals have missed A and E targets every week for 6 months”; The Daily Telegraph, “Crisis hospital sets up tent for A and E patients…A hospital set up a makeshift tent to treat casualty patients amid a deepening crisis in emergency services across the country”; The Guardian, “NHS failed to hit A and E target for two months”; Mail Online, “Mother barely conscious with pneumonia was treated in a cupboard because hospital was ‘too full’ to give her a bed”; The Guardian, “The latest casualty of health reform: casualty itself …A and E departments are the pressure valve of the health system, yet the Government is moving rapidly to turn it off”; The Daily Telegraph, “Inquiry into failings in NHS emergency care...MPs are to launch an inquiry into NHS emergency care amid fears that patients are being put at risk by catastrophic failings in the operation of a new 111 helpline”; and Mail Online, “A and E patients ‘still waiting too long’”.
As you know Mr Hollobone, official figures this month show that many A and E departments are failing to meet their target of dealing with 95% of patients within four hours. The NHS in England has missed targets for major A and Es for 29 weeks and missed the target for all A and Es for the past 12 weeks. The failure to meet targets on so-called “trolley waits” happened despite the Government’s reducing the target figure from the previous target of 98%. In the past six months, more than 530,000 patients have waited more than four hours at A and E departments—a rise of almost 30% since last year. England’s A and Es are struggling. One in three patients now waits four hours or more for emergency treatment in the worst affected areas.
About 14 million patients a year are seen in major A and E units. A Department of Health spokesman has said that the NHS is experiencing an extra 1 million patients in A and E compared with two years ago. Research by the King’s Fund shows that A and E attendance was up by 353,457 patients in the first three quarters of 2012-13 compared with the same period in 2009-10. Unfortunately, the Government also propose to close or downgrade 34 more A and E departments across the country in the coming months. Most trusts are reducing the number of beds as part of their quality, innovation, productivity and prevention plans. Pressure on A and E is felt at both ends of the system. A lack of free beds on wards means that staff cannot admit patients and, with A and E full, paramedics cannot hand over patients.
The resulting strain in A and E departments was nowhere more obvious than outside Norfolk and Norwich university hospital. Over the Easter weekend, the east of England ambulance service was forced to erect a major incident tent outside the hospital to treat patients and relieve pressure on the A and E department. Reports say that there were queues of up to 15 ambulances waiting with patients. One patient was made to wait more than five hours under the West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust. Given the pressure they are under, we must all applaud and commend the work of Britain’s ambulance men and women—they are doing an extraordinary job.
Hospitals continue to make severe cuts to front-line staff, with many operating below recommended staffing levels. The Care Quality Commission has warned that one in 10 hospitals is failing to meet the standard on adequate staffing levels. Worryingly, a recent CQC report found that patients report not only longer waiting times, but a reduction in the quality of care in A and E. Thirty-three per cent. of respondents said that they waited more than half an hour before they were first seen by a doctor or nurse—up from 24% in 2004 and 29% in 2008. One in 10 respondents said that they could not attract the attention of staff, nearly a fifth felt that staff were not doing “everything they could” to control their pain, and 59% were not told how long they would have to wait for an examination. Compared with previous years, fewer patients had conversations with staff about their condition and fewer felt appropriately informed. Senior doctors now say that lives are being put at risk, because people are unable to get through to the new 111 number, which replaced NHS Direct. Many argue that it is difficult to access and mistrusted by patients, which has led to an increase in emergency call-outs and trips to A and E. Desperately ill patients are left waiting for hours while ambulances are dispatched to less critical cases.
I have had something like 2,000 e-mails and letters over the past few months since I first raised compassion in nursing, and they are still coming in. They are obviously not all about A and E, but some are. One man told me that he took his wife, who had injured her lower left leg, to A and E at 7.20 pm on a Thursday evening. On arrival at the hospital, he registered at reception at 8.10 pm and about one hour later his wife was seen by a male nurse, who said that the injury needed to be seen by a doctor because the damage was extensive—about 1.5 square inches of skin was only partially attached. The husband sent me a diary of his time in A and E. The male nurse cleaned and dressed the wound and said that it would be less than one hour before the doctor could see her:
“Apparently there had been a longer wait but he assured us that several more doctors were now attending the minor injuries section. With about 6 other patients we were told to wait in an ante room closer to the surgery rooms. At 11.15 pm after we had waited for over 3…hours an announcement over the loudspeaker system said ‘It would be a further 6 hours before a doctor would be available to treat anyone’. This was a general message, and indicated that no one would be seen for 6 hours. The voice then said ‘anyone feeling that they were fit enough to leave without seeing a hospital doctor should visit their own doctor in the morning’. It must be stressed here that these people were previously told by the nurse that they must see a hospital doctor. If the injury was so minor that they could go to see their doctor in the morning then why not tell them then?
One young lady had already spent 6 hours the previous day waiting to see a doctor because she was vomiting blood. She was there again with her friend and had already waited another six hours to be told that she was required to wait another six hours. Intolerable! She should have been admitted straight away the previous day. Another…young man was waiting almost as long as us because he had been in a three car pile up on the M4 and had damaged both knees and his back. He left after the announcement. He could have had internal injuries as well but was untreated.
How could my wife, and most of the people who were instructed to wait for a hospital doctor have the medical knowledge to leave hospital and wait another day? I went to reception to state that my wife needed to take her medication housed at home and could not wait another 6 hours on the off-chance that she may see a doctor. That was greeted by a shrug of the shoulders. I asked if any doctors were at all present and was told that one was on duty. There were 20 to 30 people waiting there at that time and most were casualties.”
On the way home, at about midnight, the man took his wife to a local hospital—no A and E there—to see if she could be treated the following day. His letter continues to tell how the next day he
“took her to this hospital and she was registered and treated within one hour not by a doctor but by a sister and a nurse. The skin flap had shrunk by that time and attempts were made to re-stretch it back over the wound. We were informed by these nurses that injuries such as this must be treated straight away to avoid shrinkage of the skin flap. This was an extremely painful process for my wife, but very necessary. Butterfly stitches were put in place that were intended to pull the skin flap back to its original size and cover the open wound.”
That is just one of many letters I have had. I have the consent of the people concerned to quote from their letters, and I will briefly read from two others. The first says,
“my wife miscarried at 10 weeks and I had to race her down…at 4am. She was left to sit in A&E for ages and I feared she was beginning to go into shock. I was pleading with the people behind the screen to help but kept being told with increasing irritation by them to sit with her and wait. Eventually they found a bed for her but there were no sheets, no drip. I had to cover her with my coat to keep her warm while nursing our sleeping 2-year-old in my arms. It took both of us a long time to get over that. To be honest we have never got over it. The sheer lack of sympathy and comfort, and being made to feel that you were an irritant. I should have made a formal complaint at the time but just didn’t have the energy.”
The second letter is from someone whose elderly mother needed an urgent blood transfusion:
“an ambulance collected mum and myself around 7pm and we arrived shortly after. Mum was placed on a trolley in A and E where we waited and waited. After an hour or so I could tell mum was deteriorating, she was in pain and distressed, I asked for help from various different nurses, I wanted a doctor to look at her. I can’t tell you how upset and frightened I was, I knew something was seriously wrong, I broke down and cried in front of everyone I was so desperate, at this point it was about 2 o’clock in the morning”—
that was after five hours—
“I begged a nurse for some pain relief for her and she gave mum a paracetamol that had zero effect. Mum was transferred to an observation ward at the side of the A and E, she was put in a bed with a tiny blanket over her, I tried to keep her warm and calm myself, no nurse came to see how she was, a lady in another bed was crying that she needed the toilet, I tried to find a nurse with no luck. We waited there until around 6am coping as best we could, it was a nightmare. Finally around 6am a consultant and 2 doctors came, they examined her and she called out in pain, the consultant advised me that mum would be put on a ward and a blood transfusion would be carried out, and she would be returned home later that day.”
The upshot was that the lady died at 11 o’clock that night.
I could go on and on with the letters. They illustrate that behind the stark figures and the problems in A and E, there are many human stories of people in distress, and left in distress, and sometimes the outcome of their very long waits is a tragedy for them and their families. The King’s Fund has recently published a report on the increasing demands on accident and emergency departments. The fund says that there are no easy answers—something we all know.
Few health policy issues have received greater attention than that of how best to meet the demands on A and E departments and manage the associated unscheduled admissions to hospital. I think that hon. Members of all parties know that there is a problem and want it to be resolved. The sooner it is resolved, the fewer the people who will suffer the long anxieties of waiting in A and E and the unfortunate outcomes that there are for too many people.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. There is a wealth of talent before me. I shall call Martin Horwood next, and then Kate Green, who sent a particularly nice handwritten letter to the Speaker, then Jim Shannon, Heidi Alexander and Grahame Morris. I propose to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at no later than 10.40 am —earlier if we can. We have about an hour, so everyone should be able to get in.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for securing this debate on such a topical matter. I had not intended to speak, but since the opportunity has arisen I would like to make some points, because the matter is very relevant to my constituency.
Cheltenham is in an unusual situation. We have two district general hospitals within eight miles of each other, one in each of the almost twin cities of Gloucester and Cheltenham. Some years ago, the hospitals came under the management of a single NHS foundation trust, and there is an almost inescapable business rationale for the trust management always to try to centralise services in one hospital or the other. Some services, including oncology and cardiology, have been centralised in Cheltenham, but with emergency services there has been a slight drift towards Gloucester, starting with neonatal intensive care and then trauma. That might make business sense to the trust, but it poses a problem because they are services that people clearly want to get to in a hurry. They are a bit like maternity services, in that people value having them within their town and do not want to have to try to find them in a hurry in an unfamiliar setting.
The current situation in Cheltenham reflects exactly the national picture that the right hon. Lady described, and we have heard from the King’s Fund that in the final three months of 2012, 232,000 people nationwide waited more than four hours in A and E, a 38% increase on the previous quarter. Some of that is clearly a seasonal increase, reflecting winter issues, but it has certainly been the case in Gloucestershire, where the situation has been rather unequal, with waiting times significantly and regularly higher in Gloucester than in Cheltenham. People are, therefore, concerned about the further centralisation of services in Gloucester, because they fear that the capacity of the emergency department there to cope with the increase will be even worse.
The situation has been explained in a number of ways. There can be a seasonal explanation—there is always a winter upturn, and we have had a series of bugs and infections, including the winter vomiting virus. Those are known factors, which vary from year to year. There is, however, a new factor in the mix, which is the 111 out-of-hours service. I have anecdotal evidence from local GPs that far more referrals into hospitals and A and E departments are occurring as a result of the introduction of the 111 service. The GPs think that they ran a rather good out-of-hours service before, under a different NHS trust, and the new service is clearly causing problems if their accounts are to be believed.
We must gather reliable data, but the evidence that I have from doctors is that they are getting fewer requests to call patients back, through the 111 service, and that a number of individuals have been referred unnecessarily to A and E, partly because the initial triage is done by people who are not really medically qualified. They have a stock set of questions and the approach is not very sensitive, so it seems that the safest thing for the operators to say is, “The best thing is to go to A and E.” If that is responsible for part of the upsurge in cases, it is adding to our existing problems.
The other problem in Cheltenham and Gloucester is the shortage of, and the difficulty of recruiting, emergency consultants and registrars. The guidelines are that there are supposed to be 10 doctors in each emergency department, which would mean 20 for Cheltenham and Gloucester. Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has told me that it has managed to fill only 11 of those posts. That is true: I have had independent corroboration from people working in the human resources department of the hospital, who have occasionally advertised for emergency posts and had no applicants. There is clearly a significant problem that they say is part of the national picture of a shortage of trained emergency doctors available to be recruited to emergency departments, which is adding to management pressures and the difficulty of managing the flow of patients into A and E departments.
That raises some other questions. Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is, as the name suggests, a foundation trust. It has the freedom to advertise higher salaries, to apply a “hard to recruit” bonus and to try harder to attract more consultants and registrars to its emergency department. As far as I can see, it does not appear to be doing so at the moment. It may be that that does not make such good sense in business terms. Emergency is a relatively expensive function for a trust compared with others, such as orthopaedics, which appears to generate income for the trust. It would be worrying if such business considerations were interfering with a trust’s ability to take management decisions that might attract more consultants and registrars into an emergency department.
I want the Minister to address, first, the national issue of the shortage of emergency doctors, which is forcing difficult decisions on trust managements and, secondly, what she thinks trust managements’ best response might be. For instance, would it be better for them to wait for the outcome of the Keogh review into emergency services, rather than to take pre-emptive decisions now to take such actions as downgrading emergency services at Cheltenham general hospital?
The suggestion is not that that hospital will be closed outright, but simply that it will be downgraded so that bluelight referrals at night are diverted from Cheltenham to Gloucester. That seems like a small and not drastic change, but there have been a whole series of changes—to trauma, neonatal intensive care, children’s services and maternity—and each small change by the trust seems to justify another change. In itself, that is worrying, because who knows what will follow this decision. Will all bluelight referrals be diverted to Gloucester? In a few years’ time, will Cheltenham end up with simply a minor injuries unit for a town of 120,000 people, given that we instinctively know that had the management arrangements been different and two different hospital trusts were in existence, they would be fighting to keep the services open?
The timing of the consultation is very unfortunate, coming at just the moment of the changes to the NHS organisational structure. Perhaps I am a little cynical, but I cannot help thinking that the trust’s timing may not be entirely accidental. The primary care trust, which fought strongly to keep services at both Cheltenham and Gloucester reasonably level—it tried to serve both populations and keep a degree of equity between them—has been wound up and handed over to a clinical commissioning group that has failed to attract a single doctor from Cheltenham to serve on its board, so that a town of 120,000 people has no local voice on the main commissioning body. At the precise moment that it started—new and relatively experienced compared with the old PCT—the trust has chosen to launch changes to one of the services that is most controversial and most valued by local people, which is a very unfortunate coincidence of timing.
I want us to hear, if we can, the Minister’s real plan for the future of emergency services, and to see whether there is any long-term vision about how local MPs and people can put a case to their trusts for the preservation of local emergency departments wherever possible. We need to deliver care to people as close as possible to their homes, and not drift into a situation of its being more and more centralised in particular locations, which may enable trust managements to have a rational case for attracting more sub-specialisms and doctors to their department, but leave a town the size of Cheltenham, with 120,000 people, with a much worse service.
That is causing great alarm, particularly in the context of the waiting times that we see, even as this debate goes on, right now. In Cheltenham, the wait is 38 minutes, according to the trust’s website. At Gloucester Royal hospital, it is 68 minutes—already more than an hour—at a time when demand should actually be very low. Those emergency departments are struggling to cope, and it seems to me that the waiting times are symptoms of a rather deeper and more difficult problem that we have to tackle.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, on an issue about which I know that you are deeply concerned. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for calling for this debate now, because it is of incredibly timely importance to my constituents, given what is about to happen at Trafford general hospital.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I was struck by the many parallels between our situation in Trafford and that experienced by other hon. Members in relation to their local hospitals. I strongly endorse his request to the Minister that we should now start to get a clear strategic picture of the Government’s vision for the future of emergency provision. Many of the difficulties in Trafford that I will mention have arisen because of the complete lack of clarity about that vision.
I want to highlight only a few issues, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I apologise, Mr Hollobone, that I will have to duck out for a quarter of an hour to make a phone call, but I will be back to hear the winding-up speeches. I am grateful to you for calling me to speak in this debate.
I want to explain that, as the Minister will know, Trafford general hospital—it has its own accident and emergency department, but since last year has been part of the larger Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust—is subject to NHS Greater Manchester’s recommendation that the accident and emergency unit should initially be downgraded to an urgent care centre and, in due course, to a minor injuries unit. The Secretary of State requested advice on that and other reconfiguration changes at Trafford from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which I know he has received and is now considering. I am grateful that the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), has agreed to meet me and my parliamentary neighbours to discuss that situation which, as I am sure she appreciates, is causing great local concern.
The first issue that I want to highlight is that it is important—certainly for elected Members, but also for the wider public—that there is absolute transparency of data and information about what is going on in our A and Es. A couple of weeks ago I tabled a parliamentary question asking about waiting times at all Greater Manchester accident and emergency units, because constituents have been coming to me with anecdotal evidence of delays and problems, such as those described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, and I wanted to assess the evidence before taking the matter further. I asked for information at the level of not only the NHS foundation trust, but every individual unit, because I am obviously particularly concerned about my local A and E, which falls within a larger foundation trust.
I was surprised to receive a written answer last Tuesday that told me that the information was not available at individual unit level. Of course, that is nonsense. I contacted Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which said that it could of course give me the information for Trafford, and it duly did. It absolutely does not build confidence in my mind or that of the public if we do not receive clear written answers from Ministers. I was glad that I could raise that issue in health questions last week.
My first question to the Minister is: what can she do to ensure that there is absolute transparency of data available to elected representatives and the public at large about what is going on in our areas? I am sure that she would agree that it is unhelpful for speculation and anecdote to inform what the public think is going on, when data are available and might present a different picture.
The second matter I want to raise is related to waiting times. Obviously, there is a definition around the four-hour waiting time target, but patients’ experience is about not just when they arrive at accident and emergency and when they are passed on to wherever they are going next, but an end-to-end process, which starts from the minute they pick up the phone. They feel that the whole experience can be very protracted. They have to phone, wait for an ambulance or a paramedic to come, potentially wait in the car park to get into the hospital, wait in A and E to be triaged—they are often triaged quite quickly—and then wait around to see more medical experts. Then there is further waiting around before some clinical disposal ultimately results. There is a sense that the totality of the end-to-end process is becoming very protracted, and that is certainly causing public concern. I invite the Minister to comment on the context in which people are waiting and being seen within A and E units and what thoughts the Government have on addressing the end-to-end patient experience, because that is what matters to my constituents.
Thirdly, the changes that are being proposed at Trafford, and at the hospitals in the constituencies of other hon. Members, are part of a much broader range of changes both in Greater Manchester and in the NHS as a whole. In the context of the proposed changes for Trafford, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) has repeatedly asked what the impact will be on the neighbouring hospital at Wythenshawe, and we are equally concerned about what will be going on at A and E units at Manchester Royal infirmary and Salford Royal. It is clear to us that it is not possible to remove capacity at one unit if there is insufficient capacity at the neighbouring units to mop up the work. My right hon. Friend believes that Wythenshawe is not in a position to take on significant additional numbers of A and E admissions without substantial extra investment. The purpose of my written question to Ministers about NHS trusts around Greater Manchester was to try to get a picture of what is going on across the whole city region. Clearly, capacity on the wider geographic basis is important.
It is equally important that we have provision in the community either to ensure that people can be discharged quickly or to prevent them having to go to A and E in the first place. That is at the heart of the integrated care model to which we are all signed up in Trafford and in which we believe very powerfully. However, the fact of the matter is that services are being taken out before the community provision appears to have been put in, and that cart-before-the-horse approach does nothing to reassure local people.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the problems that have arisen following the launch of the 111 number, which had to be withdrawn in Greater Manchester only a few hours after its launch because it simply could not cope. I have no doubt that one consequence of the changes to the out-of-hours service is that more people are likely to go to their A and E. Equally, if that local A and E in due course sees its hours curtailed or is downgraded, there will be a knock-on impact on GPs, because they will have more people presenting at their surgeries with emergency conditions. As things stand, while that might be a good place for people to go in theory, GPs do not have the capacity to see those additional patients. Again, that is a failure of planning about which people are concerned.
We are also worried about the ambulance service in the north-west, which has undergone some significant changes of late. There is also the matter of the interface with mental health. Many people who present at our A and E have both a physical and a mental health problem. It might be that the mental health problem is the underlying issue that is more crucial to resolve because it is probably part of the driver of the physical condition.
There is a great deal of contextual challenge that is contributing to people’s concern about the ability of accident and emergency units, including the one at Trafford, to cope. It is clear to me that without that context being properly resolved and without the guarantees that all that other provision is properly in place, it is simply not possible to start to withdraw services that people rely on because they have nowhere else to go. There are also further broader contextual changes that are causing us concern right now. The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the Keogh review. In Greater Manchester we have the Healthier Together review, which, I am afraid to say, is still opaque both to elected Members and to local people in terms of what it might propose. Undoubtedly, it will have a significant impact on the map of hospital, A and E and wider provision across Greater Manchester. Again, people feel that they are being asked to sign up to a decision about Trafford’s accident and emergency unit without understanding what the context and provision across the whole of Greater Manchester might look like in two or three years’ time.
The public are concerned, sceptical and worried. If Trafford general hospital’s A and E is downgraded, they are unsure where they will go with a particular condition in the future. They do not know whether to travel to Trafford or to go to another location, because Trafford might not be open or capable of dealing with their problem. It is not that people are unwilling to travel to other units when they understand that that is the right unit for them to go to. In Greater Manchester, we have done a good job in persuading people of the importance of going to Salford Royal if they have had a stroke, and of the importance of the major trauma centres around the city, but there needs to be clarity about what is on offer, where it is on offer, when it is on offer and why they can feel confident, if the service is not being provided locally, that that is in their best interests. They feel that a local A and E is important to them. There is a long conversation to be had with the public, which, I venture to suggest to Ministers, nobody has tried to embark on as yet.
The Secretary of State is considering the recommendations in relation to Trafford, and I expect that a decision will be taken shortly. I am grateful to the Minister’s colleague, the Under Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, for agreeing to meet me and my parliamentary neighbours. We are canvassing diary dates as we speak. Will the Minister ask her colleague to read very carefully my remarks from the debate this morning because they are a foretaste of some of the issues that I will raise when we have that meeting? May I also invite her to bring home to both the Under Secretary of State and the Secretary of State that we will be deeply concerned if a decision is taken about Trafford before elected Members have had an opportunity to put their concerns directly to them? We have not yet had that opportunity. It is vital that local people’s voices are heard before decisions are taken about services that are available to them. I hope that the Minister will convey those concerns to her colleagues following this morning’s debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this important debate and on giving us all an opportunity to speak on accident and emergency provision. The last time we had such a debate in Westminster Hall, the Minister gave a positive response to our concerns, so we look forward to her doing the same again today.
Health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Assembly has full responsibility for it. None the less, I want to contribute to the debate and outline some of the important issues that we face. I preface my remarks by commending the ambulance staff and the accident and emergency staff on the long, tedious and hard work they do under intense pressure. For many of them, their job is a vocation. That is true of many of the accident and emergency staff in my constituency, especially those in Ulster hospital in Dundonald and in Ards community hospital. They should all be commended on their excellent work and commitment.
Across the UK, waiting times in A and E departments are on the increase, and Northern Ireland is no different. A report in The Daily Telegraph said:
“Data obtained from 60 NHS finance directors as part of the study revealed that 40 per cent of trusts did not meet their productivity targets in 2011-12.”
It went on to say:
“This will be a significant concern as last year was the first in a four-year spending squeeze, during which the NHS needs to find £20 billion in productivity improvements.”
Just four of the finance chiefs questioned said that their organisation was forecasting a deficit this year, backing up national figures that estimate a surplus of £1.5 billion across the NHS. That is worrying, not just for the patients coming in to A and E, but for the doctors and nurses on the front line who are bearing the brunt of the pressure along with the brunt of people’s frustration at being held waiting.
In her speech, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley gave some examples of where A and E units have found it difficult to respond to people’s needs, and we can all reiterate such examples over and over again. However, an important point is that whenever someone is ill and in need of help, sometimes their frustration spills over towards those people who are trying to help them. We must have a system whereby those who are in need can be helped at the time they are in need.
Due to the cuts in the block grant and the need for massive savings, our Health Minister in Northern Ireland has been forced into making very hard decisions such as closing the A and E unit at Belfast city hospital, which then impacted on my constituency. Yet there was no option, because those were hard decisions that had to be made. We had to take the impact upon the surrounding A and E units into full consideration and the extra staff and resources needed to deal with that. By and large, that consideration seems to have taken place, but I want to give a few examples of issues.
The savings had to be made to meet Government cuts in the block grant. That is the position that many of our trusts are in, and the Government must decide which is more important at this time—achieving productivity targets or achieving their efficiency savings. It is abundantly clear that it is becoming harder and harder to do both, and it is grossly unfair for the trusts to have to balance what cannot be balanced. Our Health Minister in Northern Ireland is doing a good job in difficult circumstances. However, my fear is that more and more will be asked, and that it will be impossible to deliver on those extra demands as time goes on and as the savings required become more and more difficult to achieve.
I have had occasion to visit the A and E unit in my constituency, because of complaints that my constituents have made about an inability to be seen, waiting times, unavailability of staff and the cramped conditions. I have passed on those complaints to the trust and I have met the chief executive, Hugh McCaughey. I have explained to him the complaints that were made, and, in fairness, he and his staff responded by putting in place a number of measures: better allocation of staff when it comes to A and E units; access to services centrally, which is sometimes required rather than people having to go across town to another hospital to get the service they need; and a more accountable and fluent monitoring response at A and E units. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned triage; it is so important to get that right at A and E units. As I say, those significant changes have been made at the A and E unit at the Ulster hospital in Dundonald, as a result of complaints by my constituents and the meetings that we have had with staff.
Such improvements are good news. However, as the restriction on moneys continues, we have extra pressures on the A and E units, which are now under pressure because of the changes that have taken place. I am particularly concerned about that issue. It is closely monitored in the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, with the Health Minister receiving monthly reports and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety receiving quarterly reports. The Minister and I came into political life at the same time. We live in different parts of the country, but we are good friends and we communicate regularly on these issues. However, there is too much pressure on the A and E departments for them to be able to handle their case load, and I know that the Royal College of Nursing, among other professional bodies, has expressed concern that there is not enough cover, but once again this comes back to the age-old issue of money and how the resources can be better spent.
It is my opinion—and I believe that of many people—that the trusts are doing as well as possible, but it is clear that the efficiencies that have been required of them are too much to balance with the targets that have been set, and above all to ensure that patients receive a good standard of care, which is the standard they should expect from one of the best health care systems in the world—indeed, the NHS is the envy of many in the world. Our doctors and nurses do a fine job, indeed a great job. I know that they do the best that they can, and we must assume some responsibility in this place for the care that people receive; that care is down to decisions that are made here. For that reason, I again implore the Government to reconsider the efficiency targets that have been set. Instead, they should allow trusts to have the ability to have a good staff, on duty and on call, to handle what is required and to protect the most important thing that we possess, which is our health.
I apologise in advance, Mr Hollobone, for leaving early because there is a Public Bill Committee that I should attend.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this debate.
What struck me when listening to the contributions from all parties represented in Westminster Hall this morning is the consensus that exists about the fact that we need to hear from the Government their vision for accident and emergency services. I agree entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) when they say that we need clarity about how that vision is developing.
There is a fundamental tension between the centralisation of specialisms in accident and emergency services, and the desire of local people to be treated close to home. In London, there are fantastic A and E facilities in some of our central London hospitals, such as Guys and St Thomas’s hospital over the river, and yet—as hon. Members know—we equally find that hospitals in some of the outer parts of London are, frankly, either being sold off or seeing their services hugely downgraded, such as the downgrading that we are experiencing at Lewisham hospital at the moment.
Before I make some specific remarks about the situation in south-east London and some of the things that I have learned and been thinking about since we have been dealing with the issue at Lewisham hospital, I will quickly pick up on one of the other remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. She talked about the problems she had experienced in extracting clear and concise information from the Department of Health about waiting times in Manchester hospitals. I, too, have asked several questions recently, not about waiting times but about the provision of health services at hospitals in London. I have simply been told that the Department does not hold that sort of information and it has been recommended that I make freedom of information requests. That is all well and good, but the public want to be reassured that Ministers at the heart of Government understand what is happening in hospitals out there and that they have an appreciation of the wider picture so that they can develop their vision of hospital services, whether they are A and E services or maternity services, but I am not sure that we feel reassured when we get such parliamentary answers that that is the case.
I will make two specific points about Lewisham hospital. Hon. Members will know that, in January, the Secretary of State for Health announced that Lewisham hospital would have a smaller A and E department, and that it would lose its maternity services. That was as a result of the trust special administration process that took place in the South London Healthcare NHS Trust, which was in huge financial difficulties. The hospitals in Woolwich, Bromley and Sidcup had a very significant operating deficit, and as a result of that we were told that the hospital down the road in Lewisham would have its services decimated. The full A and E department at Lewisham hospital will close; all blue-light ambulances will go past Lewisham hospital to other hospitals; all medical emergencies will not be able to be treated at Lewisham hospital; and yet the Secretary of State still calls it a “smaller” A and E department.
We might think that, on the basis of taking capacity out of the system at Lewisham hospital and—I should say—having to invest £37 million in other hospitals to deal with the displacement of people from Lewisham’s A and E department, everything is operating smoothly and well in south-east London. That is not the case. One in 10 people is waiting longer than four hours at hospitals that used to be part of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust, and now in Lewisham, one in 10 people is waiting longer than four hours to be treated. That was not the case in Lewisham a year ago; in March 2012, 97% of people were being treated at Lewisham hospital within four hours. So there is huge pressure upon A and E departments in south-east London.
Yesterday, I asked Lewisham hospital for information about the number of times that ambulances had been diverted to it from other hospitals. Lewisham hospital told me that, since December 2012—in the last four months—there have been 25 separate occasions when ambulances have been diverted to Lewisham. On 10 of those occasions, ambulances were diverted from the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, and on 11 other occasions ambulances were diverted from the Princess Royal university hospital in Bromley. Those are the very hospitals that are meant to be picking up the people who will no longer be able to go to Lewisham hospital when our full A and E department goes. I seek a guarantee from the Minister that no changes will be made at Lewisham hospital until these diverts from other hospitals have stopped, and that no changes will be made until we see that, at the other hospitals I have mentioned, they are dealing with patients within a four-hour window.
I should like to make two general points about some issues that have already been touched on. There is a fundamental problem with people’s understanding of where they should go for the best possible treatment. The Government have asked Sir Bruce Keogh to conduct a review of emergency care, which is much needed and timely. I would rather the Government waited for the outcome of that review before they took decisions about hospitals such as Lewisham.
At the moment, when people are ill, they have no idea where they should go. They are faced with a plethora of places. Should they go to their general practitioner, a walk-in centre, a minor injuries unit or an urgent care centre, or A and E? It is confusing for people. If there was better information about where people can get the most appropriate treatment, potentially people who do not need to be in A and E would not go there. I do not criticise people for going to A and E, because they know that they will get treatment there and will be dealt with—hopefully—quickly. We cannot expect them to understand all the intricacies of what is available elsewhere. That fundamental problem needs to be addressed.
The Government are making the situation worse in Lewisham, when they say that Lewisham will retain a smaller A and E. On the day that the Secretary of State made that announcement, I said to myself, “What is a smaller A and E? What will happen there?” I am not the only one who is concerned about this. On 21 February, the president of the College of Emergency Medicine, Mike Clancy, tweeted:
“We have raised questions about the lack of clarity”—
with regard to Lewisham hospital—
“and that what’s proposed doesn’t meet our definition of an”
emergency department. Even the CEM is saying that the Government are making this more confusing for people. The way that the whole process has been dealt with has been quite deceitful and potentially dangerous. Telling people that there is a smaller A and E when it will be nothing more than an urgent care centre has potentially serious implications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
I am sure that the hon. Lady is not suggesting the Secretary of State was in any way deceitful.
Heidi Alexander
I said that the whole process was deceitful and potentially dangerous. A legal challenge about Lewisham is under way. We have to await the outcome of that to see what the future holds for Lewisham. I stand by my remarks. The process was not really open from the outset.
My final point has already been mentioned. We need to work out exactly how we stop people going into A and E who do not need to be there. Yesterday, I was at my grandmother’s funeral. For a number of years, she had been very poorly and was a frequent attendee at her local hospital. Several times when she turned up there, she did not really need to be there. She was a poorly, lonely old lady. If we are to address the number of people who present at A and E when they do not need to be there, we must find proper ways of caring for people well and with dignity, especially towards the end of their lives, in the community. The problem at the moment is that we are trying to reduce the availability of A and Es in local areas when we do not have alternative care in place to stop people having to rely on A and E as the last resort.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley on securing the debate. The availability of high-quality local health services matters to everyone. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about how she is going to address those important issues.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this debate and compliment hon. Members who have spoken so far, highlighting concerns about the increase in A and E waiting times that are affecting their constituents.
I shall make specific references to my area and to the increase in A and E waiting times. I shall also spend a few moments reflecting on why we are in this situation and will mention the Health questions debate, during which I was bitterly disappointed by responses from the Health Secretary and Ministers to questions from hon. Members regarding increases in A and E waiting times.
An impartial observer might think the coalition Government had inherited a health service on the brink of collapse. The truth is that the Government inherited an NHS that had been transformed from what the previous Labour Government inherited after 18 years of Conservative Government and under-investment. My area was one of many, perhaps including Kettering, that were beneficiaries of considerable investment. There were 100 new hospitals; actual spend on the NHS increased from £30 billion to more than £100 billion; and much of the aged NHS infrastructure was replaced. My area and many others saw the construction of new walk-in centres, primary care centres and a new generation of modern community hospitals. GP opening hours were also extended. We have had the benefit of more doctors and nurses than ever before. We also had NHS Direct.
My contention is that Labour not only fixed the roof when the sun was shining, but laid the foundations and built the new hospitals, ensuring that patients received faster and better treatment closer to their communities. That was reflected in public satisfaction with the NHS, which went from the lowest ever recorded levels in the 1990s under the previous Conservative Administration, to the highest ever recorded levels by the time Labour left office. However, since the coalition Government took office, we have seen the biggest fall in public satisfaction with the NHS, as spending cuts have started to bite. [Interruption.] The Minister is saying no and shaking her head.
Grahame M. Morris
The Government have given back to the Treasury some £3 billion over two years. The Government have expended unnecessarily in excess of £2 billion or £3 billion on a top-down reorganisation. Factor in the £20 billion in cuts or efficiencies—however people choose to describe them—and this is a difficult time for the NHS.
Anna Soubry
Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that the efficiencies that he speaks about were agreed between the then Opposition and the then Government—his Government—as savings within the NHS of some £20 billion? Does he also accept that his party, in its last manifesto and in comments by Ministers, stated that it would cut the amount of money going into the NHS? That is something this Government have not done.
Grahame M. Morris
I think that the Government are cutting the money that is spent on the NHS, not least with the costs of the reorganisation, which I have already mentioned. That money need not have been spent. We are giving back several billion pounds—some £2.5 billion to £3 billion to the Treasury—which could be spent addressing issues such as this. There are a couple of practical points that I want to raise with the Minister later, but I give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).
Martin Horwood
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the reorganisation of the NHS. That time and effort would have been better spent trying to work out how to deliver health care more cost-effectively. But does not he rather undermine his case when pretending that there has been a cut to the NHS budget, when an objective analysis of the actual billions spent on the NHS clearly shows that it has gone up? The difference between a cut and an efficiency saving is that an efficiency saving is returned to the NHS budget.
Grahame M. Morris
I did not vote for the NHS reorganisation; I spent 40 sittings in Committee trying to resist what is now the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the damaging changes it introduces. That includes those that are about to be implemented under section 75, on the introduction of competition, which will fragment the service and add to costs and complexities. I do not, therefore, accept the hon. Gentleman’s criticism, but I will press on because I want shortly to raise a couple of issues specifically about County Durham.
Part of our responsibility is to hold Ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister to account. On waiting times—this was one of his five guarantees—he said:
“We will not lose control of waiting times—we will ensure they are kept low.”
Other Members have quoted the King’s Fund and patient surveys, and the figures clearly show that 32 foundation trust hospitals, out of 88 acute trusts in England with an A and E unit, missed the target in the last three months of 2012. I am not sure whether Kettering was one of them, but those figures should be cause for concern for everybody, including Ministers and the Prime Minister. That is double the number of trusts that missed the target in the same period last year, and four times the number that missed it in the previous quarter.
It is therefore clear that A and E waiting times are spiralling out of control. There have been various surveys, including one conducted by the Care Quality Commission, which found that one in three people spent more than four hours waiting for treatment. It also noted a large rise in the number of patients waiting for 30 minutes or more before seeing a doctor or a nurse.
In my area, The Northern Echo is campaigning on this issue, highlighting the alarming rise in the number of patients in the north-east waiting more than four hours for treatment. That number has almost trebled in the past 12 months. The paper has disaggregated figures from the Department of Health and found that more than 1,000 patients have waited longer than the target time, including 536 in County Durham and Darlington. Compared with 12 months ago, the number of patients waiting more than four hours has increased by 200% in County Durham and Darlington. South Tees and York have also seen increases in excess of 200%, compared with the previous year. However, at the Newcastle foundation trusts, the percentage increase is a staggering 630%. Alarm bells should be ringing for Ministers, because those figures are quite dreadful.
I was concerned by the Secretary of State’s responses at Question Time. One disturbing characteristic of this Government is that they are not taking responsibility or coming forward with proposals to address these issues. Specifically, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the Health Secretary said:
“We are looking at the root causes of the fact that admissions to A and E are going up so fast”
—I think he quoted a figure of an additional million. The factors he blamed were that
“there is such poor primary care provision…changes to the GP contract led to a big decline in the availability of out-of-hour services…and…health and social care services are so badly joined up.”
He added:
“That is how we are going to tackle this issue”.—[Official Report, 16 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 168.]
That really is not good enough. Indeed, Dr Laurence Buckman, who is chair of the British Medical Association’s General Practitioners Committee, has been quite dismissive and scathing about the Health Secretary’s decision to blame the increase in A and E numbers on the changes to GP contracts. He said it was “impressively superficial”—[Interruption.] Well, that is what the man said, Minister. He said that the decision was not based on any evidence. He went on to say:
“Most GPs were not providing personal access out of hours anyway; it was provided through a variety of out-of-hours routes and that has been the case for the past 30 years, so it would be nonsense to suggest that because GPs haven’t been personally responsible since 2004, therefore casualty is full of people. That is just such fatuous nonsense. I question the wisdom of the people briefing the Secretary of State.”
I tend to agree with him.
There is no magic bullet. With a complex organisation such as the NHS, we need a broad-spectrum antibiotic; we need to apply a number of measures. The fragmentation of the service is certainly contributing to the problem. There is also the issue of people not having access to their GP within 48 hours. Like many Members, I have, unfortunately, had experience of close family members and constituents being left with little alternative but to go to A and E, when the GP could have addressed the issue, had they been available in a reasonable period. This issue therefore requires a team effort.
I am also concerned about what the RCN is saying about the reduction in the number of community and district-based nurses, and I hope the Minister will refer to that. Information provided through freedom of information requests shows that the number of nurses in communities who are part of the rapid emergency assessment and co-ordination teams and the rapid response teams that help to keep elderly people, in particular, out of hospital, has been dramatically reduced.
Heidi Alexander
Does my hon. Friend agree not only that there are fewer community nurses, but that those who still remain have much enhanced work loads, which means the time spent with each individual patient is reduced? That, too, causes problems with the quality of care provided in the community.
Grahame M. Morris
That is certainly a factor, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Part of the solution is a more visionary approach and a care model that integrates NHS services with social care in a seamless service. We need to end the fragmentation and to have full co-operation. We do not want people—particularly elderly patients—to be discharged from hospital, only for their cases not to be followed up by social care or primary health care services. That is a key challenge facing the Government. I will leave it at that.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, for what is, I think, the first time, Mr Hollobone. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for securing the debate. She has an exceptionally powerful voice in these matters, and all of us, on both sides of the House, have a common interest in ensuring it is heard not only today, but throughout this Parliament. I pay tribute to the work she is doing not only in her own right, but in tandem with the Government.
I also pay tribute to the work other Members who have spoken undertake on behalf of their constituents in fighting for A and E services in their constituencies. It would be remiss of me not to thank my local A and E unit at the West Cumberland hospital for saving my life probably twice in the past two years, although I appreciate that that makes me sound careless.
Before I begin, I wonder whether the Minister can answer this fairly simple question. What have Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust and York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust all got in common? I am more than happy to give way to the Minister if she would like to hazard a guess.
Anna Soubry
These are serious matters and should be above such cheap party politics. The hon. Gentleman clearly knows the answer to his question, and is asking me to speculate. Given that the debate is about accident and emergency, no doubt the answer is that their waiting times are longer. The Government accept that, and also agree that it is not acceptable; and we are doing something about it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to play party politics, that is against him, not against anything else.
Mr Reed
That was a regrettable answer, and did not become the Minister. She clearly does not know the answer. I wonder, as do, I think, many hon. Members, whether the Government know the answer to the question. It is that those trusts have missed the A and E target for major type 1 units—
Anna Soubry
The point that I am making is that the hon. Gentleman is playing silly games with serious matters. Other right hon. and hon. Members have addressed the issue positively, with compassion, but he is just playing silly party political games.
Mr Reed
I do not think it is sexist at all.
Does the Minister know how many times her local trust has missed its A and E target, since the end of September? [Interruption.] I will tell her. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust has missed its target for 17 weeks since September.
Anna Soubry
Would the hon. Gentleman care to refresh his memory? If we refer to the most recent statistics produced by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust for the A and E department at the Queen’s medical centre, we can compare those for the week commencing 14 April this year with those for the week commencing 15 April last year. Last year 440 patients failed to be treated or seen within the four-hour target, whereas this year the figure had fallen to 259.
Mr Reed
I note that the Minister prepared an answer, and I am grateful for that.
Major accident and emergency units—type 1 facilities, nationally—have missed the target for at least the last six months, and all A and E units, including minor incident units, have not hit the target for 12 weeks in a row. If anyone needs help analysing the figures, I would be happy to oblige. They are easy to find and they reveal some interesting points. For example, I wonder whether hon. Members know that only one trust with a major accident and emergency unit in England has hit its target every week since the Secretary of State took his position. That is relegation form, and if this were a football match the cry from the crowd would be “You don’t know what you’re doing.”
Before the Minister attempts yet again to dismiss those statistics, I hope she will take a moment to attend to what has been said by the chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, by Dr Clifford Mann of the College of Emergency Medicine, and by David Behan of the Care Quality Commission. Earlier this month, Dr Peter Carter, of the Royal College of Nursing said:
“These figures are yet more proof of a system running at capacity, and patients are suffering as a result. Our members are regularly telling us that pressure on the system is rising while staffing levels fall, and as a result any increase in demand results in unacceptable waits for patients who are already going through a difficult time.”
Dr Clifford Mann, of the College of Emergency Medicine said:
“We are seeing...ambulances queuing outside departments, and patients waiting too long on trolleys before they can be admitted to hospital.”
The Care Quality Commission said:
“It is disappointing that people have said they have to wait longer to be treated than four years ago. People should be seen, diagnosed, treated and admitted or discharged as quickly as possible”.
Like me, the Royal College of Nursing, the College of Emergency Medicine and the Care Quality Commission will be appalled that the key performance indicators for the NHS, such as A and E waiting times, are getting steadily worse. In the past six months, 582,811 people waited more than four hours in major A and E units, compared with 420,921 for the same period in the previous year. That is an increase of 161,890 people. That is not silly: it is a question of people’s lives. Those figures relate to people in need who did not get treatment in the time when they needed it. They represent more than 500,000 extra waiting hours in one year. People will find it hard to stomach the fact that there are now about 5,000 fewer nurses than there were in 2010, at a time when, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned, demand in our A and E units is increasing.
One way to get the figure down—it has been touched on already in the debate—would be to offer services for people with non-emergency ailments, so that they do not feel the need to travel to an A and E department. However, instead of NHS Direct being used as a tool for easing pressure on A and E departments, the roll-out of NHS 111 has turned into a trade marked Government shambles. Patients calling the new 111 service wait hours for advice. One patient waited 11 hours and 29 minutes for a call back. No wonder they feel that they have to go to A and E, when they cannot trust a telephone service with such an inadequate response rate.
Accident and emergency departments are a litmus test, or a barometer, for the performance of the NHS as a whole. If people are waiting in A and E, it means that there are too few beds or too few staff to cope with demand. That is just a fact of health service planning. If there are too few beds, it is because community services are being cut and patients who should be at home are kept in hospital. That reverberates back through the entire system. If patients who could be at home are in hospital, beds are occupied. If beds are occupied, A and E staff cannot admit patients. If A and Es are full, paramedics cannot hand over patients. If patients are queuing in the back of ambulances, those ambulances cannot respond to a potentially serious call-out. One failure leads to another. Each compounds the other. That is what is so serious about the debate. It is not just about the patient sitting in A and E for hours on end; the statistics I have highlighted show much more than that—the experiences of patients throughout the entire system.
Martin Horwood
In my remarks I suggested another possible factor in the current problems of emergency departments: the difficulty in recruiting emergency doctors. That may have something to do with the attractiveness of emergency medicine as a specialty—the long hours, and so on. However, it also obviously dates back to the training numbers that I am afraid prevailed under the Labour Government. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there may be some such responsibility, dating back several years, in relation to attracting sufficient numbers into training for emergency medicine?
Mr Reed
I expect the Minister to talk about new doctors in the NHS when she replies to the debate; and, of course, we trained those doctors. We commissioned, paid for and put in place the training of those doctors, so I take what the hon. Gentleman says seriously. I also commend him for being the only Member of Parliament from either of the coalition parties to attend the debate to defend the Government’s record.
The statistics highlight more than the simple numbers: they show the experience of patients throughout the system. One person waiting in A and E can reflect one person in a bed on a ward and another waiting at home for an ambulance. I hope the Minister will acknowledge and accept that, and explain what the Government plan to do. It is essential that they explicitly acknowledge the problems faced by accident and emergency in England. Constant denials do them no credit. They must acknowledge the scale of the problem before any solutions can be introduced.
The NHS in England is completely different from the NHS in Wales. I expect the Government will be tempted to compare the two, but I want to address the issue head on. The reality is that Welsh Ministers are dealing with a £2.1 billion real-terms cut to their budgets. Yet, despite that, they have still managed to protect NHS services. There are now more GPs working in Wales than in 2010, and the number of nurses, midwives and health visitors has remained consistent. That is in stark contrast to England, where nurse numbers are falling. I am sure that hon. Members who have heard such tired comparisons over and over would be interested to know that there are differences in the way A and E waiting times are measured in the two countries, and in how frequently performance is measured.
Before any comparison is made—and I hope that none will be—I want to point out that it is misleading to try to make a direct comparison. However, it is fair to say that all parts of the UK are experiencing increased pressures on A and E. The key difference is that in Wales, Labour are doing something about it, whereas in England the coalition is sitting on its hands. In Wales, 270 additional beds were opened this winter to cope with demand, easing pressure throughout the system. The Welsh Government have also agreed an all-Wales action plan for unscheduled care, which means that health boards must ensure that they have sufficient capacity to meet demand.
Will the Minister inform us today what the Government plan to do to help A and E services in England? When and where will they start to provide such help, and how much will it cost?
That aside, will the Minister also answer a few important questions on A and E waiting times? First, will she explain why, when demand is clearly so high and the current services are at breaking point, the Government have handed P45s to almost 5,000 nurses? Will she also explain why the Secretary of State chose a period of intense demand and structural reorganisation to roll out the 111 service when it was clearly not ready to be rolled out?
May I tempt the Minister to speculate on the causes of that rise in A and E waiting times? Does she agree that a combination of inadequate staffing levels, a distracting reorganisation of the NHS and deep cuts to council care budgets is the principal reason for the sharp increase in A and E waiting times? If she does not agree that they are having a major impact on the NHS, can she explain why the Government think that fewer nurses and a distracting reorganisation have improved services?
The problems that others and I have outlined today are well known to many, but they are still sadly neglected by the Government. Despite its imperfections and its many real challenges, the NHS remains one of the best models of national health care in the world. It is filled with dedicated professionals who believe passionately in the aims and values of the service, but it is clear that an expensive, unwanted and unloved reorganisation, combined with Government-induced staff shortages, are causing and have caused deterioration in performance. That is unfair on health care professionals, and, far more importantly, it is unfair on patients. I look forward to the Minister explaining in detail how her Government intend to get a grip and bring all A and E services in England back up to national standards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I have just about eight minutes to respond to all the valuable contributions made in this debate. I will not be able to answer all the questions, but I will write to anyone who has asked a question that I cannot answer.
Obviously, I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for securing this debate and for the way she is championing the cause of the patient. She will not hesitate to leave no stone unturned. As many others know, she is doing great work in leading our independent review of NHS complaints. She mentioned just some of the many cases that have come her way. She did not give dates, but I suspect the cases were not all fresh by any means, because, as she, I and many others recognise, this is by no means a new phenomenon; it is a serious problem that requires serious action, which the Government are taking. Would it not be refreshing and brilliant if we could have a debate on a serious issue without falling into the trap of cheap party politics, which, unfortunately, has been a little evident in some, but mercifully not all, the speeches? As the right hon. Lady said in her speech, there are no easy answers.
Some important points have been raised. We know that there is a problem, and we recognise that. It is not uncommon for the four-hour waiting time standards not to be met, especially during the winter period. That happened under the previous Government as well as under this Government. Indeed, in 2008-09 there were 23 weeks in which the waiting time target was breached, and it was breached during a further 14 weeks in 2009-10 up to May 2010. We know that those problems continue. We want to know and understand why, and we want to take quick action.
Anna Soubry
I have only six minutes to address all the contributions, so the hon. Gentleman had better be quick.
Anna Soubry
No. I am not going to go into all that in the short time that is available to me. We accept that waiting times are a problem—we are not trying to hide from that, and we are up for transparency—and I will address the data in a minute.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly identifies the seasonal nature of waiting times. He speaks with passion about changes in his constituency, and rightly so. It is right and proper that people who have such concerns, as other hon. Members have said, come to this place to champion the cause of the health service within their own communities, especially when it faces reconfiguration. He spoke about 111, which is an important thing to talk about when considering some of the causes that may contribute to the unacceptable failure to hit targets. I know that the data are being monitored on a daily basis by NHS England, and the deputy chief executive of NHS England is meeting twice a week to consider what is happening and to make sure that action is taken to ensure that any problems are addressed.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on the difficulty of filling posts, and I will write to him on that because I know it is a problem. I also know that action is being taken by some of the royal colleges, and it is probably best if I give a fuller answer, because he makes a very important point. Of course, I can say that the Keogh review is considering exactly the other problems that he mentioned. As the Secretary of State announced, the Keogh review, which has been alluded to, will report next month. All those matters will be reviewed by Sir Bruce, and it is much to be hoped that some positive forward-thinking will come out of that.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raised various issues. I am particularly concerned that she says she is not getting the answers to the questions she has quite properly asked. I think there is sometimes a problem with hon. Members not going in the first instance to the actual hospital, trust or whoever it might be. Her point, and it is a good point well made, is that when she asked my Department, she did not get those figures, and I will make further inquiries.
Only today I saw a question from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) asking precisely what the figures are for her hospital in Sherwood and, as it happens, the hospital she and I effectively share, the Queen’s medical centre A and E department. I have given those figures, and I want to set the record straight because, in fact, for the same week last year in Sherwood, 75 people waited more than four hours; this year the figure is 266.
Kate Green
I have two points to make very quickly. First, I asked for data on all Manchester hospitals. I cannot be expected to go to each one, but, obviously, what is going on in every hospital in the city matters because patients will have to move from one to another if capacity is short. Secondly, I specifically asked for data on Trafford general hospital, which falls within the Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The Minister told me in a written answer that data were not available, but when I approached the trust itself, it told me.
Anna Soubry
I know, and I do not understand why that is. I will absolutely make further inquiries, because it is nonsense that the hon. Lady did not get the data.
I will come on to address the points made by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), but, on the data, it is important that we monitor such things. That is precisely why the Department of Health and Health Ministers are very much alert to what is happening in A and E. We share the concerns of hon. Members, which is why we have the Keogh review, why we are considering how to solve the problem and why we are looking at the underlying causes, which, in the short time available, I hope to address. I will ensure not only that the Ministers to whom the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has spoken read Hansard, but that a copy of this debate goes to NHS England, which I know also shares those concerns. NHS England also wants to hear about the experiences of hon. Members, and it is taking action to ensure that we are on top of this and, most importantly, that we do what we should do.
Heidi Alexander
Will the Minister give a commitment today that no changes will be made to Lewisham’s A and E until there are no ambulances being diverted to Lewisham hospital, and waiting time targets are met in the neighbouring hospitals?
Anna Soubry
I took that intervention in good faith, hoping that I might be able to assist. The hon. Lady is more than experienced and knows that I cannot give her any such assurance. She, too, talked about the provision of data in her speech. All I know is that 75% of the people who would ordinarily have gone to A and E in Lewisham will continue to go there, but she makes important points, all of which will be put in the right place.
I conclude by addressing the cause. Well, we do not know. There are various factors, but, as has been said, there is no easy answer and no silver bullet. We know that a seasonal downturn in performance in not unusual, but the dip in performance this year is deeper and longer than in previous years. One million more people—perhaps this is not understood by some hon. Members—are using A and E departments every year, and it is important that we understand why that is. We know that there are nearly 4 million more A and E attendances compared with 2004, when the previous Government carried out what I and others believe was a disastrous renegotiation of the GP contract, which has had a clear knock-on effect on access to out-of-hours services.
Under-Occupancy Penalty (Wigan)
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to have secured this debate on the under-occupancy penalty and its effects in my borough of Wigan. The importance of the policy has been demonstrated not just by the number of constituents who have raised the issue but by the unprecedented comments by the very non-political chief executive of Wigan and Leigh housing trust, who in a recent article for the Wigan Evening Post slated the policy and its effect on the trust and its tenants, calling it “a wicked policy” that will not save any money on the housing benefit bill but will bring misery and hardship, forcing thousands of people in Wigan to pay up from already overstretched incomes or move to smaller properties, which are already in short supply in the area.
The stock of one and two-bedroom properties in Wigan stands at 12,266, of which 1,496 became vacant in 2011-12. Demand for those properties before the implementation of the bedroom tax was 3,177. There are 10,110 three-bedroom properties, of which 553 became vacant, but only 353 applications were made for those vacancies. As can be seen, families are not tightly packed into overcrowded dwellings waiting for selfish people with acres of vacant space to move and release a home. In fact, contrary to Government rhetoric, the reverse is true.
We have heard many times from the Minister and others that this is about fairness, and that people in the private rented sector claiming local housing allowance are not allowed a spare room. I challenge that. I have worked on an LHA pilot and I am familiar with the rules. I recently tabled a parliamentary question asking how many people were under-occupying while claiming local housing allowance. The answer was, as I knew, that local housing allowance is based on the characteristics of the household and is not affected by the number of bedrooms in the property occupied. Two-bedroom properties in Wigan are readily available at the local housing allowance rate of £80.77 per couple. One-bedroom properties are much scarcer, so people in the private rented sector can have a spare bedroom without paying for the privilege.
The potential for social housing tenants to move to the private sector discredits another purported reason for introducing the policy: saving money. According to Government figures, £2.9 million could be saved annually in Wigan if nobody moved and everybody paid the penalty or if everyone downsized within the social rented sector. However, the harsh reality of the housing market in Wigan is that the shortfall of one and two-bedroom properties in the social rented sector is causing people to shift to the private sector, which could result in an additional housing benefit cost of £229,000 in 2014-15.
As of 15 April, 38 of the 4,200 households affected have terminated their tenancies. Each household that moves to the private rented sector increases the housing benefit bill by £700 to £1,200 a year. The move from one sector to the other is likely to go only one way. Of the 1,100 people on the waiting list from the private rented sector, 80% require one or two bedrooms, which, we already know and I have demonstrated, are over-subscribed and in short supply.
It is worth reminding the Minister that we are dealing with people who have families, communities, roots and memories bound up in their homes, not with chess pieces that can be moved across the country at will. Many of them have disabilities, live in adapted properties and have a medical need for a spare room. They are people like my constituents Mr and Mrs Pimblett and their 12-year-old son, who live in a three-bedroom Wigan and Leigh housing trust property.
Mr Pimblett is severely disabled and suffers from gigantism and osteoporosis. He has recently been assessed by his occupational therapist as requiring a further bedroom for his medical needs. If he follows that medical advice, he will pay a penalty of £25 a week. Mr Pimblett, who is virtually housebound, enjoys fishing with a friend who takes him. It is his only hobby, but the current penalty of £14.60 a week for his “spare” bedroom means that he now cannot afford the £120-a-year membership fee at the local angling club. It has caused him to become severely depressed, exacerbating the pressure on him, his family and the NHS, which is now treating him.
Another constituent arrived at my surgery in tears. She and her partner, who is also her live-in carer, had received a letter saying they were subject to the under-occupation penalty. She was injured at work but, due to financial pressure, carried on working until the pain became too intense, leading to severe arthritis of the spine, a degenerative condition. She must now use a walking frame, when she can walk at all. Their home is a two-bedroom adapted flat, and she and her partner cannot share a bedroom because she has a specially adapted bed and medical equipment, and must often get up during the night due to severe pain. Were my constituent to move, the adaptations budget would have to be used to adapt her new dwelling.
In Wigan and Leigh housing trust, 550 households include a disabled person and live in an adapted property. Some, like my constituent, feel forced to move. The additional expenditure on the already committed adaptations budget could be as high as an extra £1.9 million over the next 18 months. The only other funds available are from reductions in the capital programme, of which new house building is the most vulnerable area, so we cannot even build our way out of the problem. The policy is affecting people who might want to move to the social rented sector in future.
The stability of the social rented sector’s financial model is threatened. Rent arrears in Wigan and Leigh housing trust alone are predicted to increase by at least £1.4 million for 2013-14, solely due to the bedroom tax. The first two weeks’ collection report shows a large non-payment, and collection staff have been diverted from their normal recovery duties to deal with large numbers of angry tenants who are affected by the policy, do not understand why they are being hit and cannot afford to pay.
I repeat the question that I asked the Minister during an earlier debate on this topic. If a person subject to the charge cannot pay and is registered for a smaller property that is not available—I have figures showing that, given current vacancy rates, it will take several years in the Wigan borough if just a quarter of those affected wish to downsize—will they be considered intentionally homeless? If not, who will fund them? Will it be the already overstretched Wigan and Leigh housing trust? Are all those people and many others—the grandparents who look after their grandchildren two nights a week so their daughter can work, or Mr Smith, who shares the care of his son—expected to apply for discretionary housing payments, and how far will that budget stretch?
As I have time, I will mention another case. Mrs B is 55 and lives alone in a three-bedroom house. As it is her family home, she believed that she could live there for the rest of her life, but the cost implications of the under-occupancy charge have brought her a lot of stress and worry. She feels that it is designed to evict her from her home. She cannot afford the £20.75 that she must pay weekly. Before April, her rent was covered in full by housing benefit. She is a full-time carer for an elderly relative and her parents, and her income is minimal. She is just about getting by on what she has at the moment. She does not have any personal transport—she cannot drive—so her elderly aunt has moved close by, and Mrs B can help care for her as well. All the family members live close by to provide support, they all look after each other and they are all within easy walking distance.
Through no fault of her own, Mrs B lives in the property alone. She has lived there for decades: her son was born and died at this property, and her memories and life are bound up with it. Time and money have been invested to make it safe and secure; the family have created a memorial garden in the back to the memory of her son, because thieves stole the memorials from his grave. As a result of his death, she suffers constantly from anxiety, stress and depression but, despite that, manages to fulfil her caring responsibilities. The under-occupation charge has exacerbated her problems with the worry of losing her home and of wondering where she will be forced to live or whether she can look after her auntie and parents. Her children have grown up and left the property, and she is left there alone.
Wigan and Leigh housing trust has completed a discretionary housing payment application on Mrs B’s behalf, but how far will that budget stretch? Some analysis has been done by the housing trust. The additional money in Wigan can assist fewer than 100 households of the 4,162 affected, which is less than one fifth of the number of households that contain a disabled person in an adapted property affected by the bedroom tax, let alone the households of people such as Mrs B. Wigan has worked hard over the years to build stability and community spirit. Forcing people to pay for staying in their home or to move away from their network of support—friends, family—from their jobs in many cases, because we should not forget that the majority of housing benefit claimants are working for a low wage, from their schools, from the area they grew up in and from all their memories is, in many cases, completely heartless.
For Wigan and most of the north of England, this policy will not deliver the predicted savings or decrease overcrowding, but it will have a detrimental impact on other areas covered by the public purse. It will aggravate the housing supply problems and the demand mismatch in the north, increase financial hardship in our most deprived communities, leading to increased rent arrears, evictions and homelessness, and bring increased stress and misery to thousands of people. We have all heard horrendous and heart-wrenching tales from our constituents, and all for no good reason. I have to agree with the chief executive of the Wigan and Leigh housing trust: “wicked” is the only way to describe the policy and its effect in Wigan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
It is a pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship today, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing the debate on behalf of her constituents.
I am under no illusion about the strength of feeling of many about the removal of the spare room subsidy, but we are not introducing the change lightly. A number of important principles lie behind the reform, and it is only right to describe the main ones, because they provide the context for the changes, which of course have a financial imperative and other compelling reasons. Furthermore, no one has offered a serious alternative to achieve the savings of £500 million a year, especially since housing benefit doubled in cash terms to £23 billion under the previous Government, so we have had to look at the financial implications.
Yvonne Fovargue
In the Budget, the Chancellor cut the beer duty and cancelled a planned future rise at the cost of £200 million, which equates to 40% of the anticipated savings from the bedroom tax. Is the Government priority beer or bedrooms?
Esther McVey
That example is taken completely out of context; one measure is about a business and ensuring that it remains, as well as about how people spend their money, but the measure we are discussing is about one set of finances that doubled in cash terms under the hon. Lady’s Government to £23 billion and about what we should do about it. We cannot pick and mix and move the finances around; we have to get housing benefit under control, and I will say how we are doing that, although I do not underestimate in any way the complexity and difficulty of doing so. She said clearly that this is about people, and I fully understand that it is about people, which is why we have to get things right, not only for now but for future generations—their children and their children’s children—so it is always about people and getting the system right. Another reason for the reform is that it will result in the effective use of housing stock over time, because we also have to look at the people in overcrowded accommodation, and in Wigan alone more than 3,500 families are on the housing waiting list.
Esther McVey
I will proceed a little further, so that I can answer the hon. Lady’s questions.
We need to improve use of the housing stock, and doing nothing is not an option, because we have 1 million spare rooms but 250,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation. The situation will not be easy to change overnight, but we have to start on the process of getting things right. It is about fairness. The hon. Lady said that I would talk about fairness, and of course it is about fairness, but from different angles and not only for those renting from private landlords or those in the social rented sector. It is about fairness between all those different people who are living under different systems. In Wigan, 27,000 people receive housing benefit, 18,500 of them in the social rented sector and 8,500 in the private rented sector, so 31% of people are already under the rules that we are introducing. May I clarify with the hon. Lady that today she is asking not only to oppose the measures that are progressing but to repeal the previous Government’s measures, brought in gradually from 2008? People are already living under the same rules and criteria. Is that what she would like to see—the reversal of her own Government’s 2008 rules?
Yvonne Fovargue
The Minister fundamentally misunderstands local housing allowance, which, as stated in the answer to my parliamentary question, is based on the characteristics of the family and not of the property. In Wigan, therefore, a couple can quite easily rent a two-bedroom private property—with a spare bedroom—for £80.77 a week. Fairness does not come into it.
Esther McVey
I can correct the hon. Lady. The size criteria applied to the social rented sector are exactly the same. If a private landlord is charging below the median market 30th percentile, a couple can do that. Equally, should local housing associations want to regroup or make a change from a three-bedroom to a two-bedroom property, they are entitled to do so. People can do such things, and that is what is happening.
I did not, however, get an answer to my question: would a Labour Government reverse what they introduced in 2008? We are drawing a parity between two unfair systems—one for private, one for social—within the housing benefit market. I see the hon. Lady shaking her head, so Labour would not reverse that and we seem to be having a fake argument today; the Opposition are opposing for the sake of opposing, with hypothetical arguments about something that they clearly introduced without the catastrophes and calamities that she is talking about. The number of people involved is not small, but 31% of those in rented accommodation in Wigan.
Wigan and Leigh housing trust manages Wigan’s council homes, provides tenants with comprehensive advice, and has dedicated financial support teams that focus on “claim, manage, pay”: managing and maximising income, and paying rent. In conjunction with Citizens Advice, Wigan council has set up Wigan Housing Solutions, a not-for-profit organisation that acts as a social letting agency and as a bridge between the private and rented sectors, helping to relieve pressure on the waiting list.
We welcome all such initiatives for managing welfare reform. It is only too easy to speculate about the potential impact of the change, and to come up with alarmist examples of people suffering and losing their homes. We have not seen that yet, but we are alert to such situations. We want people to work in partnership, which is why we have trebled the discretionary payment fund. We are offering different opportunities and outlets of what can be done. There is no one-fits-all solution. We understand that people live in different houses with different set-ups, and that we must think about how the change will work for them. That is why we welcome partnership initiatives.
I have talked about how changes were implemented in 2008. Some of the things that the hon. Lady is talking about and that she fears will happen in 2013 did not happen. Before implementation of the current changes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made announcements concerning foster carers and parents of armed forces personnel when they are away from home on operational duty, and on what the discretionary fund could be used for. We have talked about disabled children who cannot share a room with a sibling and who are exempt, as are pensioners. Various people will be exempt and there will be significant discretionary payments, which will be constantly monitored to see whether the amount of money is right and whether the right people are being supported.
We have seen best practice with people pooling resources and coming together because at the end of the day—I am convinced that there will be agreement on this—we want the best result for people in social housing. We want the best result for those on waiting lists for social housing. We want the best result for those who may be overcrowded. We want that not just for 2013. We looked at what has happened over the last 10 years when payment costs doubled, and we want what is right now and what will be right in the future. It invariably takes a Conservative Government—in this case a coalition Government—to get the accounting right and to build and convert the right number of properties. A Conservative party always has to pick up the pieces of a failed Labour Government.
Yvonne Fovargue
The Minister has twice referred to the number of people on the waiting list for properties. In Wigan, 80% of those in private rented accommodation and on the waiting list are waiting for one and two-bedroom properties, but there is an over-supply of three-bedroom properties. She also talked about people moving to the private rented sector, where rents are higher. For every person who is displaced there will be a cost, and the policy is likely to lose money for Wigan because of the over-supply of three-bedroom properties and the under-supply of one and two-bedroom properties. Families are not getting larger; they are getting smaller. One and two-bedroom properties are in most demand.
Esther McVey
The hon. Lady is right to talk about housing stock and how so many councils got their housing stock wrong for so many years. Why was it not reallocated? Why were conversions not carried out? Why did they not use the money? If they realised that so many people were in three-bedroom properties when they should have been in two-bedroom properties, why did they not do something about that work? They are beginning to do it now, which is why there are so many spare rooms. That work should have been done, but it was not. No attention was paid to needs, what should have been built, and changing family demographics. It is right that housing associations could have reallocated housing by changing three-bedroom houses to two-bedroom houses. All those offers were on the table and are still on the table. We are trying to work through that, and the hon. Lady was right to mention it. We have provided a list of solutions to solve those problems.
I return to the number of people on Wigan’s housing list, which is 3,591families. Some people are overcrowded and still on the waiting list, and even if they are not overcrowded they may still be on a waiting list. That problem also needs to be solved. There also needs to be re-allocation of rooms. I understand the business pretty well because it is my family business and I know about conversion of stock and having the right people in houses. I understand what the Government are doing.
I resent people, even chief executives, talking about a wicked initiative. It is not wicked. It is solving a tremendous problem. We have been given a terrible problem and we take no pleasure in having to solve it, but we must do that. We must look at costs, people, the use of stock and how we support those people. Instead of people lobbying and scaremongering, I would prefer that we work together to solve the problem. Trading words is an ineffectual use of time and energy, but I believe that we can solve the problem, which is why we are monitoring it to ensure that the trebling of the discretionary payment goes to the right people.
Yvonne Fovargue
The chief executive of Wigan and Leigh housing trust said that the effects on people in Wigan are wicked, and that in the north of England and Wigan the effect of the policy on the people he sees daily—tenants—on the housing stock he manages and on his business planning for the future is completely the opposite of what the Government intend. No one is saying that the Government’s intentions are wicked, but their policy is not working and the effect on people in my borough and those I represent is absolutely wicked.
Esther McVey
We must get it right, and we are getting it right. I do not believe the hon. Lady’s description to be the case. We are working together to ensure that we support people now and in future. We never get a reply from Labour on spending commitments, but will the party—it introduced its policy in 2008—in addition to opposing what we are doing today, put on the record the fact that they will oppose, revoke or withdraw everything they put in place in 2008? There is silence from Labour Members because they will not go backwards on that commitment.
In our final few moments, I will say what we are doing. Our imperative is to sort out our housing stock, to put people who need houses into the bedrooms that exist. For the first time ever, we are ensuring that Britain is building. Under the previous Labour Government, where most of the problem comes from, there was a near collapse in the building of social housing, which fell to an all-time record low. In every which way of the argument, there was a pinch effect from lack of building, wrong allocation of resources, massive overspending, and not caring about those on waiting lists and those in overcrowded housing. We must deal with that in its entirety, but there are differences in different regions. I understand that, and the Government understand that, and that is why we will constantly monitor what we are doing. There has been a trebling of the discretionary fund, and Wigan is entitled to its fair share of that. We need to work in partnership with best practices in Wigan for pooling resources and helping everyone—not one section, but everyone who needs social housing.
Reservists
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I start by saying happy St George’s Day to all, and in particular, to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—it is their day, too.
Reservists combine a military role with their civilian job. They are not normally kept under arms, and their traditional military task has been to fight when the country mobilises for war, or to defend against invasion. Reserve troops are not normally considered part of the nation’s standing body of military forces, although now it appears that that might change.
Reservists can be used in many ways. Most urgently, they can be BCRs—battle casualty replacements—for combat losses in front-line units during a conflict, as they were in both world wars and in more recent conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In both world wars, they were also used to form complete units. They can be used for more static activities, such as guarding, security patrols or for manning prisoner of war camps. Most certainly, their expertise enhances military intelligence, communications and medical facilities. Reservists give the nation an immediate increase in soldiers, without the months of training that it would take to build up such combat power. They are usually less expensive than maintaining a standing force, as they are used only when required.
The quality of reservists is often very high. Many have expert civilian skills that are transferable to and improve the professional efficiency of the military. For instance, some reservists involved in cyber-security are second to none, and without the Territorial Army and reservists serving in our military medical services, we would definitely have fewer survivors from the current firefights in Afghanistan. Many in the TA see military service as an integral part of their life. It may be a hobby, but it is a very serious one, about which they are normally extremely enthusiastic. That enthusiasm can often be turned to military advantage. Calling out reserves can also be a visible and deliberate signal of determined escalation during a mounting crisis.
Yet too often in the past, the TA has become the repository for weapons and equipment no longer used by the Regular Army. Selection may be neither as rigorous nor as well funded as that of regular soldiers. Members of the TA obviously do not have the same amount of time to sharpen or maintain their military skills, as they normally hold down full-time jobs as well. TA or reserve service is an add-on to their lives and it is one that sometimes has to be squeezed. Employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, are always concerned that a key member of their team might, just might, be mobilised, leaving them with a gaping and difficult gap in their companies for up to a year.
I accept that the Ministry of Defence fully recognises those problems and is trying to take steps to mitigate them. I agree, too, that a fix is perfectly possible for some of the points I have outlined, but I find it difficult to see how the worries of SMEs, which may lose a vital worker, can be overcome.
Reservists serving on the front line is a subject that has interested me for some time. In 2007, I wrote and presented a television programme on the TA’s involvement in Iraq. In doing so, I interviewed a number of TA and reservist soldiers on the job at the coalition air base near Basra. I was surprised to find that about 14% of the personnel in the British forces there were TA or reservists. In truth, I was very impressed by the TA soldiers and reservists I found there. They were clearly professional and up to the job. In my time in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, I, too, had excellent TA soldiers under my command. They did very well. Today, I gather that routinely about 10% of any force that the UK deploys will be made up of TA and reservists. Since 2003, more than 28,000 TA soldiers and reservists have been deployed on operations. That is a tremendous record of service, which is a great credit to the TA and reservists.
The “Future Reserves 2020” public consultation exercise ended on Friday 18 January. Comments on it have been sought from reservists, their families and employers, as well as members of the regular forces. That feedback is being used by the Ministry of Defence to help shape the White Paper, which is due to be published at any moment. Once that happens, we will have a much better idea about what the future reserves will look like. However, one thing is clear already: the Ministry of Defence wants reserve forces to be an integral and integrated element of the UK’s armed forces, and I support that fully.
A major proposal is to increase the number of trained soldiers in the TA, or what seems likely to be called the “Army Reserve”, to 30,000 by 2018. Apparently, future reservists will be better resourced, better equipped, and better trained than the current TA. They are also expected to take on a broader range of roles to meet the changing security challenges that the UK will face in future. However, all that has to be managed with very little change in man training days—envisaged to be 35 days a year per soldier, I think. Many in the Regular Army, as well as the TA, think that that is too little and, based on my experience, I agree with them.
I understand that the Ministry of Defence is designing Army Reserve units to deploy and operate intact. That has happened in the recent past: for example, the 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion the Cheshire Regiment took on United Nations duties in Cyprus for six months, although at reduced strength. However, to do an operation at full strength when we are not in a total war would be very difficult.
I accept that the Government will maintain that we are in a totally new ball game, but over recent years, the TA has consistently shrunk. In 1997, the 4th (Volunteer) Battalion the King’s Own Royal Border Regiment went on its annual two-week camp with more than 400 soldiers. Last year, its successor battalion, the 4th Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, which is, in fact, an amalgamation of three 1997 volunteer battalions—from the King’s Regiment and the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, as well as the Kings Own Royal Border Regiment—went on its annual camp with just 250 soldiers. That is worrying.
The trained strength of the TA this month apparently stands at 19,000 and its total strength is 26,640. I presume that the figure of 19,000 must be based on TA soldiers who have passed stage two of their training and have picked up their bounty for doing their full annual commitment. However, to be honest, I do not believe that 19,000 TA soldiers are readily available for operational deployment if required.
In 2007, when I researched the programme about TA soldiers deployed in Iraq, my investigations suggested that, from a total TA strength of in excess of 30,000 then, only about 7,000 to 8,000 were prepared to deploy, could be released from their jobs, or indeed, were medically fit enough to fight. A considerable number of TA officers and soldiers seemed to be classified sick or, at least, lacked the required FE medical category—FE meaning “fit for everywhere”. Therefore, I am cagey about believing that the current TA really has 19,000 soldiers ready to fight. I bet that the figure is much lower, and if that is the case, the idea that we will have 30,000 deployable Army Reservists by 2018 stretches belief.
According to Defence Analytical Services and Advice, in the nine months between 1 April 2012 and 1 January this year, the TA actually reduced by 600 trained soldiers. That is hardly a good omen as we start the drive to recruit 30,000 deployable and trained soldiers. I suspect that considerably less than 50% of the current 19,000 trained TA personnel could actually do the business. Even the Defence Secretary, when questioned by the Defence Committee, suggested that that figure was considerably lower—as I recall, about 14,000. I know that disquiet about the exact number of fully trained TA soldiers is also widely shared by current Army officers, both regular and TA.
Two days ago, I spoke to Nicholas Watkis, who has recently retired from the TA after 40 years and, during that time, very often completed specialist operational service in support of deployments overseas. He told me that, to get 30,000 deployable soldiers, our Army Reserve would need to fish for them in a pool in excess of 80,000. He says that he repeatedly made this point when serving and had sent a letter stressing this requirement to the Chief of the General Staff last July. If I am right, getting 30,000 trained and deployable soldiers by 2018 may be something of a pipe dream, and, if so, this will have a dramatic impact on the post-2020 assumption that our Army could reach a total strength of 112,000 trained personnel quickly with mobilisation.
An old military maxim—and a great one—is that soldiers who train together should fight together. Indeed, this was what gave the famous pals battalions of the first world war such strength in battle. They all knew each other well and were determined not to let down their mates. I know that the Ministry of Defence is devising cunning plans to try to ensure that Army Reserve units deploy complete, but getting a large number of people released from their normal jobs simultaneously and with agreement from the individuals, families and employers would be very difficult. Undoubtedly, it would require an incredible amount of staff work and effort, unless, of course, the nation is fighting for its life, as it was from 1939 to 1945. So I am intrigued to see how the forthcoming White Paper will address this difficult problem.
There really is not much recruiting and training time until 2018, and yet we still have no idea about where Reserve Army units will be based, especially as it is suggested that many TA centres will be sold off. If local TA centres go, I think there is far less chance that Army Reserve soldiers will travel long distances from home for training, presumably in Regular Army bases. Not having their parent unit close to their families is hardly an Army Reserve recruiting incentive. On that point, local TA centres will often be the only evidence available to local people that we actually have an Army, as the regulars all seem to be being grouped in regional super-garrisons.
As the Army Reserve expands, the Government plan to cut the number of regulars in the British Army by about 20,000 to 82,000. If that happens, one in three of our soldiers will be civilians in uniform. To me that seems a high percentage and a gamble with our nation’s defences. Ministers have told me that they are confident we will reach that target of 30,000 available Army Reservists by 2018. I truly hope they are right, but I remain to be convinced. I am also a little worried that identifying, training, deploying and retaining such individuals will really be a saving on the costs of maintaining regular soldiers when all other factors are considered, including the difficulties of getting people mobilised, up to speed militarily and then looking after them and their families when their specific operation ends.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. There is a further danger that he has not yet described. If this grand plan works, all will be fine and dandy, but there is a huge problem of timing. The redundancies in the Regular Army are happening now, but we will not know until 2020 whether recruiting the TA to replace them has been successful. If it is not successful, we as a nation are scuppered.
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that intervention. I totally agree with it.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and for giving way. I can agree with much of what he has said because when I worked in industry many years ago, it bothered me that people always had difficulty getting time off for the TA, or civic duties, as we used to call them then. We are reducing the numbers of regular soldiers at the expense of some famous regiments. The matter has not been resolved yet. That bothers me, particularly in the case of regiments such as the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. What we will get is a substitute for a Regular Army if we are not careful. History tells us that we cannot have that substitute.
Bob Stewart
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I will expand on that subject in a few minutes.
There is a serious need to address reservists’ and their families’ support requirements, which are different from those of regulars. Findings by the King’s Centre for Military Health Research indicate that, after operations, reservists are at greater risk of suffering mental health-related problems than regular soldiers. A 10-year study on the health and well-being of UK Gulf war veterans concluded that reservists were twice as likely to have mental health problems as their regular counterparts. The reasons behind this increased risk are not fully known, but the issue may in part be because of the differences between support networks for regulars and reservists. Unlike their colleagues in the regular forces, reservists do not have an extended period of time surrounded by their peers when they return home from duty. They often swiftly revert to their civilian job, without the opportunity to share experiences with others who have served alongside them. Support networks are hugely important for the soldiers themselves, and indeed their families, who often feel isolated when their loved one is away.
Perhaps my greatest worry about providing more than 30% of the British Army’s order of battle from reservists is my simple belief that the British Army is too small. We now have fewer infantry battalions than the small county of Cheshire had in the first world war. We have already cut the infantry too far. Four fine battalions: 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers; 2nd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment; 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment (the Staffords); and 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh Regiment are due to be disbanded over the next 18 months, a point made by the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). That is well before the MOD will have anything like its forecast 30,000 trained and deployable reservists.
There will be at least a four-year gap between the battalions going and the surge of reservists ready and able to take their place. Obviously, I am a little sceptical about what will happen. Sense suggests that we should not cut our regular infantry until we have the Army Reserve in place. I would like to see these premature disbandments stopped until the MOD proves its case.
I am truly concerned that the future reserves will not be able to deliver what is expected of them. It will be through no fault of their own. The first duty of Government, above all else, is the defence of the realm. History must surely show us that cutting our defences to the bone—and, in my view, beyond that—is folly. Nobody knows what will happen in future. I believe we have a duty to maintain what we think to be sufficient soldiers to defend our country at whatever price.
I was and remain a huge supporter of the TA, but I simply have grave concerns about whether its successor, the Reserve Army, will be able to provide crucial and immediate support to our front-line troops if that is required. I have suggested some of my main worries in these opening remarks. I now look forward to listening to the opinions of the Minister and my colleagues.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
Order. A considerable number of Members desire to speak. I do not want to impose a time limit, so I ask them to be considerate of their colleagues. Given the number of Members who have asked to speak, contributions should be six minutes.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship once again, Dr McCrea; I think that this is my third outing with you in the past three years. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this timely debate. I am sure that the Minister is heartened that so many of his Conservative colleagues are here, obviously to support him.
The debate is timely because the decisions made in the 2010 strategic defence and security review are beginning to hit home. The regular basing announcement was made some five weeks ago, and the first thing that struck me was that, for all the talk from the Ministry of Defence about our single Army and the regulars and reserves being the same, it is clear that some people in the MOD—not the Minister, who has experience in the reserves, but some of his civil servants—think that the reserves are an afterthought. We still do not have the lay-down for the reserves, because the work has not been completed, and not making a single announcement was a grave mistake. Hon. Members on both sides of the House share that view, so will the Minister address why there was not a single announcement, rather than two separate bits?
Shrinking Army strength has been mentioned. When the Chief of the General Staff appeared in front of the Defence Committee in December, we directly asked him at what point the British Army would no longer be able to achieve the planning assumptions made in the 2010 SDSR. As the hon. Member for Beckenham mentioned, 2018 is universally agreed as that critical date.
The mistake has been to cut the Regular Army before the reserves have been uplifted. We are already falling behind on the recruitment target for reserves. In a written answer to a question about the recruitment target for this financial year, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), replied that out of an Army Reserve target of more than 6,500, only 2,000 reserves had been recruited in the first three quarters of the year. I think that we would all agree that that shows that we are already significantly off track.
I am sure that the Army will tell the Minister for the Armed Forces that it has a plan, and that that will centre on the £1.8 billion that has apparently been allocated to the reserves for the next 10 years. The Army probably has not told him that all £180 million for the first year was spent on the regulars. Not one penny of the money allocated to the reserves was spent on the reserves. The Chief of the General Staff took the money—I understand why he had to make this choice—and spent it on his regulars. Will the Minister explain the point of giving the reserves money if the regulars then claw it back to spend on their own pressing requirements?
The hon. Member for Beckenham also talked about training. I am not convinced, and nor is the Defence Committee, that the adaptable forces themselves will have sufficient training. They will go to readiness for only six months in a three-year period and it is clear that relatively senior military personnel still do not have a grasp on how that can be delivered. Why would somebody join the Regular Army, wanting to become a professional soldier, if they are to be told after their training, “Congratulations, you are off to the adaptable force, where you will get your kit for only six months in three years and you will effectively be doing something useful for only six months in three years”? The problem will be even worse for the reserves attached to the AF, so will the Minister explain how he will ensure that there is adequate training for the adaptable force and the reserves?
It is important to recognise that there are tasks to which the reserves are particularly well suited—the medical corps and logistics, for example. It is obvious, but when operational requirements increase, those skills need to be uplifted. However, the “teeth of the British Army”, as the Army calls it, is a capability that must be maintained all year round. I am not sure that I have heard how the MOD intends to ensure that we have sufficient reserves not only with the skills for logistics, the medical corps, public relations and other back-office functions, but to fill combat roles.
I am conscious of the time available, and many speakers will probably be more knowledgeable than me. I hope that we will get answers from the MOD today.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I am proud to be a yeoman. Throughout history, the reserves have risen to the challenges that they have been set. I appreciate the concerns of regular soldiers and regiments that the Regular Army has to contract, but the British Army has contracted and expanded over the years in accordance with perceived threats. To listen to some hon. Members, one would think that no regiment in the British Army had hitherto been disbanded. My grandfather served as a regular in the Highland Light Infantry and my great grandfather served as a regular in the Gordon Highlanders, and both regiments were disbanded many years ago. The reserves have managed to fulfil full-time regular roles with great efficiency. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made it clear that when he was interviewing soldiers in Iraq, he could not distinguish between full-time regular soldiers and the reservists, because the reservists demonstrated all the professional skills of a regular soldier.
My last appointment in the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve was as honouree colonel of what would seem to many a somewhat unglamorous unit. When they were on parade, however, they all had a chest full of medals, because they had served in pretty well every conflict since Iraq 1. We were always over-recruited. That was the laundry troops of the Royal Logistics Corps, and that demonstrates that if we give men and women a purposeful task through which they can see that they are contributing, whether that is as laundry troops, in the Army media group or as front-line combat troops, they will respond. There has been a scintilla of a suggestion from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham that reservists do not necessarily have a high degree of competence.
Sir Tony Baldry
The hon. Gentleman said that it was all very well for reservists to be working as medics or doing back-office jobs. During my 22 years in the TAVR, I was fortunate to serve for eight years as a staff officer to the artillery commander of the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force. If one is trusted as a command post officer to have under one’s command a multi-force battery of guns, as a TA officer, it is perfectly clear that, with training and commitment, reserve officers, men and women can do whatever task is required of them in the British Army.
We will clearly need to recruit men and women into the reserves, and as MPs, we all have a duty in that. We all have convening skills. I certainly talk to local employers in my patch to ensure that they understand what is required of them and what is involved in the reserve forces of the 21st century, and to ensure that Oxfordshire gives the armed forces—the Army and our reserves—the fullest possible support, as it always has done. I hope that Ministers will consider ensuring that those employers that step up to the plate by releasing men and women to the reserves are able to demonstrate that on their letterheads. Such a thing has been done in different ways throughout history.
My final point is totally separate from, but related to, the thrust of my comments. The reserves have a number of skills that the Regular Army either does not have, or is giving up. One of the Royal Logistic Corps units that regularly trains at Bicester, in my constituency, is a railway unit that is made up almost entirely of Network Rail employees. Its intention is to keep a railhead open from ports to theatres of war. It was used in Kosovo, and its guys are very committed. When I was recently in Kosovo, the Kosovan Government said that they would be very willing to have them go there to continue their training, if the Ministry of Defence was agreeable. I understand that the unit might be threatened with disbandment, but such areas of expertise within the reserve forces are worth keeping.
I was a founder member of the Army’s media group, which was set up by Colonel Alan Protheroe—recently deceased, I am afraid—who was a deputy director-general of the BBC, because the Regular Army realised that it did not have people who could cope with journalists and the media in times of conflict. Over the years, the group has built up considerable expertise. The reserves often can cost-effectively ensure that the Army has areas of expertise that it can call upon.
The evidence of history will show that when the yeomanry—the reserves—have been given a task and training, and have been told what is required of them, they have always stepped up to the plate. I have every confidence that if the reserves are pointed in the right direction and given the right support and training, along with the encouragement of this House and others, they will have no difficulty recruiting and retaining, and ensuring the operational efficiency required for the defence of the realm.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.
I begin by declaring an interest: I am in the process of joining the RAF reserves—[Hon. Members: “Good for you.”] Thank you. I used to be a TA soldier—I volunteered to be mobilised in 2008, spent a year with 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery and served with them on Op Herrick 9 in Afghanistan. I was immensely proud to serve with 29 Commando as part of 3 Commando Brigade; it was one of the best years of my life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made some interesting and valid points, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. He was very positive about the TA’s role and the contribution it could make. I pay tribute to the fact that reserves have served with great courage in every recent conflict, from the Balkans to Iraq and Afghanistan, and have made a major contribution to the success of the operations. We hear time and again—in fact, a number of us were talking just last night to senior and non-commissioned officers of the 4th Mechanised Brigade who said the same thing—that reserves are often as good as or in some cases even better than their regular counterparts, due to the specialist skills they can bring to their units, their life experience, their enthusiasm and their determination to prove themselves alongside regular soldiers.
On the whole, I welcome the Government’s commitment to reservists. We have been left to lag behind other nations in that area, and I am pleased that that is finally being rectified. I fear, however, that we have cut our regular forces without first ensuring that we are able to bring our reservists up to the required numbers and capabilities.
I shall draw on a recent example from my previous unit. I know a new recruit who signed up enthusiastically last August, but the process and the administration have taken such a long time that he has only just been able to join the unit and begin his basic training. An eight-month-plus delay before a new recruit can even begin basic training is a major obstacle to the kind of recruitment drive the Government need and hope for. It is no surprise that TA numbers are falling when that is a recruit’s first experience of the reserves. If that is the best we can do, I fail to see how we will ever reach the target of 30,000 combat-ready reservists, in time to replace the 20,000 or so regulars lost to defence cuts.
I believe there are two major strands to the debate. The first is how we can improve the capability and effectiveness of our reserve forces, including issues such as kit, training days and manpower and, in the particular case of the TA, how we can make the “one Army” concept a reality. The second strand is that the Government are being forced to take this action because of the reduction of the Regular Army down to roughly 82,000.
Taking reserves first, the issue is not just one of manpower, resources or training; we must change the culture in this country towards our reservists, particularly and importantly among employers. Although I am sure that some large corporations could easily accommodate their employees serving in the reserves, small and medium-sized enterprises, with work forces of only a dozen or so, might find it more difficult to allow staff to leave for a tour of duty or extended training, or to go to the annual camp. It is vital, therefore, that the reserves provide added value for employers. As well as providing the honour of earning a kitemark for releasing employees for service, we could consider financial compensation for employers, or training for those who serve so that they can earn transferable qualifications that add value to their civilian careers.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this important debate.
Is my hon. Friend aware that even in professions that have well-established systems for replacing people, such as the supply system in teaching, a lot of reservists find it difficult to get time off for deployment or training courses? He is absolutely right to mention changing the culture as well as the practice.
Jack Lopresti
Absolutely, and I am surprised that professionals such as teachers find it difficult, but that is given what I have experienced and witnessed under the old regime. If we are considering putting on more pressure, with more commitment, the position will, I fear, only worsen, if we do not radically consider how we can make it as easy and as profitable as possible for employers.
The “Future Reserves 2020” review could be a great opportunity for the future of our armed forces. Fostering a “whole force” mentality and a closer relationship between regulars and reservists could help to eliminate some of the obstacles that frequently make life difficult for reservists. The indisputable fact is that reservists currently operate on 35 man-training days a year—a number which it is planned to increase to only 40 days —compared with 223 working days for a soldier in the regulars. The “Future Reserves 2020” review states the desire to deploy reservists as sub-units, or even perhaps full units, while recognising that it is impossible to train sub-units to the standard required within the 12-month mobilisation window as things stand. Significantly increasing the number of man-training days required would place a huge demand on reservists and their civilian employers, and I am not convinced that an extra five days alone will be enough to progress from our current situation to one in which we can mobilise sub-units trained to the necessary standard. As such, it seems that far greater investment is needed in training infrastructure if we are to accommodate greater numbers of reservists and train them to a higher level than we currently achieve.
I have concerns that the expenditure required to recruit and train such a large number of reservists, as well as radically to restructure the reserve forces as a whole, will mean that the savings made will be significantly less than expected. It is imperative to ensure that we can supply the equipment, training and personnel necessary to bridge any capability gap left by the reduction in the size of the regulars. We cannot afford to be left with an under-strength military because the “Future Reserves 2020” recommendations end up costing more than expected. I hope that the Minister can make a firm commitment that that will not be allowed to happen, regardless of the financial cost.
I was elected to Parliament on a mandate to increase the size of the Army, yet the country now faces the reality of a force of only 82,000 soldiers. That is the smallest it will have been since before the Napoleonic wars, despite us all having seen how stretched we have been in recent years in conflicts such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much tribute has been paid recently to the performance of our troops in the Falklands conflict and the leadership of Baroness Thatcher, but the sad truth is that we could not mount that type of operation on such a scale today. We have no aircraft carriers and a much reduced Navy, and the Government are overseeing the redundancies of 20,000 soldiers.
Earlier this year, in relation to the new front against global terror in Africa, the Prime Minister said:
“we must frustrate the terrorists with our security, we must beat them militarily, we must address the poisonous narrative they feed on, we must close down the ungoverned space in which they thrive”.—[Official Report, 21 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 27.]
How does the Minister expect us to project that force globally, given the armed forces we are left after the SDSR? In any future conflict that comes from left field, as conflicts normally do, are we just to hope that there is a NATO airstrip nearby that we can use?
Members might ask where the money will come from to increase spending on our armed forces, and rightly so. However, I remind colleagues that we are still committed to ring-fencing the aid budget. We are still sending aid to a country with a space programme. We are still paying roughly £50 million a day to the EU. Surely the Government’s first priority must be the defence of our country.
Former US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta recently expressed his concern that neither the US nor the UK could afford to weaken their defences in the process of solving their budget woes, but that is exactly what we are doing. Two years after the SDSR, we are still waiting for the White Paper on the reserves. It is incredible that the Government can go ahead with the redundancies of 20,000 soldiers without knowing whether or how their policy of replacing them with reservists will work. I implore Ministers to look again at some aspects of the SDSR.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech, which was born out of experience of commanding soldiers in the field.
When I was a young platoon commander in Berlin in 1984, we were told not to worry, because the quality of our troops and our kit would see us through. We knew very well that we could hold out only for so long, because quantity has a quality all of its own, as the German forces on the eastern front during the second world war found to their cost.
I mention that because I see similarly flawed thinking in the Government’s plans for 30,000 reservists somehow to plug the gap left by the loss of 20,000 regular troops. Let us be clear: this plan is designed to save money. It is not what the MOD would have wanted to do, as the CGS confirmed to the Defence Committee. The focus seems to be on the bottom line. The plan might work on paper, but a number of us severely doubt whether it will work on the ground.
I have three main concerns. First, could this be a false economy? The Green Paper admitted that it costs more to train reservists than regular soldiers, a fact confirmed by the Secretary of State during Defence questions. When we add in other factors, such as force-generation figures and the additional costs of matching a TA soldier’s civilian salary, there is a big question mark over how much this will all cost. To date, the Government have been coy about costings. We are promised a White Paper, but it has been too long in the coming. As several colleagues have said, none of that would matter were it not for the fact that five regular infantry battalions will be disbanded over the next 18 months; indeed, 20,000 regular troops have been given their marching orders. Pursuing such a policy before we are sure that the reservist plan will work is foolhardy and a high-risk strategy.
Secondly, I have concerns about whether 30,000 reservists could plug the capability gap. In my day—in the 1980s—TA reservists, gallant though they were, were essentially expected to ship out to Germany and wait for the Warsaw pact forces to come to them. Today, reservists are expected to have a much broader range of roles, but they are still expected to achieve that higher skill base with about 35 to 40 days’ training. We live in a world where challenging, asymmetrical warfare will become the norm.
My third concern is about boots on the ground. I doubt whether 30,000 reservists can plug the gap. The Government make great play of the fact that they have had many expressions of support from prospective employers, but expressions of support and boots on the ground are often two very different things. The latest MOD figures I have—they are fresh out of the MOD, and the Minister is welcome to challenge them if he so wishes—show that the establishment strength of the TA infantry is about 6,700 soldiers, but only 2,800 of them are actually eligible for mobilisation. That suggests an effective rate of about 40%. The MOD’s own figures—as I say, the Minister is welcome to challenge them if he so wishes—suggest that, in terms of plugging the gap left by 20,000 regulars, the Government’s estimate of 30,000 reservists is way off beam. A minimum of 50,000 reservists is more the ballpark figure.
We then need to look at further factors, which could throw even the figure of 50,000 into doubt. MOD figures confirm that the TA is losing infantry soldiers. Furthermore, as a number of colleagues have pointed out, the current economic climate means that small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, will struggle to allow key employees to leave employment with them for extended periods without being compensated by the MOD. I am not convinced that that costing has been factored in.
For those three reasons—value for money, the capability deficit and boots on the ground—several of us have severe reservations about the Government’s plans. Meanwhile, however, those plans are having distorting effects on the ground. Excellent infantry battalions are being lost, and the 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is a case in point. It is one of the most experienced battalions in the British Army, having served in all the major conflicts during the past 15 years, including Kosovo and Bosnia. It remains one of the best recruited. By the MOD’s own admission, it was not one of the original five infantry battalions to be disbanded; instead, more poorly recruited battalions were meant to go. However, through interference, intervention or whatever we want to call it, it was decided to save a poorly recruited battalion north of the border. The MOD then had to go hunting for a battalion south of the border, and, for some reason, fell on 2RRF.
Mr Baron
I am conscious that I am running out of time, so I will proceed if I may.
In our contracting Army, one-battalion regiments stand less chance of survival. We were told a few years ago that the future rested with larger battalions. However, that distortion means the Government are spending millions of pounds unnecessarily supporting understrength battalions. Surely, the Minister can understand that it is more economical to keep well-recruited battalion families together than to spend millions of pounds trying to bring understrength battalions up to strength. Such a policy simply suggests we are reinforcing failure.
In short, these plans are fundamentally flawed. Parliament has not been made aware of the costings to justify their execution, despite the fact that five regular infantry battalions have already been given their marching orders. I strongly suggest to the Minister that it would be wiser to see whether the plans work first, before losing 20,000 regular troops.
There is one final reason why the Government’s policy is high risk. Our armed forces are being reduced at a time when many countries, which are not necessarily friendly to the west, are increasing their expenditure. No one can tell where the next threat will come from. We must always remember that the first duty of the Government is defence of the realm.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
Order. I impose a five-minute limit on speeches to get most of the Members who have requested to speak into the debate.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I apologise to you, Dr McCrea, and to other Members for being late. I was unavoidably detained with a constituent. I am sorry that I was not here to hear all the brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whom I congratulate on securing the debate. It has been an education to listen to hon. Members who have served in the reserves, as I know the Minister has, and he will no doubt talk about his experience.
I will be brief; I do not think I will need even five minutes. I want to talk about the plans to disband the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, a TA regiment with a base in Vicar street in Dudley. Under the proposals, A Squadron, which is the Staffordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire yeomanry, and B Squadron, which is the Shropshire yeomanry, of the Royal Mercian Lancastrian Yeomanry, are to be merged and transferred to the Royal Yeomanry. Other changes involve transferring C Squadron and D Squadron to the Queen’s Own Yeomanry.
I am concerned that those changes will mean the midlands losing half its five squadrons, essentially so that a new organisation can be created in Scotland. That is my understanding. I have written to the Secretary of State and pointed out that the RMLY is one of the best recruited yeomanry regiments in the Territorial Army. The people of Dudley make an enormous contribution to A Squadron. They recently recruited 47 new trainees, and another 60 leads are currently being processed. That is exactly the sort of contribution that the Minister would want communities such as mine to make, so that the Territorials can expand. Two dozen from the regiment are currently serving the country overseas. That is an enormous contribution, and the people of Dudley are very committed to the TA.
The Minister will be delighted to hear that Ellowes Hall school, a comprehensive in Gornal in my constituency, is the first state school to set up an Army Cadet Force, working with the Territorials. That is a brilliant initiative by the fantastic head teacher, Andy Griffiths, and it is exactly what other schools should do. I do not know, but I suspect, that many hon. Members who have served in the Territorial Army will have done so as a result of being in the cadet forces at school. I went to a bog standard comprehensive in the middle of Dudley and hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that we did not have the opportunity to do those things. Of course, it was possible to join the cadets, but if there is a cadet force in a school, I think there is much more likelihood of people taking part; but I have digressed.
If the Dudley and Telford units are merged, it will, as the hon. Member for Beckenham pointed out, be much more difficult for people who have done a full day’s work in Dudley and who will then have to travel 30 or 40 miles to do their training and fulfil their responsibilities to the Territorial Army in Telford. It is also important for a diverse community such as ours to have a Territorial base at its heart. At events such as the past weekend’s St George’s day parade, or on Remembrance day, the Territorials parade in the town, and people see them as a central part of the community.
I urge the Minister not only to listen to what I have said about the contribution that the unit makes to the Territorial Army, and about local people’s commitment to it, but to speak to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne). He is a former commanding officer there, as I am sure the Minister knows. Will the Minister also visit Dudley with me, and visit the base? He could at the same time come to Ellowes Hall school and meet the cadets of what I believe is the first cadet force to be established in a state school recently. Will he also guarantee the future of the Territorial Army in Dudley, so that my constituents can continue to make a huge contribution to our nation’s defence?
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I had the privilege to serve as a Territorial soldier for 12 years, first in the Honourable Artillery Company and then in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, two regiments in which I know other hon. Members have served with great distinction.
A fact that has not yet come out in the debate is that, to achieve the Government’s target of a Reserve Army of 30,000 we need to recruit only 0.15% of the younger working age population. When the Minister with responsibility for veterans, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was a Territorial soldier like me in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we had a Territorial Army of 75,000 trained soldiers, so I do not believe that the Government’s target of an Army Reserve of 30,000 is unrealistic; I believe we can achieve it.
Jack Lopresti
Does my hon. Friend accept that there has been a massive change in culture and psyche from the 1980s and early 1990s to recent years? I got my opportunity to serve in the reserve forces only because so many had left because of compulsory mobilisation. I was already three years over the age limit. That is how much things have changed.
Andrew Selous
I accept that there has been a change in the culture, and part of the Government’s job will be to give the Army Reserve a clear direction and mandate. We have already received commitments about training and equipment. Only today, the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Peter Wall, said in an article in The Daily Telegraph that there would need to be a “cultural reset” among employers. That is right, and my hon. Friend’s point is valid.
We need not look far to find other countries that have already achieved what the Government want to achieve. The reserve forces of our near neighbour Ireland are already larger as a proportion of the working population than the total that the Government want to achieve here. The same thing has already been done in the United States and other countries. It is by no means unachievable. Of course, what is envisaged will be easier for larger companies; but we need only 0.15% of the younger working age population—we are not talking about taking the crucial foreman of a small engineering business away on a six-month tour of duty, so that the firm will collapse. We will be able to manage things by taking the employees we need from larger companies, and from among part-time and seasonal workers and those whose civilian work fits their Reserve Army commitments.
Mr Baron
One of our key concerns is that, although enough money thrown at the situation will get 30,000 reservists, the MOD’s figures suggest a 40% effective rate when it comes to established strength and ability to mobilise. On those MOD figures, it is not 30,000 but a minimum of 50,000 reservists that are needed—and then there are additional concerns.
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend makes a good point, in that we must make sure that the 30,000 we seek are battle ready and deployable. That is a fair point and my hon. Friend is right to make it.
In the late 1980s, there was the National Employers Liaison Committee, but we will need a similar body to do the work of cultural reset that the Chief of the General Staff has suggested. We need a band of patriotic employers. Perhaps the idea of something on the letterhead would be useful, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) suggested.
The Army Reserve plays a crucial role as a bridge between the civilian and military populations, two communities that can become very separate. When I was a Territorial soldier the great phrase that was used was “one Army”. There should not be a distinction between regular soldiers and part-time soldiers who are somehow less professional. We need to re-establish the ethos of one Army, with both components working together and integral to the whole. Several hon. Members have already pointed out that in Afghanistan up to 10% of troops on the ground have been provided by the Territorial Army; and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned a figure of up to 14% for Iraq.
As we know, the Government are putting £1.8 billion towards the training and equipment that the reserve forces will need. The increase in training from 35 to 40 days a year will come from weekend and evening commitments, and so should not be a burden on employers.
Penny Mordaunt
I speak as a graduate of only the second officer training course to run alongside the regulars’. Does my hon. Friend recognise what a step change there is in training? Next year’s recruits will get nearly 10 times more weapons handling training than I had.
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend speaks knowledgeably, as she is currently a reserve officer, and that is right. The question comes down to the quality of the training, and the understanding of the reserve forces that they have an important role in the armed services overall. That message will come clearly from the Government to employers, and to the whole of society. The training, focus, equipment and mission are critical to the achievement. Of course, the Government already help companies with financial assistance to cover mobilisation costs. It is important to put that on the record.
I absolutely recognise that the decisions are difficult—they are not easy. Like every other hon. Member in this room, I grieve when battalions are disbanded, and we all recognise the heartache and real difficulty that is caused. The Government inherited a great challenge: a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget was left by the Labour party when it left government, which is forcing this Government to take some very difficult decisions. If we approach this with the right spirit and a can-do attitude, and if we look at other countries that have already more than achieved what the Government intend, I believe that we can do it without imperilling the crucial defence of the realm.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), including on the fact that he has the second-last ever Distinguished Service Order awarded for gallantry. I am conscious that many hon. Members—including the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in his place, and the Whip, the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster)—have been on active service, and that I have not.
Let me be absolutely clear that I firmly believe that the Government’s direction is right. I have one or two reservations on details, but we should be clear that the tiny proportion of the work force that we need to recruit to make it work is much smaller, and the balance with which we will be left is a much smaller proportion of reservists, than in any other English-speaking country.
Mr Brazier
I am sorry, but I am conscious that I must leave time for other Members.
The national guard and the US army reserve make up more than half of the American army, and two thirds of Australian infantry battalions are in the Australian army reserve. The fact is that other countries have delivered such a change and have been able to do so. When I visited units from the national guard in Afghanistan, I was told that its brigade, commanded by a civilian soldier—he is a banker in civilian life—had achieved a 98% turnout for its deployment for three months’ work-up and nine months’ active service there. I was intrigued by the roles that it had been given. The infantry battalion that I visited had detached platoons along the Pakistani border defending provincial reconstruction teams, a role in which older soldiers with civilian skills could produce double value, given the skills that they bring as well as their being infanteers.
I am a great believer in maintaining political control over the call-up of volunteers, but the one area we must delegate is disaster and emergency relief. The Americans, Australians and Canadians all say that that is their No. 1 recruitment factor with employers and local communities, although it is a tiny proportion of their activity.
I want to suggest a couple of things that need sorting out. We must be clear that we are talking about the integration of two forces, each of which has a very different ethos. There is a danger of sliding back into the old days of assimilation. The absolute shambles in recruitment for the nine months from April to December, which will leave a permanent gap in the numbers, was because of the Regular Army’s imposition of a completely unworkable system on the reserves. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) gave good examples of that. It has now been sorted out, but it has left a nine-month gap in recruiting numbers.
If we are to maintain the distinction of ethos, we must also be clear that the vast majority of volunteer reserve units abroad are commanded by reservists. Unbelievably, 24 out of 30 commands went to regular officers on a 2011 list; the last was a little better, but not a lot. If we are to produce the volunteer ethos, soldiers need to be commanded by people who are used to dealing with employers, understand how to market training to soldiers with competing demands and, above all, have the moral plus that comes from being able to look a soldier in the eye, when he is under serious pressure from his employer, and say, “I’ve been there too”, not someone who can take Mondays off. To do that, we must provide more support for Territorial Army commanding officers, so that people with busy civilian jobs can fulfil their role on a genuinely part-time basis, as they do everywhere else in the English-speaking world.
We need to see off the attempt by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation to take over the control of the reserve forces and cadets estate from the reserve forces and cadets associations, which have much lower overheads and are far more efficient. We must also sort out the muddle in cyber, where a centre of excellence—the Specialist Group Royal Signals—has been broken up, with its squadrons sent off to different parts of what some of us think is a rather expensive and wrongly oriented set-up.
Those are points of detail, however. The fact is that the Government have set the right course. They are tackling a profound imbalance in the system. Everyone here wants defence to have a higher priority, but the balance was wrong and the Government are doing everything they can to restore it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr McCrea. I congratulate my hon.—and distinguished—and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and other Members on their speeches, all of which have been excellent.
Before I touch on a few points about the reservists, I want to expand on the general state of our armed services. After this vision for the future, will we have sufficient armed forces to safeguard our country and all our various roles and peacekeeping tasks around the world, such as in NATO? I very strongly argue that we will not and that as our professional, regular arm becomes smaller, the share of regular to reserve should be higher, not lower.
We now have to field 30,000 reservists, which will require a substantial jump in the numbers. My research indicates that, of the 38,000 reservists required in 2009-10, we recruited in the region of 29,000, and only 19,000—50%—of those were fully trained. Our target is now to have 30,000 trained reservists by 2018, but we currently have 19,000 reservists trained to phase 2 levels, which is exactly the same as two years ago. We therefore need to recruit thousands more. Interest in joining the Territorial Army rose by 6% this year, but it would need to increase by 400% to meet the new Government target, which I do not believe is feasible.
Are the reservists value for money? Training the current 19,000 reservists to phase 2 levels costs £455 million a year, for which the Army could have recruited 10,500 full- time, professional, regular soldiers. My sources tell me that that is what they would rather have. I am not here to disparage what the TA reservists do or their honourable and fantastic role, as some colleagues think Government Members have done. We have not said that or implied it. I served for nine years in the Regular Army and met many hundreds of reservists, all of whom did the most fantastic job, as they still do.
Ian Austin
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the 47 new recruits to the TA unit in Dudley and the 60 new leads currently being processed, which I mentioned earlier? Does he agree that that is exactly the sort of contribution that local communities need to make if we are to hit the targets? Would it not therefore be a real risk if there were less activity at the TA base in Dudley after the merger goes ahead?
Richard Drax
I did not quite get the gist of the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I of course pay tribute to the reservists in his constituency. I hope that he will forgive me for not picking up quite what he said. I have not got long, so I will finish quickly.
Reservists take between 36 and 40 months to be considered fit for mobilisation. As I understand it, they may then be used for 12 months in any five-year period. Will the Minister confirm that? Yet I understand that the Government may spend £1.8 billion in enticements to the new lot of reservists over the next 10 years. Again, I would be grateful to the Minister if he could confirm whether that is true. In these tough times, £1.8 billion over 10 years to entice people into the reserves is an awful lot of money. Perhaps that money would be better spent on the regulars.
A possible solution that has been mooted is to cut the reserves by half, to 15,000. That would save money and retain the essential niche roles of, for example, lawyers and tanker drivers, whom we have already discussed in this debate. Of course that niche market must be maintained; such people do a fantastic job.
I want to draw to an end because there is, I think, one more speaker. If not, the Minister will sum up. Let me just go back to my first point and ask whether this is the direction that we in this country want to go. Many honourable and distinguished predecessors of ours in this place have issued warnings when our country has cut her armed services. We are now cutting down to a point where, whatever the calibre of the extra reserves, and they will of course be top notch, will they be enough to fulfil all the roles, commitments and responsibilities that this country has? Some Members have compared what we are doing here, or not doing here, with other countries. I always think that it is a great danger to compare the United Kingdom and what we are trying to do with our armed services with another country, such as America, which has a very different budget from our own. America has the ability to produce aircraft and all the equipment that it needs to train its reserves.
Back in the 1980s when I was a regular soldier, the TA was having huge difficulties getting on to the appropriate training ranges and all the things that it needs to do. I suggest today that with all the training disappearing in Germany and everyone coming back to this country, these facilities will be hard sought by the Regular Army let alone the TAs who desperately need it as their percentage increases.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
I want to give a highly respected Member of the House some time to speak, so may I ask Julian Lewis to speak for three minutes only, as we have already been beaten by time?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
You are extremely kind, Dr McCrea, and I shall stick to two minutes if I possibly can. Not for the first time has my gallant and hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) done a great service to the country and to the House—to the country previously in his distinguished military career and to the House today in securing this debate. Inevitably, the debate has concentrated on the Territorial Army, or the Army Reserve as it may be known in the future. Let us also put in a word for the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marine Reserve, and the RAF Reserves, all of whom make a valuable contribution.
As a former junior member of the senior service reserve, I well recall what a bridge the reserves constituted, and still constitute, between the armed forces and society. The role of the reserves should be flexibility to deal with the unknown. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said, we do not know from where the next crisis will come, and we will not know the nature of that crisis until it is upon us. Reserves should be an augmentation of, not a substitute for, regular forces. If trained-up former regulars constitute our reserve, we will have a better chance to get them to the sort of standards that we need very quickly than when we are dealing with civilian-only reserves. Nevertheless, there is potential in both cohorts. I am concerned that the strategic context is being skewed by budgetary constraints. The truth of the matter is that we are having the debate in these terms because not enough money is being spent on defence.
Finally, I am concerned that in the future we will see a repeat of the sort of false opposition that was put forward by certain people in the past between what was called preparing for a war in the future against an unknown modern state, and fighting the war in which we are engaged at the moment, namely counter-insurgency. We have seen how quickly the threats change. We are making important decisions about the future. For example, we must decide about the future of the nuclear deterrent. I do not want to see that debate skewed by people who think that if we cancel Vanguard class replacement submarines we will get more troops. The truth is, we get the defence that we pay for. We are not paying enough; we should pay more.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing the debate and making some important points. It is worth reflecting on how valuable it is to have so many Members in the Chamber who have served or are serving in the reserves, or who have served in the regular forces along with the reserves.
The Secretary of State for Defence has set out his ambitious plans for the future of our reserves, shifting a greater emphasis on to them by doubling their numbers to 30,000 by 2020. The reserves have played an important role in our forces. In recent times, they have served in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. I believe that 29 reservists have lost their lives serving their country in the past 10 years, and we pay tribute to them.
When those plans were announced, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) made it clear that we support an enhanced role for our reserve forces. They make a very useful contribution, particularly in specialist roles, and we agree that they can make an even bigger contribution. However, we must get the changes right, and we have concerns about the Government’s proposals.
Any expansion of our reserve forces will succeed only if the Government work with employers. We must consider carefully the particular challenges that members of the reserve forces face in employment, and the Government are not dealing with the matter correctly. We have already heard that the recruitment target is being missed, and it seems that the MOD will have to increase recruitment by about 66% this year even to stand a chance of meeting its targets.
A recent survey from the Federation of Small Businesses set out some of the challenges. It found that six in 10 businesses would not consider granting reservists additional leave for training, so if the Minister wants the plan to become a reality, he might have to consider passing further legislation. The survey also showed that one in three businesses said that nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist, while 39% of those who had employed a reservist, or would consider having one in their company, said that the proposed reforms would have a negative impact on their businesses. A staggering 89% said that they had not heard of the MOD’s employer awareness events, so there is clearly some distance to go.
Over the past three years, the reserves have lost around 1,000 members. It would appear that bureaucratic problems mean that there is a backlog in the processing of applications, so the target is looking challenging and perhaps unattainable.
When the proposals were announced in November, the Secretary of State spoke about a kitemark to recognise employers that encourage and support their employees to participate in the reserves. In principle, that is a good idea, so we hope the Minister will be able to update us on when the scheme will be in place. We also think that it could be extended to companies that have a good record on employing military spouses and veterans, because clearly more work needs to be done in that area. Membership of the reserve forces should not be a barrier to employment, so the Government should look at our proposals for anti-discrimination legislation applying to members of the forces.
As the Government have cut numbers in the regular forces so dramatically, the system has to work. The enhanced role for reservists must be matched with improved training. We have heard a lot about an integrated concept between reserves and regulars over the past few months. That should not be limited to operations; it must also be extended to preparation. If we are asking our forces to serve together on operations, they must train together as well.
Reports have shown that reservists are much more likely than others to suffer from poor mental health, especially if they have been on active duty, and we need to look carefully at the reasons why. For example, reservists are less likely to have a military support network, they do not receive the same decompression as the regulars and there is the problem that reservists do not gain access to specialised MOD health care in civilian life. I am sure that the Government are serious about meeting their target, so they will want to take heed of the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress, which have come together to highlight the problems of mental health care among reservists. Post-deployment care needs to improve, and we have to ensure that employers have a better understanding of the issues that reservists can face when they return from serving. Access to MOD health care needs to be considered much more carefully.
We should not forget about the families of reservists, although the recent handling of the bedroom tax was an example of how not to do things. The Government finally U-turned by recognising that reservists and their families could be affected by the bedroom tax, because they are mentioned in the exemption. The Government need to think about how they implement the armed forces covenant because the necessary processes are not in place.
Hon. Members have highlighted concerns about capability by asking whether we will meet the target and therefore have the capability that we as a country want. I hope that the Minister will address the crucial question of how many reservists must be recruited if we are to have a deployable force of 30,000.
The worry is that the Government have a policy but not a proper plan to see it through, and there are some unresolved questions and problems. In the coming years, it appears that our national security will increasingly depend on reserve forces, so it is vital that the Government get this process right. We, of course, will want to support them in doing so.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Dr McCrea, I fear that we are very constrained by our time, but I also congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this debate. I think that we first met when we served in “Military Operations 2” in the Ministry of Defence in 1984, when his hair was less grey.
I know that this debate is very important to many Members of the House, and that it is especially important to members of our reserve and armed forces. I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made. I will address some of the questions that have been put later, if I have the time; otherwise, I will be very happy to answer hon. Members’ questions by letter.
Our reasons for changing the structure of the Army, which include a much greater reliance on a fully integrated reserve, are well known. They are both an imaginative and pragmatic response to the dire financial situation that this Government faced on entering office in 2010, as well as a determination to do the right thing by establishing a credible, relevant and useable Army Reserve fit for the demands of the 21st century while maintaining a larger proportion of regular forces than our closest allies. I can assure you, Dr McCrea, that none of us came into government to reduce the size of the armed forces, including the Regular Army. However, to quote the last Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), “There is no money”.
The principle of greater integration of the reserve was established in the report by the independent commission to review the UK’s reserve forces, which was led by the vice-chief of the defence staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) also took part in that process, and we are grateful to him for that. We are committed to expanding the volunteer Army Reserve to a trained strength of 30,000, and to integrating those reserves fully into the structure of the Army as a whole. As has been mentioned already by hon. Members, that requires a change in the attitude of society and of the Army towards the reserves.
Achieving that has already involved hard choices on the Regular Army side, to make sure that the Army plays its part in ensuring that the MOD continues to live within its means, while maintaining an Army that is capable of operating across the full spectrum of operational capability and one that also offers fulfilment and challenge for its reserve members.
Many hon. Members have spoken with passion and some experience about a lot of issues, including whether we can get this Army reserve of 30,000 at the pace that we require. To be clear, a target of a trained reserve of 30,000 is well within historic norms. In 1997, the Territorial Army was over 50,000 strong; it was reduced to around 40,000 by 2000; by 2009, it was down to just 26,000; and we now reckon that we have about 19,000 trained reserves. That shows that the current initiative to increase its trained strength from the current level of around 19,000 to 30,000 is perfectly achievable. Indeed, to look at it in parochial terms, this increase would require rather fewer than 20 individuals per parliamentary constituency to join up and to train in the Territorial Army.
By the way, we should not overlook the contribution that the reservists have already made to operations. In the last 10 years, almost 30,000 members of the TA have been deployed in operations overseas. Of those, some 3,500 members were compulsorily mobilised to take part in Telic 1 in Iraq, and during operations in the past 10 years more than 70 members of the TA have received operational honours, while 21 have sadly been killed on operations either in Afghanistan or Iraq.
The Government are investing heavily in future reserves and taking other actions to create the conditions required to achieve our target of an integrated Army. Extra financial investment is indeed worth £1.8 billion over 10 years, as has been mentioned, of which the Army Reserve will get the largest part. Other investment includes, for instance, overseas reserve training exercises at company level, which are very much welcomed. It also includes more equipment arriving to provide more modern support for the reserves, including modern vehicles, the latest weapons, and phones and radios, which is exactly what reservists want.
Mr Robathan
I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
We have planned that, over time, reservists will have access to exactly the same equipment for training that is currently used by regulars. There will be opportunities for deployment, as we have mentioned already, but there will also be opportunities for shorter periods of deployed service commitment for those in some specialist roles, and reserves will also routinely fill roles that historically were the preserve of the regulars.
Officers and soldiers will also have command appointments, which have not always been available, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been bending my ear about that for many, many years—since way before 2010. We need the Government and society to get behind this process. The skills and experience gained by reservists will be of considerable value to civilian employers, as has been mentioned, making the proposition all the more attractive.
We need to get behind the new reserves. NEAB, which is the National Employer Advisory Board, and SaBRE, which is Support for Britain’s Reservists and Employers, although I do not know where the “a” in SaBRE came from, are working on these issues, and we need to continue that work. Soon we will publish the White Paper that will set out a number of measures to encourage that process, and the collaboration with employers is absolutely vital. I take the point that it is not an easy answer, but we are determined to get this process right.
Of course, collaboration needs to be tailored to fit different types and sizes of employers. I was in Keighley last week, visiting Snugpak, which had a SaBRE commendation signed by the Secretary of State for Defence. Snugpak is a medium-sized enterprise rather than a small one, which incidentally produces some very decent kit if anyone wants insulation for their camping trips. While I was there, I spoke to a reservist who was indeed supported by his employer. However, we need to take this process further.
Although it is still in its early stages, we are confident that we can get a more streamlined recruiting process, in conjunction with Capita. I know that Capita has been slightly criticised in one or two scurrilous magazines such as Private Eye, but we believe that we are getting there and Capita should deliver an acceleration in enlistments during the next few years. If my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who was somewhat sceptical about that, wishes to review the recruiting process, we would be very happy to facilitate that. Key changes that we are introducing include: a national recruiting centre administering all applications to a common process; a more imaginative approach to marketing; and a fully resourced assessment process for the reserves.
Mr Robathan
I am sorry but I really do not have time to give way.
We remain confident that our proposition, in addition to being the right thing to do, will deliver value to the taxpayer. The independent commissioner for reserves concluded that reserves are significantly cheaper to maintain than regulars, and that they are no more expensive than regulars even when we take into account the costs on operations. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who just tried to intervene, I will say that part-timers are inevitably cheaper than full-timers.
As I have said, we need a change in the mindset regarding reserves, and a change in the attitude towards them. I absolutely believe that this policy is the right thing to do. It is not that we are keen to reduce the regular Army, but it is ridiculous to have a trained reserve of 19,000 for a country of our size; that is a ridiculously small number. We can do better than that—using reserves has huge social benefits—and we shall do better than that. Rather than admire the problems that we faced on inheriting an overblown defence budget in 2010, this Government have taken the necessary decisions to deliver a credible future Army which is fit for the challenges of the 21st century.
Just before I sit down, may I also say that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and I served in another English regiment, and not just in the Fusiliers? On St George’s day, we used to have a service, quite a good lunch as I recall and then the rest of the day off.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
Order. I thank hon. Members for their contributions in what has been a very valuable debate, and I also thank you for the manner in which you have treated each other.
Sharia Law
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
I appreciate the opportunity to debate this important issue in the Chamber. We have the privilege of living in a free society, in which the rights of the individual are not determined by their gender. We live in an open, tolerant country, which rightly welcomes people’s different faiths and religious beliefs and is diverse and benefits socially, economically and culturally from that diversity. Many individuals have campaigned, fought and given their lives for the freedom and values that make up the United Kingdom. This is a special place, embracing democracy, free speech and, just as important, a justice system that has evolved over a millennium.
One of the cornerstones of our justice system is that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. Embodied in the law of our country are the demands for equality, the challenge to the wrongs that appear in prejudice and discrimination in our lives. We can be proud—but we should not be complacent—that the vast majority of our judges, magistrates and clerks come from all backgrounds and are of both genders.
When I read that my local council of mosques had issued a press release calling for the Government to recognise sharia councils—they are courts in any other country—and ensure that they are better resourced, I was greatly concerned. Exploring this issue, I find that most of the debate that reaches the public comes from far right blogs and racist rhetoric. Little thoughtful contribution to understanding or exploring these issues comes to the fore. There are a couple of notable exceptions: the work of Baroness Cox, from the other House, and the work of the BBC’s “Panorama” programme, led by the journalist, Jane Corbin. I am grateful to Miss Corbin for conversations that I had with her in preparing for this debate, and I put on the record my appreciation of an excellent programme transmitted yesterday evening. Baroness Cox’s exceptional work seeks to ensure that sharia tribunals and councils operate within the law and should not form a concurrent legal system in the UK. With that aim in mind, I have four questions for the Government.
First, I should like to hear from the Government that we have only one law in this country. Secondly, I want to hear that sharia councils must comply with UK law. That includes compliance with all equality and anti-discrimination laws and family law. Thirdly, I should like to understand how the Government will ensure compliance and what penalties will be applied to a council or court if it breaks the law. Fourthly, I should like to know what consideration the Government have given to ensuring that all sharia marriages are legally underpinned by a compulsory civil marriage.
In last night’s programme, it was evident that women were not being treated equally. In the so-called arbitration process, even a simple issue of cost was clearly discriminatory. Women pay £400 to get a divorce; men pay nothing. Women are encouraged not to report to the police. A woman was given a divorce only after she agreed to hand over her children to the husband. The council or court was only ever made up of men or a man.
I understand that the act of determining child access or contact cannot be undertaken in law by a sharia council or court. I hope that, if evidence of wrongdoing can be established, those who have broken the law, as shown in the programme last night, will be pursued. On seeing the programme’s evidence, the chief crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service in the north-west said that he was disappointed, but not surprised. If the CPS is not surprised about such findings, why are we, as a Government, allowing such things to happen?
The director of Inspire, an organisation with an impeccable reputation, issued a statement following the “Panorama” programme last night:
“Panorama’s programme, (22nd April 2013) on the unregulated and discriminatory practice of some of Britain’s sharia councils has been of long concern to Inspire. ‘Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Councils’ highlighted how some of the services provided by Sharia councils, in particular arbitration and mediation services, operate in a way that is at times discriminatory towards women, undermining their human rights which should be protected by British law, especially with regards to child custody and domestic violence cases.”
That is part of a long, detailed release that is a thoughtful contribution to the debate. That paragraph in particular highlights problems that I am concerned about as well.
I want to discuss underpinning religious marriage with civil law marriage. Some men are choosing not to marry through the civil law process, because doing so makes divorce simpler and does not enable a woman rightly to claim her share of the assets at the time of divorce. There is also an opportunity for men to marry a second wife, because the first, sharia marriage is not recognised in law. We have to ensure that the rights of women are protected. I therefore concur with Inspire’s call that all sharia marriages be simultaneously registered as civil marriages, thus offering much-needed protection to women.
I believe that, sadly, the word “sharia” has more negative connotations than positive images in our country. Only by exploring why will we begin to address those concerns. Unlike the far right, I do not believe that Islam is evil. We should not underestimate the level of distrust and sometimes fear that exists. It is our responsibility to challenge the wrongdoing and allay those fears. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) for bringing this timely debate to the Chamber. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the concerns raised in the BBC “Panorama” programme last night on this subject.
My hon. Friend has eloquently, carefully and respectfully explained why he is opposed to any establishment of a state-sponsored, alternative judicial process in England and Wales. I recognise that there is some confusion about what the exact position is on this issue. Therefore I start by stressing plainly and clearly that sharia law has no jurisdiction under the law of England and Wales and the courts do not recognise it. There is no parallel court system in this country, and we have no intention of changing the position in any part of England and Wales.
On the points raised by my hon. Friend, sharia law is the code of personal religious law governing the conduct of Muslims. Those principles can extend to all aspects of people’s lives. There are a number of sharia councils in England and Wales that help Muslim communities resolve civil and family disputes by making recommendations by which they hope that the parties will abide, but I make it absolutely clear that they are not part of the court system in this country and have no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of their decisions or recommendations are illegal or contrary to public policy—including equality policies such as the Equality Act 2010—or national law, national law will prevail all the time, every time. That is no different from any other council or tribunal, whether or not based on sharia law.
Britain is proud of its tradition of religious tolerance. The Government do not prevent individuals from seeking to regulate their lives through religious beliefs or cultural traditions. Provided that an activity prescribed by sharia principles does not contravene the law of England and Wales, there is nothing that prevents people from living by sharia law.
The use of religious councils or other extra-legal bodies to deal with civil disputes is well established and non-contentious. Communities have the option to use religious authorities to adjudicate disputes and to agree to abide by their decisions on a voluntary basis, but such decisions are subject to national law and are not legally enforceable. Any member of any community should know that they have the right to refer to an English court at any point, especially in the event that they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue in a way with which they feel uncomfortable.
Because sharia councils do not have any legal means of enforcing their decisions, they can only make recommendations that they hope the parties will follow. There is no appeal mechanism. If a party decides to challenge a decision in a civil court, any decision would be made in accordance with English law.
Any use of sharia law in Scotland would be a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. My understanding is that there are no sharia courts in Scotland and that there is no intention of setting any up. However, individual parties can, if they wish, agree to use sharia law to settle disputes, so long as there is no conflict with the law of Scotland.
I understand the concerns, expressed by many, regarding religious councils involving themselves in matters of domestic violence, to which my hon. Friend referred. Domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse and is not acceptable in our society; it is not condoned or supported by any religion. It is absolutely essential that victims and potential victims are aware of their rights and of all the advice and support that is available. The Government are committed to working with both statutory and voluntary organisations to ensure that our messages reach across all communities.
My hon. Friend knows that Baroness Cox’s Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill had its Second Reading on 19 October 2012. The Government are aware of the level of concern about the perceived use and interpretation of sharia law in this country, as was highlighted by the amount of support for that Bill on Second Reading. After careful and considered deliberation, however, it was evident that the provisions already existed in current legislation and so were unnecessary. Instead, we believe the issue is more about raising awareness of the existing position under English law. We are fully committed to protecting the rights of all our citizens and will consider what is required to educate people further on the protections afforded to them by UK law.
Under criminal law, any person who commits a criminal offence is liable to be prosecuted for that offence, provided it is in the public interest to do so. In England and Wales, criminal proceedings are always heard in a criminal court. We do not recognise any criminal law decision made by an alternative court in this country. The Government have no intention of changing that position.
My hon. Friend also asked about the recognition of sharia marriages by English courts. We are working to raise awareness of the need to have a legally recognised marriage, and we are encouraging mosques to register to carry out legally recognised marriages in their various facilities.
I hope that I have answered all the important issues raised by my hon. Friend. This has been a useful and timely debate, and I am grateful to him for his contribution.
Rightly, this country celebrates diversity. We are a country where everyone has an opportunity to contribute, no matter what their background, ethnicity or religion, but that must be within a set of laws and a judicial framework that is common to all and understood by all. There can be no question of there being a parallel court system in this country. I hope that that clarification of the Government’s position reassures my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are present
Health Inequalities
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
It is my great honour, Dr McCrea, to serve under your chairmanship.
It is crucial that everyone in this country, regardless of income or location, should have access to the same level of health care; social background should not be a determinant of health. Currently, people who live in the poorest neighbourhoods will die on average seven years earlier than those in the richest neighbourhoods, and the average difference in disability-free life expectancy is 17 years between the richest and the poorest. We should be concerned about health inequalities existing on that basis, because it shows not only that we are not all in this together but that people throughout the country are unnecessarily and unfairly suffering because of their social background.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on the work that he has done on the subject over the years. He was talking about life expectancy; in Medway, which covers three parliamentary constituencies, the difference in life expectancy between the most deprived 10% and the least deprived 10% is 9.6 years. He talked about all being in this together, but that 9.6 years did not arise in the past three years; that difference in life expectancy was present for many years under previous Governments as well.
Mr Sharma
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important intervention, but we are not present as part of the blame culture. We are not debating what happened 10 years ago; we are talking about learning from the past and about how best to improve services. I am sure that the Minister will answer such questions, but I assure Members that I am not here to defend or not to defend, but to raise the issue, and to talk about what is happening in today’s terms and about why, what and how to improve.
The previous Labour Government committed themselves to reducing health inequalities. They made progress in meeting targets on infant mortality and headline indicators for life expectancy as a result of early intervention programmes and initiatives such as Sure Start. Reducing health inequalities is not only fair but makes economic sense.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am staggered by the hon. Gentleman’s statement about the previous Government making progress. The gap in life expectancy between deprived and wealthy areas widened under Labour, and there were more GPs per head of population in wealthy, healthy areas and fewer in poor, unhealthy areas. Can he explain why?
Mr Sharma
It is unnecessary to debate that. My point concerns what is happening today; I am not rude, arrogant or avoiding the issue, but the debate is about what is happening in the system, and the purpose is to find out what steps the Minister can assure us are being taken to improve the situation.
Stephen Barclay
It is worth putting it on the record that the cross-party Public Accounts Committee, chaired by a Labour Member, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), looked at how in 1997 the Government were to put health inequalities at their heart and at setting targets in 2004, but those targets were not met. It is remiss of the hon. Gentleman to come to the Chamber today and to talk about the previous Government making progress when the gap in life expectancy increased, the GPs were in the wrong place and a cross-party Committee chaired by a Labour Member is saying that they failed to meet their targets.
Mr Sharma
I thank the hon. Gentleman for correction on that and I am sure that there are many other areas we could cover, but given the time available I want to complete my way of looking at the subject. He will have the opportunity, through the Minister, to talk about those questions.
Reducing health inequalities is not only fair but makes economic sense, as I said. Reducing such inequalities will diminish productivity losses from illness and cut welfare costs. My constituency is a diverse area with a high rate of deprivation and with about 19,100 children living in poverty. The impact on the health service is noticeable. The mortality rate is a lot higher than average, especially in the most deprived wards of the constituency. Diseases such as diabetes, coronary heart disease and tuberculosis are much more prevalent than in the rest of the country, and they are unfortunately directly related to the social inequalities in the area.
The coalition Government have shown a lack of commitment to reducing health inequalities, whether through their health policies or their socio-economic policies which will increase inequality between the richest and poorest. Through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Government have increased competition and opened up NHS services to tender from the private sector; if the section 75 regulations are pushed through the House of Lords tomorrow, patients with complex conditions that are perceived as less profitable will not be as readily treated by private providers. On top of that, the increase in private patients in hospitals after the lifting of the private bed cap will mean that access to beds for those who cannot afford private services will be restricted, increasing waiting times. In my own constituency, Ealing hospital will be downgraded and the A and E closed. Some of the poorest and most vulnerable people will therefore see the services that deal with their specific needs closed, and they will have to travel great distances, which they cannot afford to do, to get treatment.
Recent reviews and evidence have proved the link between health inequalities and wider social determinants such as income, employment, welfare and housing. The Government’s record gives us poor hope of progress in reducing those inequalities: fuel and food prices have gone up; increases in wages are less than those in the consumer or retail prices index, leaving people out of pocket every month; child poverty is increasing; homelessness is set to rise after the recent welfare cuts; and, as announced last week, unemployment is rising again. Those affected will only be more vulnerable to health difficulties, increasing the inequality between the richest and poorest in our society.
The Government need to commit themselves to reducing health inequalities to ensure that social background does not determine lifespan and quality of life. The previous Labour Government took some first steps towards reducing the health gap between the richest and poorest, but that progress is likely to be thwarted by the Government’s unfair policies. Can the Minister provide some reassurance from the Government that they are committed to reducing unfair and harmful health inequalities during their term?
Stephen Barclay
The last Labour Government took more than 10 years to introduce even basic known measures such as smoking cessation programmes in deprived communities, although the science and evidence base was clear. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not say one thing and do another on health inequalities, but will follow the science?
Anna Soubry
I can say that absolutely. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall asked whether the Government are committed to reducing health inequalities and making the sort of progress that we did not see in 13 years of the previous Government. I assure him that it is not just a question of blind intention, but an absolute fact that we have already done it.
[Interruption.] I am making a noise because I am removing the script of my speech. I am not good at following a script from my officials. They are extremely helpful, and it sometimes causes them concern that I go off script and speak off the cuff.
I am familiar with the Health and Social Care Act 2012. What the hon. Gentleman either does not know—this is not a criticism—or may have forgotten is that, for the first time ever, there is a statutory duty, not just on the Secretary of State, but throughout the NHS, to improve health inequalities. It is not a question of targets, which have not always delivered the right outcomes, and Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust is a good example, as was identified in the Francis report. That duty is statutory so the Secretary of State and all those involved in the NHS must deliver, and the Secretary of State must give an annual account of how his work in leading the Department of Health and being the steward of the NHS in England has delivered a reduction in the sort of health inequalities that we all understand. That is there in law, but in 13 years in government, the hon. Gentleman’s party failed to do that.
Mr Sharma
I am not disputing the matter and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not want a blame culture or to say what happened during those 13 years, but I ask the Minister to join me in my constituency on Saturday when thousands of people will march from Southall to Ealing. At the last march in September, there were more than 20,000 people, and we expect more this time. She will then know whether people believe that services have improved or got worse.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but, with great respect, he does not understand that reducing health inequalities is not simply about saving an A and E department. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman is marching on Saturday, he will remonstrate with anyone who has a banner saying “Fight the NHS cuts”. Whenever anyone looks at reconfiguration, they do so on the basis of how to make the service better.
Stephen Barclay
I am sure that the Minister is aware that, on reconfiguration, bodies such as the Royal College of Surgeons support specialised centres, because they save lives. The evidence from stroke services in London is that reconfiguration is saving around 500 lives a year.
May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, at the end of the last Labour Administration, only 4% of the NHS budget was being spent on prevention? It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to join marches, but prevention is far more helpful from a value-for-money perspective than treating things when they go wrong.
Anna Soubry
I am very grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend makes the point more ably than I can that much of the great work to reduce health inequalities is not about whether there is an urgent care centre or an accident and emergency centre within 500 yards or 5 miles of where someone lives. Work on public health is critical, and that is why I am so proud that this Government have increased the amount of money available to local authorities, which now have responsibility for delivering public health. They had that historically and we have returned that power to local level. That is important in the delivery of improvements in public health. This Government’s view is that local authorities, as in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, know their communities better than Whitehall does. In the delivery of key and important work on public health, it is right and proper that local authorities have that responsibility. They, too, have a statutory duty to deliver on health inequalities. That runs through all their work of looking after the public’s health, but, most importantly, addresses those very factors that cause the sort health inequalities of which we are all conscious. For example, there is a clear demographic link between smoking and diabetes.
If the hon. Gentleman goes to Leicester, he will see the work that is being done there and in Leicestershire with the clinical commissioning groups—the GPs are now doing the commissioning—working for the first time with the local hospital and looking at a whole new way of delivering a better pathway not just of care, but of early diagnosis and prevention, linking those up in a way that has never been done before in the NHS. If he sees those examples, far from criticising the Government or having doubt about our commitment to health inequalities, he will take the opposite view.
If the hon. Gentleman needed yet further proof of the great work that can be done under the new way of delivering public health and commissioning in the NHS, he could do no better than take a trip to Rotherham in Yorkshire. I went there to see its fantastic work in tackling obesity. Obesity is a clear issue of health inequality and Rotherham has taken a totally joined-up approach. GPs are working with dieticians, schools and planners, with the local authority at the heart. They are all coming together to deliver a considerably better strategy, with real results in tackling the problems in that area.
On funding, it is important for the hon. Gentleman to understand that we have increased the amount of money that is available. It is now ring-fenced, on a two- year deal, so that real security and certainty is given to those local authorities. In some areas, we have increased up to 10% the money that is available to spend on public health.
Rehman Chishti
I completely share the Minister’s opinion about an approach where local authorities know what is in their best interests—for example, in relation to obesity in Medway, which has one of the highest recordings above the national average for obesity. However, I want to raise another point with the Minister. On diabetes and organ transplants, certain parts of the community—or certain parts of minority communities—are more likely to be affected. Will there be a national strategy that covers and supplements what is going on locally, because these are national issues that affect minority communities throughout the country?
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The subject of diabetes—type 2 in particular—and the clear link to obesity and being overweight is something about which I am beginning to have a passion, because I can see the great work that can be done. We have just done a cardiovascular strategy. It is a call for action about mortality, and we know that cardiovascular disease work sits within that, and that cardiovascular work—I am getting very worried, Dr McCrea, because I am beginning to sound almost as though I am a health professional, when I am nothing more than a simple hack criminal barrister, rather like my hon. Friend.
The point, however, is that we know that if we look at diabetes, many other boxes are ticked in improving the lot and the health of our population. Certain parts of our population, in particular, have suffered from health inequalities, and my hon. Friend makes a very good point about some of our communities—in the Asian community, there is a great prevalence of type 2 diabetes, as there is in the Afro-Caribbean population. If we look at diabetes prevention, earlier treatment and diagnosis, and then proper treatment and good outcomes, other boxes are ticked—for example, obesity and being overweight, and all the other things that often flow from diabetes, such as the link with cardiovascular disease and so on. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about how a local authority beginning really to drill in and target a particular illness or disease can have many beneficial spin-offs in the manner that I have described.
The Government have established a comprehensive measurement system designed to measure not only overall improvement, but, in particular, inequalities. The NHS outcomes framework—I know that these words do not trip off the tongue and that they may be lost on the majority of completely normal people, but they are important documents—forms the basis for measuring progress on delivering improved results for patients and reducing health inequalities. The NHS England business plan commits to assessing health inequalities across a range of dimensions in the NHS outcomes framework, and those important documents guide our clinicians, the commissioners, and everybody involved in ensuring that we live longer, healthier, and happier lives. That exercise may reveal important health inequalities that have not previously been evident. The public health outcomes framework includes an overarching aim to reduce differences in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy between communities, through greater improvements in more disadvantaged communities. Public Health England will regularly publish data for the indicators, including breakdowns by key equality and inequality characteristics to enable monitoring to help focus action where it is needed.
I am looking forward to the time when we begin to publish, by local authority, the outcomes in each local authority on such things as the stopping of smoking, and the work that is done on the abuse of alcohol. Invariably, we gather that information, but when we start to publish it and put it in the public domain, Members of Parliament, local councillors and members of the public will all have access to it, and they will be able to see how their local authority is performing. We will not try and trick anybody and we will not be unfair, but we will ask people to compare like with like. We make it clear to local authorities that they do not all start from a level playing field, because many of them, unfortunately, are inheriting public health policies that were not some of the best. Therefore, we will recognise that—it is one of the legacies left over from the previous Administration. However, because people, GPs, and everybody involved in the delivery of health, including councillors and Members of Parliament, will have public access to such information, I have no doubt that that will begin to drive a real desire to reduce health inequalities.
I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, but I know the previous job of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and he, like me, knows that there is no better grit in the millstone among professionals than when comparisons are made about who has a better set of results. There is always good, healthy competition between professionals. We have seen that in the past when we published—I am not going to try to pretend that I can remember what it is, and if I say what I think it is, Dr McCrea, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be wrong, but I know that in the past we have published the outcomes of particular procedures and surgery, and that it has improved the outcomes to everybody’s benefit when there has been a bit of healthy competition between professionals. That is what we intend to do by publishing the statistics on public health outcomes by local authorities, so that everybody can see what is out there. We saw it in recycling rates. Publishing information did exactly what we hope it would—it upped everybody’s game, and that is one of the reasons why we will do it.
To conclude, we have created a new health system that makes tackling health inequalities core business, underpinned by new legal duties, measurement and assessment. The local autonomy that we have given to our CCGs and our health and wellbeing boards will enable them to take focused action that meets the needs and aspirations of their populations, concentrating on the groups that experience the worst health inequalities. I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall is now in no doubt about what has been done.
Tackling health inequalities is a key priority for the Government, and it supports the wider focus on fairness and social justice. I know from a radio interview that I gave on Friday—on the “Today” programme on the BBC—that Professor Marmot, who wrote his brilliant report on health inequalities, has already recognised how important it has been that we have made this a statutory duty. He has praised much of the work that this Government have done—I have to say, in stark contrast to the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman has been a firm supporter.
Our approach is to design a system that empowers those at a local level to take action on inequalities, with a strong focus on commissioning quality services and on improving the health of the poorest, fastest.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transposition of EU Legislation
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
The Government’s guiding principles for EU legislation were put in place to end the so-called gold-plating of EU legislation so that British businesses are not put at a disadvantage relative to their European competitors. The guiding principles were introduced in December 2010 and were updated in June 2011 to incorporate three operating principles on early influencing, negotiating positions, and holding the EU institutions to account on their better regulation commitments.
I am today informing the House that the Government have now agreed a revised version of the guiding principles for EU legislation and accompanying guidance on how to implement European directives effectively. These amendments introduce a new principle emphasising the importance of minimising regulatory burdens when implementing EU legislation and ensuring that the UK does not go beyond the minimum requirements of EU legislation when transposing it into UK law. Copies of the revised guiding principles will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available at the following links:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-the-impact-of-regulation-on-business/supporting-pages/reducing-the-cost-of-eu-regulation-on-uk-business.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementing-eu-directives-into-uk-law.
The Government are determined to ensure that UK businesses are not put at a competitive disadvantage compared with their European counterparts. By making these amendments, the Government will ensure that no unnecessary legislative burdens are placed on UK businesses when transposing EU law.
The Government will continue to scrutinise the implementation of all EU legislation to ensure that it is transposed in the least burdensome way possible. We will also continue to work with partners in Europe to reduce the burden of red tape on business that flows from Brussels.
Investment Banks
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
HM Treasury is today laying before Parliament a copy of the report of Peter Bloxham’s review of the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011.
Those regulations, made under the Banking Act 2009, came into force on 8 February 2011. In accordance with section 236 of the Act, the Treasury arranged for a review of the effect of the regulations to be completed within two years of the date on which those regulations came into force. Mr Bloxham was appointed on 28 November 2012, and reported to the Treasury on 7 February 2013.
The Act requires a review of investment bank insolvency regulations to consider, in particular, how far the regulations are achieving the objectives specified for the special administration regime, and whether the regulations should continue to have effect. The specified objectives are:
identifying, protecting, and facilitating the return of client assets;
protecting creditors’ rights;
ensuring certainty for investment banks, creditors, clients, liquidators and administrators;
minimising the disruption of business and markets; and
maximising the efficiency and effectiveness of the financial services industry in the United Kingdom.
Mr Bloxham’s terms of reference set out a two-stage process. The first stage asked him to answer the statutory questions set out above in a report to Treasury. The second stage asks him to consider further possible changes to the special administration regime to improve its operation, as well as wider changes which might provide for a better administration process beyond the narrow bounds of the regime itself.
He concludes that the special administration regime does fulfil a useful purpose and should therefore be retained, but subject to amendment. His report goes on to make a number of recommendations for possible improvement.
The Treasury welcomes this report and accepts the conclusion that the investment firm special administration regime should be retained. The Treasury also accepts that amendments to that regime will be necessary if it is to be better able to fulfil the objectives set for it.
I have therefore asked Peter Bloxham to consider further possible changes to the regime, as recommended in his report. I expect him to report to the Treasury over the summer. The Treasury will also lay that report before Parliament and make a further statement.
Scotland Analysis
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Government have published the second paper in the Scotland analysis programme series to inform the debate on Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom.
“Scotland analysis: Currency and monetary policy” analyses the characteristics of the current arrangements of the UK as a full monetary, fiscal and political union; and investigates the advantages and disadvantages of the potential currency options open to an independent Scotland.
The analysis sets out that the UK is one of the most successful monetary, fiscal and political unions in history, and the current arrangements bring significant benefits to Scotland. Taxation, spending, monetary policy and financial stability policy are co-ordinated across the whole UK to the benefit of all parts of the UK.
In the event of independence, Scotland would be faced with very difficult choices about its currency and monetary arrangements.
Entering a formal sterling currency union with the continuing UK would be very different from a continuation of the current arrangements. It would require detailed negotiations with the continuing UK and any agreement would be likely to involve significant constraints on the tax and spending plans of an independent Scotland. But even with such constraints in place, the economic rationale for the UK to agree to enter a formal sterling union with a separate state is not clear.
If a formal currency union could be agreed, it could be seen as unstable—in particular given that an independent Scotland as a member of the European Union could be obliged to commit to adopt the euro. This could lead to speculative activity in financial markets that would put immediate pressure on the arrangements.
Other options—such as joining the euro, using the pound without the UK’s formal agreement, or introducing a new Scottish currency—would involve their own costs, constraints and risks.
The analysis concludes that continuing membership of the UK is in the best economic interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK. None of the options under independence would serve Scotland as well as the current arrangements within the United Kingdom.
This paper follows the independent expert legal opinion published by the Government alongside the paper “Scotland Analysis: Devolution and the Implications of Scottish Independence” on Monday 11 February. This concluded that, in the event of a vote for independence, Scotland would become a “successor state” and would be required to create a new set of domestic and international arrangements.
Future papers from the Scotland analysis programme will be published over the course of 2013 and 2014 to ensure that people in Scotland have access to the facts and information ahead of the referendum.
Overseas-owned Plutonium in the UK
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
In December 2011 the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published its response to the consultation on plutonium management.
The response said that Government’s preferred option was to reuse plutonium as mixed oxide fuel (MOX). It noted that while Government believe they have sufficient information to set out a direction, they cannot yet make a specific decision to proceed with procuring a new MOX plant. If a satisfactory means of implementation cannot be found then the way forward may need to be revised.
In addition the Government said that overseas owners of plutonium stored in the UK could have that plutonium managed in line with UK plutonium, subject to commercial terms that are acceptable to the UK Government. In addition, subject to compliance with inter-governmental agreements and acceptable commercial arrangements, the UK is prepared to take ownership of overseas plutonium stored in the UK as a result of which it would be treated in the same way as UK-owned plutonium. The Government consider that there are advantages to having national control over more of the civil plutonium in the UK, as this gives us greater influence over how we ultimately manage it.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change has agreed to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA):
Participating in a series of swaps of plutonium material which will result in the NDA taking ownership of around 750 kg of plutonium stored in the UK, previously owned by certain German utilities.
Facilitating a swap of plutonium ownership between Japanese and German utilities which will result in a decrease of about 650 kg of German-owned plutonium in the UK and an equivalent increase in Japanese-owned plutonium in the UK.
Taking ownership to around 1850 kg plutonium that was originally allocated to repay plutonium loans—to France—in relation to historic MOX fuel subcontracts.
Taking ownership of around 350 kg of material previously owned by a Dutch utility.
These transactions, which have been agreed by the Euratom supply agency, will not result in any new plutonium being brought into the UK and will not therefore increase the overall amount of plutonium in the UK, but will enable a net reduction in the total amount of separated plutonium stored in Europe through it being used as fuel in nuclear reactors.
We have agreed to these transactions as they offer a cost-effective and beneficial arrangement, which: removes the need to transport separated plutonium to France; allows the UK to gain national control over more of the civil plutonium in the UK; enables German utilities to receive MOX fuel ahead of the German national reactor shutdown programme; and enables an outstanding loan agreement with France to be settled.
In line with the DECC policy statement, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is engaging with other third parties regarding taking ownership of further overseas plutonium in the UK arising from overseas reprocessing contracts. As well as UK Government approval, these transactions will require consent from the relevant overseas Governments and regulatory bodies, and thereafter Euratom supply agency agreement, before any contracts are enacted.
The UK has committed to publish annual figures for national holdings of civil plutonium at the end of each calendar year to improve transparency and public confidence. The most recent data can be found at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/safeguards/civilplut11.htm.
This data will be updated in due course to reflect the changes described above.
Judicial Review
(11 years, 7 months 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 today laid and published the Government’s response to the engagement exercise “Judicial Review: proposals for reform”, which ran from 13 December 2012 to 24 January 2013.
The Government sought views on a series of proposals which aimed to reduce the burdens placed on public authorities by judicial review while maintaining access to justice and the rule of law. Over 250 responses were received from a range of stakeholders including professional lawyers, representative bodies, businesses, public authorities and interested individuals.
Having carefully considered the views of stakeholders we have decided to take forward the following proposals outlined in the engagement exercise:
We intend to shorten the time limit for bringing a judicial review from three months of the grounds giving rise to the claim to six weeks in planning cases and 30 days in procurement cases.
We will remove the right to a reconsideration at a hearing of the application for permission to bring judicial review in cases where the application is certified as totally without merit by the judge considering the application on the papers.
We have decided to introduce a fee for an oral renewal hearing. The fee will be set at the same level as the fee to fix a substantive hearing for a judicial review, which is currently £215. The fee for a full hearing will be waived if permission is granted at the oral renewal.
Responses also highlighted certain practical difficulties with some of the proposals. In view of this we have decided not to take forward proposals on clarifying the rules on when the time limit starts in cases with continuing grounds, and removing the right to an oral renewal if the same matter had already been litigated in a prior judicial hearing.
We believe that the proposals we are taking forward will tackle delays and reduce the burden of judicial review by filtering out weak, frivolous and unmeritorious cases at an early stage, while ensuring that arguable claims can proceed to a conclusion without delay.
The Government intend to invite the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to consider the necessary changes to the civil procedure rules to give effect to the reforms to time limits and the procedure for applying for permission. We will bring forward secondary legislation for the fee for an oral renewal in due course.
Automatic Transfers: Consolidating Pension Savings
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Later today I intend to publish the Command Paper: “Automatic transfers: consolidating pension savings” (Cm 8605).
Reform of the UK’s pension system is already well under way. Last year saw the introduction of automatic enrolment, confirmation of our plans to fundamentally reform the state pension, and the publication of our strategy for reinvigorating private pensions.
At the heart of our overall strategy is our commitment to support people in building up a better income for their retirement. At the moment every time a person moves job there is a significant risk that they will leave behind a small pension pot, which may never get consolidated to achieve a decent retirement income. Automatic transfers will help people consolidate their savings so they get a clearer view of how these savings build up over their working lifetime and help to ensure they do not miss out on valuable retirement income. By 2050, we estimate that our proposals would halve the number of dormant pots created by automatic enrolment.
Our consultation document: “Meeting future workplace pension challenges: improving transfers and dealing with small pension pots” (Cm 8184) set out options to create an automatic transfer system to deal with the problem of small pots. In July 2012 the Government response to this consultation (Cm 8402) confirmed this intention, and proposed a “pot follows member” automatic transfer system where broadly speaking, peoples’ pension savings move with them when they move jobs.
Since then we have been taking forward work on how we might design and deliver our policy and have been talking to a wide variety of people, including pension providers, third-party administrators, consumer representatives and employers. We were grateful to hear their views. We have made good progress and this Command Paper will set out in more detail how a system of automatic transfers might work in practice. We intend that a broad framework would be provided for in primary legislation, the detail will be set out in secondary legislation which will, of course, be subject to formal consultation. The relevant primary powers will be created in the forthcoming Pensions Bill.
This paper will also confirm my earlier announcement to withdraw short-service refunds from those in money purchase schemes. I will do this at the earliest opportunity following Royal Assent to the forthcoming Pensions Bill as early as 2014.
We will keep working with interested parties to develop and put in place a viable and cost-effective automatic transfer process for schemes and members.
The Command Paper will be available later today at: www.gov.uk/dwp#consultations.
Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
Draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill: Joint Committee Report
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Plant of Highfield
That the Grand Committee takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill (HL Paper 70).
Lord Plant of Highfield
My Lords, I think it has fallen to me, as the longest serving Peer on the Joint Committee, to introduce its report on the ETPIMs Bill. This creates the final part of the architecture of the arrangements to replace control orders. We need only look around today to see that the atmosphere around this is somewhat less feverish than it was when control orders were introduced in 2005, when both Houses of Parliament sat throughout two days and one night. Indeed, we acted as Time Lords, turning the Friday into a Thursday to preserve the continuity of the Sitting of the House.
It is very important that this Bill had detailed pre-legislative scrutiny because it is a draft Bill that may never be introduced into Parliament. It is designed to provide arrangements for preventive measures to be used in a situation of emergency, which of course may never arise, in circumstances in which the provisions of the 2011 TPIMs Act are judged to be insufficient. The Bill will, by definition, be introduced at a tense and worrying time, and would be expected to pass through Parliament as an emergency measure in double-quick time. In these circumstances scrutiny will be very limited, so pre-legislative scrutiny is all the more important as the Bill is not likely to receive intense scrutiny in the emergency situation that will provide the context for the Bill’s legislative career in both Houses. It is an unusual approach, to say the least. It has been called by one person—I have forgotten who—a “back pocket” Bill; it is a Bill that the Government have in their back pocket, which has been scrutinised by this process and will be brought to the House, if necessary, in emergency circumstances.
I have to say that the Joint Committee was not convinced that it would be necessary to proceed in this way. The 2011 Act could have been extended. Extra powers could have been incorporated into it, which could then be activated by laying an order. This would have meant that the powers themselves would have been scrutinised properly in both Houses of Parliament prior to such a different Bill passing through the Houses. One can appreciate the political difficulties in having something on the statute book that quite a few well informed commentators regard as being a version of control orders. I do not think that myself, but it is politically difficult. I shall come to the relationship between the provisions of this Bill and control orders in a few minutes.
However, we are where we are and pre-legislative scrutiny is now the only real scrutiny to which the Bill will be subjected, so this process is of utmost importance. The Joint Committee would still like to see the TPIMs Act and the ETPIMs Bill consolidated into one piece of legislation at the earliest opportunity, although the Government seem to have rejected that in their response to our report.
Control orders, introduced by the previous Government, were always rather controversial. The TPIMs and ETPIMs regimes are intended to succeed control orders and produce a new regime that is more compatible with individual liberty—to be “more liberal”, in the words of the Joint Committee’s report. How, in fact, do ETPIMs differ from control orders and, indeed, from TPIMs? There is no doubt that there is an overlap of purpose, and some overlap of provision, with control orders. However I will stress the differences between the ETPIMs arrangements and control orders.
The first difference is very significant: control orders could be imposed on the basis of the Secretary of State having “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect was engaged in terrorist activity. In the case of TPIMs, it is based on “reasonable belief”. In the case of ETPIMs, it is based on the balance of probabilities, and this is regarded as a more objective test. However, we have received contrasting and somewhat contradictory evidence about how significant this change is. It is represented as raising the threshold by two notches: from reasonable suspicion through reasonable belief to the balance of probabilities. The police evidence from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne certainly regarded it as a significant and real change.
However, the evidence we have had from lawyers on this point has been a bit more guarded. They have taken the view that it is a somewhat semantic distinction, since, in their view, in reviewing control orders judges have tended to use the higher standard, namely the balance of probabilities. So there is a disagreement about whether the threshold has in practice been raised. Certainly, in theory and rhetorically it has been raised, but there is this doubt. We should give quite a lot of credence to the view of the senior police officer about his own practice in evidence-gathering and so forth. He certainly saw the new standard as having some important consequences for police work.
Another significant difference between control orders and TPIMs is the range of restrictions an ETPIM order can impose on a suspect. Under control orders, the Secretary of State had extensive powers to impose relocation; under TPIMs, the Secretary of State could require residence overnight at a specific address. Under ETPIMs, the Secretary of State would have the power to impose a curfew of up to 16 hours—the point about the 16 hours being to make it ECHR-compliant. The court has ruled that more than 18 hours would be a deprivation of liberty. The Secretary of State would also have the power to require a suspect to take up residence in a facility provided by the Government. Under ETPIMs, there could be a complete ban on the use of electronic equipment, compared with a partial ban under TPIMs. Thus the Secretary of State would have the power to prohibit someone subject to a control order from associating with specific individuals without the consent of the Secretary of State.
It seemed to the committee that the differences between ETPIMs and control orders were significant in terms of the evidential basis. DAC Osborne argued that they had led to a change in police practices to meet the requirements of the more rigorous standard and the various impositions I just mentioned. The requirement about hours of curfew had been, as I mentioned earlier, devised to make the ETPIMs arrangements ECHR-compliant, and the Joint Committee certainly welcomed this. Furthermore, the requirements of an order under ETPIMs are limited to those set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
This is a big advance on control orders because the 2005 Act just gave a list of potential impositions on suspects or controlees. This is rather burnt into my soul, since I had quite an altercation with the then Home Secretary about it. However, the list that was given was for illustrative purposes only and the Secretary of State could in fact impose any constraint on the situation of a controlee so as to disrupt the attempt by that person to engage in terrorism, whereas under ETPIMs the Secretary of State will be able only to impose those constraints actually set out in Schedule 1.
There is another difference from control orders in that an individual ETPIMs order lasts at most for two years. It can of course be imposed again if the potential controlee has been engaged in “new” terrorist activities or terrorist-related activity. “New” is given a definition in the Bill that is rather different from conventional and ordinary uses of that word, but it is important that it is defined because it is new terrorist activity that provides the justification once the two-year deadline has been reached for reimposing an ETPIMs order on a controlee. These are substantial differences from control orders and it is important to recognise that.
As with TPIMs, as soon as an order under the ETPIM regime is imposed on an individual it would immediately trigger an automatic review hearing of the Secretary of State’s decision to impose the notice. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the circumstances in Clause 2 had been met by applying the principles of judicial review, such as rationality, proportionality, legality and so forth. There would be an immediate review, using judicial review principles, of the imposition of an ETPIM order.
However, since the advent of the Human Rights Act there has been a strong emphasis in the courts on proportionality in the assessment of executive action that impinges on rights. Proportionality has now become the central strand in judicial review. Some jurists certainly take the view that it is very difficult to distinguish between a judicial review that puts proportionality in a central position and a merits review, the reason being that if a court can quash one or more of the individual restrictions on a person under an ETPIM order because it is regarded as disproportionate in relation to a legitimate goal, it is very difficult to see how that judgment can be anything other than a merits sort of judgment about the order.
The committee favoured that idea of a full merits review because proportionality is central to the sort of jurisprudence that flows from the ECHR and it is then very difficult to distinguish between a proportionality review and a merits review. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said in his evidence to us that the difference between the two forms of review—a judicial review and a merits review—was a distinction without a difference. I suppose that as a previous reviewer of terrorism legislation he is one of the two most experienced people in this area, along with David Anderson, the current reviewer. I think that we agreed with that and we favoured the Government just facing up to reality—that there would be what added up to a merits review, and not just emphasising proportionality, legality and the other criteria of judicial review.
Reference to the ECHR is important because Article 6—this also relates to the role of the judges in scrutinising ETPIMs—requires a right to a fair hearing. Satisfying that right has been the problem with control orders and with TPIMs and will be a problem again with ETPIMs, if one accepts that a right to a fair hearing requires that the individual has some knowledge of the case against him or her. Of course, this is not just a matter of the ECHR; it is a matter of common-law principles to do with a fair trial and fair process.
Both TPIMs and ETPIMs rely on the closed material procedure. In the AF case in 2009, it was argued in judgment that a person subject to a control order must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him or her so that effective instruction can be given by that person to their lawyers. The controlee must be given the gist of the case against him for the regime to be Article 6-compliant. That was a judgment in the UK courts. It is a big defect that the Bill does not require the Secretary of State to furnish such a gist as a right but that she will consider doing so only if requested by the court. That puts the Secretary of State between a rock and a hard place. She will have either to supply the gist if ordered to do so by a court or to drop the action, as happened once or twice under control orders.
Therefore, there is a question about the legality of the ETPIMs order itself, never mind prosecution: whether the person does or does not have the gist of the case against him or her provided by the Secretary of State. The Bill is clear that there is no right on the part of the controlee to receive such a gist. The Joint Committee believes strongly that the Government should be prepared to let the controlee have knowledge of the gist of the case against him or her and that that would provide for making the Bill not only Article 6-compliant but also compatible with common law—particularly, English common-law doctrines.
There remains the question of what happens when the ETPIM order has expired. It expires after two years unless the Secretary of State determines that the person has been engaged in new terrorist activities and imposes a new ETPIM regime based on the balance of probabilities. If there is still suspicion about the person being engaged in terrorist activities but not such that can satisfy the requirements of the balance of probabilities, someone is let off the ETPIM regime. What happens next? The Bill is more or less silent about this. The assumption has to be that the controlee will be kept under surveillance by the security services. It would certainly be useful to know from the Minister how public protection will be ensured after the expiration of an ETPIM order—a problem that did not arise under the control order regime, which could be continued subject to periodic review and so forth.
Two further points have become more salient recently. One issue explored by the committee was whether the security situation necessitating the introduction of an ETPIM Bill could be made worse by public sector cuts and a reduction in funds to the police and MI5. This issue was touched on by DAC Osborne. The security situation can be changed by an increased threat both because more people are engaged in this sort of activity and because the police and security services lack the resources to monitor the individuals concerned. The Minister, Mr Brokenshire, rejected this view in his evidence. However, the Times suggested today on its front page that the heads of MI5 and MI6 had made representations to the Government prior to the spending review suggesting that further budget reductions put security at risk. If they do, it might have an effect on whether an ETPIM Bill is introduced. The security threat would have increased not because there were more people engaged in terrorism but because fewer people were engaged in monitoring it. That is an important issue, which was crystallised by the Times today.
Secondly, I would like to know how the requirements of ETPIM orders will be implemented and compliance monitored. Will it be done by the police or by private security companies? We are dealing with people who, on the balance of probabilities and according to an objective threshold of judgment, are regarded as being among the most dangerous people in the country. If their compliance with an ETPIM regime is to be monitored by a private company such as G4S, what confidence does the Minister have that such firms will be up to the job after the debacle over the Olympics? This is very important. We need to know, if not in detail, how the Government see the implementation of this working.
My final point is about prosecution. Paragraph 15 of the Government’s response to the Joint Committee’s report states that the Crown Prosecution Service, in consultation with the police, will decide whether to bring a prosecution. I am not at all sure how this rather bald statement is compatible with the role of government in determining the public interest. Surely it cannot be the case that the police and the CPS will be able to authorise prosecution, with the disclosures that such a prosecution would bring, without getting guidance from the Government about what is in the national interest. If the Government have to have a view about whether a prosecution should be proceeded with, it cannot be the case that only the CPS and the police should decide on a prosecution. I would like some clarification over that. It was certainly the case under the control order regime that the Government abandoned one or two prosecutions because they regarded the disclosures required as being against the public interest. The Government have to make that judgment about the national interest, and, if so, then they are involved in the judgment about whether or not to prosecute. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee that considered the draft ETPIMs Bill, I seek clarification from the Government on three points. The first is emergency legislation. The committee considered the draft Bill in the context of recently enacted TPIMs legislation and accepted it to be a positive move away from control orders. However, I entirely agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Plant: the progress of TPIMs legislation could have included the option for such powers in the 2011 Act, but instead there was talk of emergency legislation should such a need for extra powers arise. The suggestion of emergency legislation for an ETPIMs Bill strikes me as unacceptable to the principles of parliamentary scrutiny. I urge the Government to think again on this point.
The noble Lord has suggested, and the committee is very much in agreement with this, consolidating TPIMs and ETPIMs legislation without the pressure of time or security threat. By its very nature, emergency legislation requires enactment in a very short time—perhaps just a few days. The committee heard that in such exceptional circumstances the Home Secretary would be severely restricted in what information he or she would be able to share with Parliament. One of our witnesses said that the Home Secretary would almost be in a position of saying:
“‘Trust me, or don’t trust me, if you dare’”.
It is essential that a credible process of briefing and scrutiny takes place in the event that ETPIMs legislation is brought forward. It is our duty to scrutinise; it would not do to reply on trust or indeed to offer private briefings to select Members. The formal government response to our report acknowledges that one way to achieve this would be to brief the Intelligence and Security Committee and for it to report to Parliament. Such a structured approach is far preferable to the informal “trust me” option.
My second area of concern is the definition of “exceptional circumstances”. I encourage the Government to be clearer about the rare and exceptional nature of the circumstances that might require the additional powers covered by the draft ETPIMs Bill. There was consensus on the committee that such circumstances were at the rarer end of the spectrum of seriousness, but we heard a call for ETPIMs to be enacted ahead of the 2012 Olympic Games. This was sensibly rejected, but it indicates to me that more clarity is needed.
The Government’s response was that exceptional circumstances were those in which a serious terrorist threat required the additional ETPIMs powers. However, such a definition sheds little light beyond the dictionary meaning of the word “exceptional”. I ask the Minister to reflect on this because our discussions today may well be examined in years to come to see what we intended. The Government must be clearer on this matter.
I welcome, as did the committee, the assurance from the Government that they will establish a formal review group for any ETPIMs orders mirroring those operated for existing TPIMs orders. This would be an important safeguard to ensure that each ETPIMs order goes no further than absolutely necessary in its demands on the person involved.
My third concern is about judicial process. We are all agreed that where possible we must always prosecute those involved in terrorism. A fair and open trial must be the ultimate aim in all cases. To introduce administrative orders restricting liberty stretches the principle of justice that we hold dear. That is why it is right that, unlike control orders, TPIMs and ETPIMs are time-limited measures. However, such time limits mean that we must be ready to answer the question: what happens when the time is up? The Government must take real steps to develop TPIMs exit strategies based around deradicalisation and judicial processes. I recognise that the use of intercept evidence in court will not, in itself, remove the need for TPIMs or ETPIMs, but it may help in later judicial processes. That means that the Government must continue to examine ways to make intercept evidence admissible in our courts, as it is elsewhere in the world.
The Joint Committee was clear that exit strategies from TPIMs and possible ETPIMs must be developed in every case. From my reading of the Government’s response, this is a recommendation that has been accepted. However, will the Minister confirm that clear exit strategies are currently in place for each TPIMs order? What is proposed for those higher-risk cases where neither prosecution nor deportation is considered possible? I look forward to the Minister’s response but I retain the hope that the circumstances requiring the introduction of ETPIMs legislation will not come about.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Joint Committee for its report on the draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill and express my thanks for the comprehensive and informative speech introducing the report from my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield.
In a nutshell, the coalition Government decided that they did not like the control orders introduced in the interests of national security by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. They therefore brought in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, which replaced control orders with something that was very similar in many respects, namely TPIMs or “control orders-lite”, but which had the key advantage from the Government’s point of view of having a different name.
However, the Government had to recognise that no longer having the full powers under the control orders, as provided for in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, represented a potential threat to national security. As has been said, they were not prepared to address this reality in the original TPIMs Act because politically that would have weakened even further their argument that control orders should cease to exist. Instead they have prepared a separate Bill, the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which has been the subject of consideration by the Joint Committee, and which the Government would seek to pass through Parliament as emergency legislation providing for additional restrictive measures in an ETPIM if they deemed that the circumstances demanded it.
The Minister will no doubt claim that ETPIMs are not the same as the control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, but frankly there is not a lot of difference. The words of the ACPO representative in giving evidence to the committee have already been quoted but he told the committee that, with ETPIMs,
“essentially we go back to the old control order regime ... the old regime was bedded in, and it worked very well”.
Those were apparently his words.
The Joint Committee gave its firm view on the Government’s approach to the draft Bill when it said:
“We can find no compelling reason for the decision to introduce these measures as a separate Bill at some unspecified time in unspecified circumstances. We find it odd that these measures were not included as an order-making power in the original TPIMs Bill where they could be subjected to fuller scrutiny in the course of normal Parliamentary business … The Government’s position that it will introduce this legislation at some future date in response to some unspecified emergency is an unfortunate and unwelcome decision”.
That issue has already been raised with the Minister, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
In their response to the Joint Committee report, the Government have replied to the Joint Committee’s proposal for briefing a select group of properly vetted Members on the reasons for introducing this emergency legislation if the Government decided that had become necessary. Can the Minister say whether there has been any firming up of the Government’s position on that point, as set out in paragraph 5 of their response to the Joint Committee report?
The Joint Committee report states that in November last year there were nine people subject to TPIMs. It also quotes the Association of Chief Police Officers representative as telling the Joint Committee that,
“given the resource currently available”,
and the changes made to policing, the police,
“are adequately managing the risk posed by people subject to TPIMs at the moment”.
That is hardly a ringing endorsement of how things are working, bearing in mind that we are talking about people—the subjects of TPIMs—who are a threat to national security. The use of the phrase,
“given the resource currently available”,
suggests that ACPO thinks the resource currently available to undertake the job in the way it feels appropriate and needed is not all it might be. That is followed by the phrase,
“adequately managing the risk posed by people subject to TPIMs at the moment”.
In a Government who feel that schools deemed “satisfactory” by inspectors are not doing as well as they should, one must ask the Minister whether the Government feel that adequately managing the risk is good enough when national security is at stake? Why did the ACPO representative not feel able to say that they were either properly or fully managing the risk? Indeed, why did he not simply say they were managing the risk, without the less than enthusiastic addition of the word “adequately”?
As I understand it, an individual subject to a TPIM absconded at Christmas, allegedly in a black cab, and has not been caught. If that is broadly accurate, and the Minister may tell me otherwise, was that individual under surveillance, and was what happened an example of what is meant by “adequately” managing the risk? Until control orders were replaced by TPIMs, the individual in question had been the subject of a control order, and had been relocated outside London. Under the TPIM, the person was free to move to London, and it now appears he has absconded.
Would the noble Lord also say something about the cost of TPIMs? Is it true that a TPIM costs many times more than a control order to enforce? Is up to £18 million per annum per TPIM, a figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his evidence to the committee, anywhere near the mark? If that figure is anywhere near the mark, has it been provided to the Metropolitan Police and does the money appear in their budget?
Enhanced terrorism prevention and investigation measures as provided for in this draft Bill are, as has been said, distinct from TPIMs, with the conditions the Government can impose being more stringent than under a TPIM. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that “in most respects” the ETPIM Bill appeared to,
“replicate what was possible and generally imposed under control orders”.
It is intended that ETPIMs are introduced only in exceptional circumstances. It is clear from their response to the report that clarity on what is meant by “exceptional circumstances”—I think that was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, although she would not have used my words—will not be forthcoming from the Government. However, will the Minister say whether, under the draft Bill and in exceptional circumstances, an ETPIM could be deemed necessary if, at the end of the maximum period of two years for which a TPIM could be enforced, an individual covered by that TPIM was still regarded as a serious threat to national security? In those circumstances, could an ETPIM be imposed under the legislation being taken through Parliament? Would that be deemed “exceptional circumstances”?
I think that I am also right in saying that at least some, if not all, of those covered by TPIMs will cease to be so covered at the beginning of next year because the maximum period for which an individual can be subject to the terms of a TPIM, namely two years, will have come to an end for some, if not all, of those currently covered. What do the Government intend to do when the TPIMs in respect of those individuals cease by law to have effect. Presumably, if the Government no longer considered them a threat, the TPIMs would no longer be effective, so the fact that the TPIMs are still effective suggests that the Government still consider these individuals to be a threat to national security.
Are the Government saying that, by a happy coincidence, these individuals will cease to be a threat to national security on precisely the same day the TPIM ceases by law to have effect? If not, what do the Government intend to do? The Government must have made up their mind what action they would take, or what the options would be when the TPIM expired, when they made the decision that TPIMs in respect of an individual could not be effective for more than two years. If the Government are not prepared to answer that question today, when will they give an answer?
Coming back to what the Government mean when they say that an ETPIM would be introduced only in exceptional circumstances, the government Minister who gave evidence to the Joint Committee identified “multiple attacks” or a “really exceptional incident” as possible triggers for the ETPIMs Bill to be introduced. If that is the case, does it mean that an incident actually has to have occurred, with possible injuries or loss of life, before the emergency Bill would be introduced? Could the ETPIMs Bill be introduced in respect of an individual where there was activity which suggested an incident might be about to be perpetrated, or will we have to wait either until we are sure an incident is about to be perpetrated, or wait for someone to be quite possibly killed or injured in an incident before it was deemed that there were “exceptional circumstances” which justified the Bill being introduced? Apparently the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation told the Joint Committee that there would be no question of imposing an ETPIM on anybody unless the Home Secretary were persuaded that they,
“have been involved in terrorism”,
which could be interpreted as shutting the gate only after the horse has bolted. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this point and also how, if there are emergency “exceptional circumstances”, there will always be time to go through even a truncated parliamentary process—assuming Parliament was sitting—without putting national security at risk.
Clause 2 of the draft Bill sets out the conditions on which the Secretary of State must satisfy herself before imposing an ETPIM. One of those conditions is that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity, and that some or all of this activity is “new”. The definition of “new” is addressed in the Joint Committee’s report, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some examples from a government perspective of what would or would not constitute “new” terrorism-related activity in relation to the conditions on which the Secretary of State must be satisfied before imposing an ETPIM. It could presumably be the ETPIM itself and the conditions attached to it that were preventing the individual concerned from embarking on “new” terrorist-related activity. Could the reference to “new” activity mean that the ETPIM could not be extended or renewed because there was no evidence of new activity even though the reason there was no “new” activity was the existence and conditions already attached to the ETPIM? Perhaps the Minister could respond to this point, and the following comment in the Joint Committee report:
“As such, it is possible that under this legislation, at the end of a maximum two-year period, an allegedly dangerous, radicalised individual will be released without direct restrictions on their behaviour”.
What is the Government’s response to this point in view of the fact that it directly relates to national security?
The Government’s written response to the Joint Committee report did not do justice to all the serious points raised, and questions asked, in the report. My noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, have raised a number of points and questions today, as have I. I hope that all these questions will receive a considered and thoughtful response from the Minister, since the House has a duty to challenge, question and hold to account the Government, in particular on matters that impact on national security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I will conclude this interesting if intimate debate by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Plant, for introducing it. The way in which he did so informed the Committee of the background in a very thorough fashion. In some ways, that makes it easier for me to demonstrate the Government’s thinking on this issue. I thank all noble Lords, and all honourable Members, who participated in the Joint Committee, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Plant, and my noble friend Lady Doocey. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, the Government take the scrutiny of this committee extremely seriously.
As the noble Lord, Lord Plant, described, an enhanced TPIM Bill would be introduced only in exceptional circumstances that necessitate the use of more restrictive powers than those normally available in the TPIM Act 2011. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rather pushed me to go into more detail about what those exceptional circumstances might be. I do not think that I can genuinely do that. However, the Government will never put national security at risk. Protecting the British public will always be our top priority, and prosecution and conviction will always be the best option for dealing with terrorists.
As the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said, TPIMs were introduced following the counterterrorism powers review. They provide a better balance than control orders between controlling people who are engaged in terrorism-related activity and ensuring that if they re-engage in that activity we can collect evidence that can lead to their conviction. TPIMs assist the police and the Security Service by providing effective powers to manage the risk posed by a small number of terror suspects who pose a threat to our security but who cannot be prosecuted or, in the case of foreign nationals, deported.
TPIMs allow the Home Secretary to impose a powerful range of measures to protect the public. We have also provided substantial extra resources for the police and Security Service to help them manage the risk that such individuals pose, and to maximise the opportunities to put them on trial in open court. TPIM powers give the police and the Security Service a range of powers that, along with additional resources, will be adequate to protect the public from terrorism in all but exceptional circumstances. We made clear when legislating for TPIMs that in future exceptional circumstances may necessitate the use of more restrictive measures. This would be in the event of a very serious terrorism-related risk that the Home Secretary, on the advice of the Security Service, judges cannot be managed by any other means. We maintain that these more stringent measures should be available only in exceptional circumstances.
The example of the Olympics was raised in this debate by my noble friend Lady Doocey. That we did not introduce these powers speculatively in advance of a significant event shows our commitment to do so only in response to specific circumstances that warrant them being on the statute book. As noble Lords will know, we were commended by David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, on the restraint shown in the run-up to the Games.
The Government agree that it is right that this legislation receives proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we published the draft ETPIM Bill over 18 months ago, in September 2011. We did this so that it was clear what enhanced measures would be introduced and to enable the draft Bill to receive the detailed scrutiny of both Houses through pre-legislative scrutiny. I welcome this opportunity further to debate the draft Bill today, and am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has tabled this debate.
In his introduction, the noble Lord carefully analysed the Government’s position and whether ETPIM powers should be in the 2011 Act, and my noble friend Lady Doocey shared his concern. Perhaps I can clarify. We consider that these powers will not be routinely needed, and that the 2011 Act will provide robust powers to protect the public in almost all circumstances. We consider that the enhanced powers should be introduced only if they are needed, and should be specifically agreed by Parliament. Our view is that they should not be routinely available on the statute book. That is why we have prepared, but do not intend to introduce until needed, the ETPIM Bill. If we introduced that Bill, we would consider whether to incorporate the enhanced powers into the TPIM Act when the renewal of that Act comes before Parliament at its five-year renewal point, taking into account the circumstances at that time.
Should this legislation ever need to be introduced, the Government will seek to brief Members appropriately. This will need to be done in the context of the as yet unknown circumstances in which it would be introduced, which may well mean that only a limited number of suitably cleared people could be briefed. It would be for both Houses to decide whether those circumstances were exceptional enough to justify the introduction of these enhanced powers.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the Home Secretary has discussed with the ISC its potential role in an emergency legislation situation and the need to assure the House. The exact most appropriate mechanism to assist Parliament will depend on the precise circumstances involved, but noble Lords will know that we have recently debated a Bill that sets out the role of the ISC clearly as a committee of Parliament.
As I have said before, I do not think that it is appropriate to prescribe the circumstances in which the Home Secretary would seek to introduce the ETPIM regime. This is draft emergency legislation to deal with a potential threat that is, by its very nature, unknown. It would be difficult and unwise to attempt an exhaustive hypothetical definition. However, situations in which the draft enhanced TPIM Bill might be introduced are if there was credible reporting pointing to a series of concurrent attack plots, all of which appeared imminent, or in the wake of a major terrorist attack where there was a potential prospect that there may be further attacks. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that an individual may pose a particular threat to national security such that it is necessary to introduce the ETPIM Bill.
The enhanced TPIM Bill makes available a range of more stringent powers that are not available under TPIMs. These include relocation to another part of the UK without consent; the requirement to be in a named residence for up to 16 hours; geographical boundaries beyond which they may travel only with permission; a total ban on access to communications equipment such as computers and mobile phones; and further restrictions on association. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, went into those in his introductory remarks. As the noble Lord identified, there are clear differences between control orders and ETPIMs, and I thank him for setting them out so clearly. They include the higher legal test, the limit on restrictions that can be imposed and the two-year limit.
The noble Lord asked how ETPIM notices would be enforced, and specifically what confidence I would have in a private contractor performing this role. Of course we hope that the ETPIM Bill never comes into force, but if we had to impose an ETPIM notice, enforcement, as with TPIMs, would be a matter for the police, and I am confident that they would not take a step that put public safety at risk. They would make a judgment that conformed to the seriousness of the situation and the national security risk involved.
The ETPIM Bill also includes some important safeguards. First, the enhanced powers will be available only if Parliament believes that they are necessary. The enhanced measures will also be subject to a higher legal test, as I said, in order to impose them. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity on the balance of probabilities. That is a higher threshold than “reasonable belief”, which is the test for a standard TPIM notice. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser that the ETPIM Bill is clear that new terrorist-related activity is that which has been committed after the imposition of an ETPIM notice. That is quite clear in the draft Bill.
The Government agree with my noble friend Lady Doocey that it is important to develop a clear exit strategy for each TPIM subject. Noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot go into detail on this work, but I confirm that there is a multiagency approach to ensure that all options are considered. We continue to believe that prosecution and conviction is the best approach to combat the risk of terrorism, and that the best place for a terrorist is in a prison cell. In addition, the police and Crown Prosecution Service continue to keep under review whether a successful prosecution could be brought against those subject to a TPIM notice. We will also continue to keep under review whether further tools are required to enable the prosecution of terrorists.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Plant, that the Government maintain the fully independent Crown Prosecution Service to apply the public interest test. It is a two-stage test, as it is in all prosecutions: first, that there is a realistic prospect of conviction based on the evidence available; and, secondly, that it is in the public interest to prosecute. To apply this test, it considers the evidence that can be put forward in an individual case, including where there may be any national security concerns. This is why the Government are conducting an extensive and detailed review to assess the benefits, costs and risks of introducing intercept as evidence. This work continues under the guidance of the cross-party group of privy counsellors and will report in due course. The former and current independent reviewers of counterterrorism legislation and my noble friend Lady Doocey have said that IAE would not remove the need for TPIMs.
Lord Rosser
If the Minister is about to close, is he able to address the question that I asked about what happens to those who are on TPIMs at present? I understand that at least some, if not all, TPIMs will come to an end at the beginning of next year. What is going to happen to them? I asked whether, if those people were still considered a threat to national security, the Government could seek an ETPIM in respect of them or whether they would fail to meet the criteria if they had not committed any “new” terrorist activity. I also asked whether, if someone is subject to an ETPIM, the Government envisage renewing it or extending it in any form because presumably, under their own definition, they could do so only if the individual had committed some “new” terrorist activity while under the EPTIM which, if the EPTIM was being effective, the individual would not have done.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I can answer the noble Lord best by saying that all cases are reviewed properly. I gave a description in response to my noble friend Lady Doocey’s question about the disengagement of subjects from a TPIM order. The future conduct of individuals who have been subject to a TPIM or an ETPIM will be subject to review regarding the nature of the threat that they present to national security. That is how this legislation works in relation to the individuals who are subject to it.
I was going on to say, about the introduction of this draft Bill and the exceptional circumstances that might lead to its presentation to Parliament, that I am sure noble Lords will say that they hope that such circumstances never arise, that this diligent work conducted by noble Lords may not be necessary and that we do not face the exceptional circumstances that would mean that the Government were forced to present the Bill to Parliament. I thank noble Lords.
Lord Plant of Highfield
My Lords, I will not detain colleagues for more than a minute or two, but there are one or two issues that I would like to leave in colleagues’ minds. I was grateful for the Minister’s speech. However, perhaps it is my suspicious mind but I thought that his response on private security firms was possibly a little oversubtle. I do not know whether he meant that it would still be down to each police force that was responsible for an ETPIMs controlee to decide for themselves, in the light of the national security position, whether or not they should contract out the supervision and the way of imposing the ETPIM order on an individual. Is there any prohibition on that, or is it up to each police service?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I made it clear that it is up to the police to make that judgment and that they would do so on the grounds of national security. There may of course be some elements of the TPIM that might well be most effectively done by a contractor and not a police force, but that is up to the police to decide. It is not for us to discuss in detail here because I do not think that that is particularly appropriate. The police are charged with implementing these orders, and they will do so in the most effective way. That is how the police carry out their duties.
Lord Plant of Highfield
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. I am not sure that I am entirely reassured, but at least I now know exactly what he meant.
The Minister spoke eloquently and correctly about the role of the CPS and the police in deciding whether or not to prosecute. The response of the Government is:
“It is for the Crown Prosecution Service, in consultation with the police, to decide whether to bring a prosecution, not the Government”.
I am sure that that is constitutionally right. I am just a bit worried, though; certainly, evidence that was given to us said fairly baldly that the previous Government had abandoned two prosecutions because of the way in which the disclosure of information would affect national security. According to the evidence—and it may be wrong; I do not know—the Government had made that decision, rather than the CPS or the police acting on their own. If that is right, it is not the case, as stated in the Government’s response, that:
“It is for the Crown Prosecution Service, in consultation with the police, to decide whether to bring a prosecution, not the Government”.
We will just leave that hanging in the air unless the Minister has further information.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
All I can say is that it is obviously for the Government to decide whether it would be in the public interest to present that evidence within a prosecution. That could influence the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service on whether or not to pursue a prosecution. As noble Lords will know, we have recently passed some legislation that has perhaps made this decision slightly easier for the Government.
Lord Plant of Highfield
I thank the noble Lord for that, because I thought that it was a rather bald statement and I just did not think that it could be true concerning the role of the Government in abrogating a judgment about what disclosures were in the national interest to the CPS and/or the police. I am grateful for that clarification.
I am slightly bothered about the scrutiny of the Bill. We have come to the end of our time and effort today, but we have not really discussed, except in procedural terms, the extent to which the ETPIMs regime will provide an incentive for prosecution. Given that they last for only two years, you might say that there is an incentive; on the other hand, though, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said, other things within the ETPIMs may militate against the capacity to bring a prosecution. Anyway, we have not dealt with that this afternoon but we have had a good discussion. No doubt at some point we will return to many of these issues. I thank noble Lords for contributing and the Minister for his response.
Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I shall provide the Committee with a brief summary of what the order is intended to achieve. The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of any provision made by or under any Act of the Scottish Parliament. This order is made in consequence of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, which I shall refer to as the 2011 Act. The 2011 Act aims to improve support for both professionals and panel members to ensure consistency of approach and practice, with a view to achieving better outcomes for children and young people involved in Scotland’s children’s hearings system. The 2011 Act will provide for legal and procedural changes to ensure that children’s rights continue to be properly upheld, while also bringing the majority of existing law relating to children’s hearings into a single statute.
The 2011 Act largely restates and updates the law relating to children’s hearings in Scotland. The order will ensure that existing legislation in England and Wales, as well as reserved UK legislation, is updated to reflect those changes. The order also makes cross-border provision to ensure that certain aspects of the children’s hearings system—for example, the placing of children in a particular place—apply to other parts of the UK. The modifications made by the order are largely of a technical nature and will ensure that the existing law continues to operate effectively by recognising the modifications made by the 2011 Act and subordinate legislation made under it.
The order demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope that the Committee will agree that the order is an appropriate use of the powers in the Scotland Act 1998 and that the practical result is something to be welcomed. I commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie
My Lords, my intervention will be largely based on reminiscence. In 1968, when the children’s hearings were set up as part of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, I was a diploma in social work student in Edinburgh and I recall the senior civil servant in charge of the Bill coming to speak to us. I suppose that I have spent the subsequent 45 years watching the development of the children’s panel system, which is characterised by being much admired but hardly ever replicated. I certainly believe that the welfare approach is the right approach and that the children’s hearings are more likely to find a suitable conclusion to, or development of, the person’s situation. I think that we in Scotland were right to abandon the juvenile court approach that was extant before 1968.
I fully concur with my noble friend that this legislation is the inevitable result of devolved legislation. It would be entirely wrong for this Parliament not to pass this legislation. Families clearly have the opportunity to go and live wherever they wish. Indeed, sometimes things go wrong when people are on holiday in Scotland. This order certainly has my support; it comes from a good, and unfortunately a rare, example of this Parliament legislating uniquely for Scotland. That was very good and it does not happen very often. It was certainly a Government who had popular support in Scotland, and it will be interesting to see what the future holds in this respect. I certainly give this order a very fair wind.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I totally agree that this is a consequence of the devolution brought about by the Labour Government and that these are natural extensions of it. Before I make my few remarks, I thank the Minister for the helpful communication that he sent me and the offer of assistance. It was much appreciated and I respect him and his staff for that.
There are a few things. It may be that I am nitpicking— I hope not—but my interest was aroused by looking at paragraphs of the order and thinking about how they will be practically implemented. Paragraph 4.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“A children’s hearing or a sheriff may consider that it is in the best interests of a child to stay with a particular person. If that child then absconds from the particular person, for whatever reason, to a place in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, article 9 of this Order allows a constable in any of those jurisdictions to arrest the child without a warrant and take them back to the person”.
I wonder if there are any practical examples, without names of course, where that has happened. What is the justification? That is quite a lot of power being invested in a police officer, and I wonder what the track record is of any of these things happening. In addition, it seems quite a strong measure and I wonder whether there is any authority in existence that reviews a case. Is it kept within the police or within the social work department? Because everyone should be accountable, it certainly might be interesting or useful to see whether there is any review of any cases like that which throw up any problems with it.
I move on to paragraph 4.10, on offences related to absconding. It says:
“A children’s hearing or a sheriff may consider it to be in the best interests of a child to require them to be kept in a particular place or with a particular person”.
Does a child have any representation at that hearing? Who represents the interests of the child? If there is anything that a child is concerned about or is affecting them but is not known to the authorities, what sort of representation does a child get from the care system in that situation?
Moving on to paragraph 4.12:
“This Order prohibits the publication of certain information about proceedings at a children’s hearing or court proceedings under the 2011 Act if it is intended that publication will, or is likely to, identify the child, the child’s address, or the school which the child attends”.
Can we get some clarification of the word “publication”? Recent events show how something can go “viral” on the internet. Would the publication of a child’s name on the internet be a breach of this? Has that been envisaged, or was this framed and implemented at a time when there was no such thing as the internet? It would be interesting to see whether internet abuse would be covered by this and whether action could be taken, no matter how difficult it can be.
Paragraph 4.13 is entitled:
“Transfer of children from Scotland to England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Effect of compulsory supervision order”.
Quite rightly, throughout the order there is reference to the four home countries. Is there any joint body or liaison on this between the countries, or between any two countries involved in a particular case or incident? We all know how bureaucracy can be, and if there is no scrutiny and transparency things can go wrong. Again, paragraph 4.19, which is entitled:
“Child placed in secure accommodation: decision of the head of unit”,
says:
“Under the 2011 Act, a children’s hearing may, in conjunction with a relevant order or warrant, make a secure accommodation authorisation (SAA) which could specify that the child resides at a residential establishment in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Under the 2011 Act, the Chief Social Officer (CSWO) must then make a decision as to whether or not to implement the SAA”.
Again, that seems like an awful lot of authority and responsibility to be given to one person. Are there any methods of scrutinising such decisions, or are they reviewed by the chief social worker? I ask this because—and I am not attacking social workers—no one is perfect, and it is all about scrutiny and accountability.
I have raised a number of questions, and the Minister may not be able to answer them. I find no reasons to doubt the order—in fact I support it—but I would like some clarification on these issues concerning transparency, scrutiny and accountability, bearing in mind we are dealing with children, who are not always able to represent themselves properly.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for his kind words of support. The noble Earl of course has much experience of working with children and young people. I am also grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. If I do not answer any specific questions of his, I will of course write, when appropriate. He asked first about the review of cases and the viewpoint of the child. I am not aware of any problems, but of course I will write if I have any useful information. Many of these matters are of course the responsibility of the Scottish Government, but I am content to pursue the points raised by the noble Lord with the Scottish Government and write to him.
He asked an interesting question about publishing restrictions that were felt to be necessary in the age of social networking systems. The restriction is primarily aimed at journalists, to prevent them from publishing information that could identify a vulnerable child. With regard to social media, if the principal reporter is made aware that a sibling has posted something on a Facebook or Twitter page about the whereabouts of their brother or sister, the police have been known to visit them and ask them to remove the post. This is generally complied with as they have not understood the consequences of that post. The Scottish Government do not expect any changes to be brought forward in these types of situations.
It might be helpful to the Committee if I gave a real-world example of the effect of the order. Suppose that a 15 year-old child is subject to a compulsory supervision order with a condition that he reside at home with his mother in the Scottish borders. The CSO also contains a direction regulating supervised contact once a week with his father. His father is estranged from the mother and resides in Newcastle. The father therefore travels once a week to a social services centre in the Scottish borders for supervised contact with his son.
One day the child is persuaded by his father to travel across the border and stay with him in Newcastle. The child tells his mother that he is off to play football with his friends the following Saturday morning, but instead travels to Newcastle. When the child does not return home as expected, the mother contacts his friends and learns that he has gone to see his father. She contacts social services and the police, who arrange to visit the father. The father denies that the child is with him and conceals the child from police and social services in England.
In this instance, the father would be guilty of an offence under Section 171 of the 2011 Act if he lived in Scotland, but without a Section 104 order—the one that we are debating today—he would not be guilty of the same offence in England. We therefore need the Section 104 order to protect Scottish children across the UK. I am grateful for the support of the Committee and I beg to move.
Suicide
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to community groups, voluntary organisations, charities and faith groups that support people at risk of suicide.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who are contributing to this short debate. It is a tough subject and deserves our attention and support. I begin by paying tribute to the work of the Samaritans which is, this year, celebrating 60 years of amazing support for people from all walks of life who are trying to cope through a critical period in their lives.
I am privileged to be chairman of the Samaritans Advisory Board and have learnt at first hand so much of the extraordinary achievements all began with one man, Chad Varah, and one phone in one room in a church in the City of London. Chad Varah recognised that suicide is not inevitable, and the ability for someone to be able to share their thoughts with another, on a confidential basis, through the power of communication, could prevent unnecessary deaths.
Since that time 60 years ago, when this was a totally taboo subject, more than 127,000 volunteers have answered over 115 million calls for help—that is, twice the population of the United Kingdom—all without one penny of taxpayer subsidy but through charitable giving.
Samaritans volunteers are ordinary people providing callers with a safe place to talk, without judgment. Today 20,665 volunteers answer 5 million calls across the UK 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That means a contact every six seconds by phone, text, e-mail and letter and face to face.
Confidentiality and anonymity are hallmarks of the charity. I now realise that I have some wonderful friends whom I have known for years without knowing that they are Samaritans. I pay tribute to them all.
Even with the support of Samaritans, more than 6,500 lives are lost each year across the UK to suicide, and it is on the increase—by over 8% in the past year alone. Totally indiscriminate, suicide can affect anyone, no matter what their age, gender or background. Last year Samaritans answered more than 650,000 calls for help from people experiencing suicidal feelings. For every suicide, approximately 20 attempts are made. In 2011, more than 130,000 suicide attempts were made. One little-known fact is that men are three times more likely to die by suicide than women. Men in their 30s to 50s in lower socioeconomic groups are at the highest risk, and we do not know enough about why this group is so vulnerable to suicide.
What, in addition to the wonderful support of Samaritans and other related charities, such as Combat Stress, can be done?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates)
A Division having been called, the Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.
Baroness Buscombe
So, my Lords, what can be done in addition to the wonderful support of the Samaritans and other related charities, such as Combat Stress? Technology is key to recognising that young people, in particular, no longer use a phone in the conventional way. They text and use social media to communicate and share their thoughts. Partnerships between organisations affected by incidents of suicide are critical. An example of this is a five-year partnership between the Samaritans and Network Rail, who are working together to confront suicide with some considerable success. In addition, there is a strong role for government. The new suicide prevention strategy, Preventing Suicide in England, published by the Department of Health in September 2012, is very welcome. This important development in government thinking recognises that any strategy to tackle suicide must be cross-government and needs the support of the voluntary and statutory sectors, academic institutions and schools, businesses, industry, faith groups, journalists and other media.
The link to other social problems, such as family breakdown, unemployment, debt, alcohol and drug misuse and the criminal justice system is so important. In short, we live in a complex society where, too often, people are lonely and feel unable to cope, even when they may have a loving family around them. The strategy makes some critically important statements in its six defined areas of action, which aim to reduce the risk of suicide in key high-risk groups; to tailor approaches to improve mental health in specific groups; to reduce access to the means of suicide; to provide better information and support to those bereaved or affected by suicide; to support the media in delivering sensitive approaches to suicide and suicidal behaviour; and, finally, to support research, data collection and monitoring.
The strategy includes a new area for action, highlighting the importance of providing better support to people who have been bereaved by suicide. Some bereaved families say that hitherto there has been little support available for them to turn to. The strategy is also very clear that, for suicide prevention to be effective, mental and physical health have to be seen as equally important, and we need better mental health for all. That in itself presents an enormous challenge, albeit one that is entirely laudable and should be pursued with rigour.
The immediate challenge is to ensure that the six areas of action are applied in practice and filter through to all parts of the country, both urban and rural, and reach those in need of support. All upper-tier local authorities in England should, I suggest, commit to the development of a local suicide prevention action plan, involving a wide range of statutory agencies and voluntary organisations.
Improvements could also be made in relation to signposting. How do people know where to turn to when they are in shock following the suicide of a family member or friend? Coroners’ officers, GP surgeries and other gatekeepers need to ensure that they are referring people bereaved by suicide to sources of support—for example, making available the Help is at Hand support booklet. In addition, rollout of a new free-to-caller number, allocated by the European Commission and transferred by Ofcom to the Samaritans, is key, albeit additional funding to support this development is needed.
Given that implementation of the strategy is crucial, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Suicide and Self-Harm Prevention has recently sought to investigate the effectiveness of local suicide prevention plans in England—a relevant question, given both the strategy and the fact that both recent public health and NHS reforms have, as of this month, become fully operational. The all-party group wrote to local authorities and PCTs to establish the extent of suicide prevention activity in each of the 152 county and unitary local authority areas in England, and the response is concerning: 27% of local authority areas do not have a local suicide prevention plan and 46% of local authority areas do not have a multi-agency suicide prevention group.
The all-party group made a number of important, practical recommendations. At national level, these are aimed primarily at the Department of Health, the main thrust being that a stronger set of requirements needs to be imposed by the Government to ensure that the aims and objectives of the strategy are implemented at local level. The necessary steps for implementation at local level include requiring local authorities each to develop a suicide prevention plan led by the director of public health, and those plans should reflect the six areas for action to which I have already referred. Progress needs to be monitored so that there is a clear understanding at national level of where there are gaps in local implementation. Also, a sharing of best practice and other information about suicide prevention work across the country and between the four nations of the UK should be put in place. Therefore, there is a very important role for government and I hope to hear from my noble friend this evening that there is a strong focus upon practical implementation of the strategy.
In addition, awareness among all citizens of this terrible curse upon society must be continually raised and discussed so that more can be done to support those at risk of suicide through all the agencies, coupled with the wonderful support of individuals that exists because of the thousands of volunteers who work tirelessly and with extraordinary compassion so that fewer people die by suicide.
Lord Giddens
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on having introduced this debate in such an effective fashion. Suicide is an extremely complex form of action to study and, hence, to develop preventive strategies against. There are two reasons for that. The first is that, by definition, you cannot interview people who have committed suicide—there are very few other examples in social life where this is true. Secondly, in order to be said to commit suicide, you have to have the intention to die. If you step off a kerb accidentally and a car knocks you down, it is not suicide. As most people do not leave notes, intention has to be inferred retrospectively by coroners.
When I studied suicide in the early part of my academic career, we looked at lots of judgments made by coroners. They led me to be deeply suspicious of suicide statistics and therefore of preventive strategies based on those statistics. It is not that suicide statistics are just inaccurate around the edges; in my opinion, they are often probably totally wrong and non-comparable. One thing about the government document on preventing suicide in England is that it is based almost wholly on statistics, and risk is calculated in that way. For example, the noble Baroness cited figures suggesting that three times as many young men commit suicide as other groups. However, I think that that is highly unlikely to be true. I do not have the time to say why, but I think that it is highly unlikely. One must depend upon intensive studies of suicide and not just statistical ones.
One way of studying who has committed suicide is to look at those who attempt suicide in various serious situations. We had an interesting study of people who jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. If someone jumps off that bridge he is almost certain to die—only about 3% survive. The study interviewed the survivors. It was interesting that on the way down, people were thinking, “I didn’t need to do this”, or, “I could have solved my problems”. What they said was very interesting. It was admittedly a small sample, because most people die, but they all said that it was the Golden Gate or nothing. In other words, the method that you use to commit suicide is very important, especially if you intend to do it seriously—there is a massive difference between most attempted and actual suicides.
Another study of the Golden Gate Bridge covered 515 people who were stopped from jumping. That was also interesting. One might imagine that people who really want to kill themselves will go on until they do it, but that is not so at all. In the study, of the 515 people, 95% were either still alive 25 years later or had died of natural causes. In other words, at least for certain types of suicide, if prevented at source, it does not recur. That has important implications.
In this country, some 20 people on average jump off Beachy Head each year—124 people died there between 1965 and 1979. A medical researcher who studied the details very intensively—this is why I am recommending intensive studies—concluded that 115 of this group were almost certainly suicides. To show the point that I was making earlier, only 58 were recorded as suicides by the coroner. That is a huge difference; it is double the rate. A lot of people who jump off Beachy Head are women, not men. Having read Preventing Suicide in England, a bit more lateral thinking would be in order, in recognising all the great work that the Samaritans do.
In my minute I must ask quickly, first, what is the Government’s policy on popular suicide spots? Are they all left to volunteer groups, such as at Beachy Head, where it is mainly a chaplaincy group that tries to stop people? It is very important to know because probably about 500 people a year die in popular suicide spots, which is about 4% of the total number in the country. That is pretty significant. I do not know whether the Government have a policy on that, but as the Golden Gate study shows, if you stop them, the vast majority do not come back to try again. Secondly, is there an analogue to the Live Through This project in the United States, which is pretty intriguing to me. It is backed by the American Association of Suicidology. Oh dear, I will have to stop, I suppose. It is transformational because it is a website for people who have survived serious suicide attempts. They speak out openly in a variety of media sources and communities. The idea is to strip away stigma and shame, and it is the first time that that has ever been done. There is a major input from people on a large scale who have attempted suicide, and there is a public-private partnership to support it. The main thing is that people who have attempted suicide have been seen as objects not subjects. In this case, they appear as subjects. I had a good third point but have no time to make it.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for giving us this opportunity, and for bringing to our attention, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, the statistic that three times as many young men between the ages of 30 and 44 commit suicide than women in that age range, or perhaps a wider age range. Does that not somehow reflect the economic situation—jobs and so on? A University of Liverpool study suggested that 1,000 suicides in the general age range were because of the recession. How true that is I do not know, but that is the figure that the University of Liverpool gives us.
In Wales we had a different situation. In 2007, seven youngsters in Bridgend committed suicide, six of them by hanging. In that year, there was a terrible dilemma in Wales: why were these people doing it? They were saying, “It is such a boring place, what else can I do? What other job can I get? I want to get out of here”. The only way they could see to get out of there was by committing suicide.
The great contribution of the Samaritans has already been mentioned, as have Childline, the NSPCC, Chad Varah and Esther Rantzen. All these deserve our thanks for what they have done and the countless lives that they have saved.
The reasons for suicide vary tremendously. As a minister, I encountered it fairly often—not too often but often enough. Why did they try to do this? Sometimes you just shook your head and said, “No idea”. At other times you would say, “Ah yes”—there were problems that we were aware of. According to the statistics, 1 million people commit suicide every year worldwide. Of these, 100,000 are young people, 15 to 19 year-olds. I suggest that there are 100,000 different reasons why they would try to commit suicide—so many different countries, so many different situations.
A new scheme is being brought in in Indiana in July this year. Everyone seeking an initial teaching qualification will have to study education and training in the prevention of child suicide and recognising the danger signs. Somehow, because we are talking to machinery, computers or whatever, we are losing the personal touch—in communities and families.
I have discussed this with ministers of other denominations—the number of priests and ministers in communities and the number of lively, active, alert churches is far fewer than it used to be. When that happens, the community is weakened because there is not the person there to support the most vulnerable. The figures from my own church in Wales are startling: 100 years ago we had 137 Welsh-speaking ministers of our own home-grown variety; today we have two or three. It is a big difference. A Presbyterian minister told me, “In my church at the time of the great Welsh Revival 100 years ago we had 1,000 ministers. We now have 40”. So the people who would be in the community to support and listen are not there in the same way, and the families who would also get their support in the churches are not there.
However, it is not only churches. I have a list here: policemen, village-based teachers, local shop-owners, local football teams, bands and choirs, even well run pubs—and I might well be struck off for praising well run pubs. These are all part of the community and they are not there to the same extent any longer. The local community is the strongest and best friend of those who are most vulnerable. We must somehow give it new strength so that it can fulfil what it used to do in treating and responding to needs.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, every suicide is a glaring reflection of the fact that our society has failed to look after its most vulnerable. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has just explained how he sees failings in the community as partly responsible for that, and I can only agree. I welcome the Government’s decision to produce their new suicide prevention strategy, and congratulate my noble friend Lady Buscombe on securing this debate. At this point, I must declare an interest as a member of the Samaritans advisory board. We are well represented here this afternoon. I am in awe of the remarkable work that the Samaritans do.
The reasons why people decide to take their own lives are varied, although there are some factors that seem to be very regular occurrences, particularly financial ones. When World Suicide Prevention Day took place last year, there was a campaign under the heading “You Can Cope”, but those who kill themselves have generally decided that they cannot cope, or at least that they cannot cope alone. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that they feel alone. This does not necessarily mean that they are single. They may be in relationships, they may be in touch with their family, and they may apparently have a network of friends, but the person who is driven to suicide tends to feel very much alone. A problem shared is said to be a problem halved, but a problem left to grow like a malignant tutor—tumour, although there are a few malignant tutors around—inside the brain and heart of an individual is a problem multiplied. For whatever reasons, and pride may be one of them, too many people today have no one they can share their problems with.
The irony is that in an age when many people have hundreds, indeed, thousands, of what they would term friends on Facebook, there are more and more people who, when they hit the slough of despond, do not have a friend to turn to but welcome being able to turn to a stranger. A friend of mine who spent many years as a Samaritan told me that what was really wanted on the end of the phone was a friend. The main cause that really drove those people to ring was extreme loneliness. She told me that she kept one of her clients going for several days after he called to say that it was the end, there was nothing to eat in the house and he could not cope. She told him the ingredients for cauliflower cheese and sent him out to buy them, and when he came back, she talked him through the recipe. When he said, “But what about the bird? There’s nothing for the bird to eat”, she suggested that the bird should eat cauliflower cheese too. In the end, this guy went away, not happy, but feeling less alone, and over the years he called her again occasionally and they talked recipes.
For those at their wits’ end, the Samaritans enable them to phone a friend. People do that about 5 million times a year. Other charities do fantastic work in helping those who feel suicidal, and the national prevention strategy acknowledges the importance of getting all those organisations to work together and to work in tandem with social services and the National Health Service, but today I shall stress the one way in which these charities can be helped to be more effective; it is by making that life-saving phone call cheaper. The Samaritans’ national helpline number is an 0845 number, which means that landline calls are relatively inexpensive, but calls from mobiles are considerably more. Incredible although it may seem, the Samaritans’ research shows that the cost of that call will put people off making it. The aim is to have a free-to-caller national number. In 2009, Ofcom gave the Samaritans the number 116123, which is pretty easy and memorable. It has been successfully trialled, but to roll that out nationally requires about £1 million a year. It would be dreadful for somebody to pluck up the courage to phone a friend in extremis to ring that number and find it dead. Without the certainty that that £1 million will be there or that there will be some other means of achieving it, that potential lifeline is not being rolled out. Far be it from me to suggest in the current climate that the Government should dig deep, or even quite shallowly, into their pockets and find that extra money, but there has to be a way that together Ofcom, the telecoms operators and the Samaritans can get together and produce some way of doing this. Perhaps the lottery could help. It might cost a little money, but what it would save is immeasurable.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I, too, am grateful for this debate. There are just two aspects on which I shall comment. The first is the issue of suicide prevention among people in contact with the criminal justice system—something that concerned me greatly in my early years as Bishop of Exeter. In the three prisons in the Exeter diocese, 20 men committed suicide between 2001 and 2011. Of these, 14 were at Exeter prison—a figure which reflects the higher incidence of suicide in local prisons, especially during the early days of imprisonment. Half of these deaths, though, were between 2001 and 2004, and I note that the number of suicides in prison nationally has also fallen steadily since 2004, apart from a spike in 2007. Hopefully this is a sign that measures taken under the NOMS suicide prevention strategy are having an effect. However, with 57 suicides in prison in 2011, there is still real cause for concern.
I am also aware that on 6 March this year, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman published a “Learning lessons” bulletin, following investigation of the apparently self-inflicted deaths of three teenagers in young offender institutions. Each of these children was extremely vulnerable and the lessons learnt included better responses to bullying and a greater focus on the involvement of families and outside agencies. This is where I come to my second area of concern and the main subject of this debate. From this month, local authorities have new responsibilities for co-ordinating and implementing work on suicide prevention. It will be for local agencies, including working through health and well-being boards, to decide the best way to achieve the overall aim of reducing the suicide rate. However, while there are clearly opportunities here for local initiatives in co-ordinating and commissioning work, there is also a risk that, especially where there is no local suicide prevention plan, this priority may be overlooked in the allocation of funds.
The findings of the All-Party Group on Suicide and Self-Harm Prevention have already been referred to by the noble Baroness. Only half of local authorities have a local suicide prevention group, while a quarter said that there was no local suicide prevention plan, even where there is a local suicide prevention group. Often there is no formal mechanism for such groups to report directly to health and well-being boards. Only one-third of respondents mentioned specific suicide prevention programmes. Yet the report also mentioned the key role of third sector groups. Many suicide prevention actions contained in local plans involve the voluntary sector in delivering programmes such as support services for people bereaved by suicide. From the available evidence, the majority of groups had voluntary sector membership, underlining their importance to suicide prevention and the heavy reliance on them.
However, within the voluntary sector there are real concerns about the responsibilities placed upon them and the resources that enable them to respond. Take the example of just one not-for-profit, open-access counselling service in Devon. It sees around 160 clients a week. These are self-referring adults who pay according to means. Work is with individuals, couples and family groups. There are no paid employees and all are qualified volunteers. The work of such groups is really important, because the potentiality of suicide often does not appear as a presenting issue, but rather through other therapeutic work, revealing, for example, patterns of isolation, self-harm and despair. However, the sustainability of such a model of group work is increasingly a challenge in the current economic climate. Average client contributions have fallen and margins are tight. Yet the self-funding model still seems to be the only viable way of securing an effective service. Counselling services are notoriously difficult to fund. Counselling does not constitute a “charitable purpose”—something at which Her Majesty’s Government need to take a look—and thus many funders exclude counselling services as recipients.
Where funds are available, such as lottery funding, they can amount to the kiss of death for a service as they are often short-term. Culturally, funders tend to favour innovation and new services in preference to tried, tested and researched ways of working, and funding projects rather than vital revenue costs. In my own areas, the combination of these facts has led to the closure of numerous local services over the years, revolving door-style, including high-quality and relatively inexpensive services for young people at high risk. The fact is that this very important voluntary sector, of which much is expected, suffers from gross systemic underfunding, is too often neglected for its experience and understanding, and thus such funding as there is may often be misdirected and unwisely spent. I think, for example, of the privileging of short-term cognitive behavioural therapy over person-centred and psychodynamic approaches, which evidence shows have a greater longer-term effect.
If Her Majesty’s Government’s well intended suicide prevention strategy is to really work, more attention needs to be given to just how the voluntary sector is most effectively supported and engaged. This also means rectifying the fact that, while much of this work in the third sector is underpinned by a strong faith base, and a great deal of work is being done by faith groups in supporting those at risk of suicide and self-harm, I find it concerning that there is so little reference to faith groups in any of the official documents underpinning the structures and strategies that we are debating today.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth
My Lords, I declare an interest as another member of the Samaritans advisory group; I think we are quorate today, which is good news. I also declare another interest, as an independent lay commissioner of the Press Complaints Commission, since I want to talk a little bit about the media role in this subject.
About 28 years ago, my boss and mentor fell out of a window four or five stories high in a block of flats. The next morning, the Daily Mail’s front page had a photograph of a mansion block of flats, and a dotted line from the fifth floor to the pavement where he fell. His children had to look at that in the newspaper. The story of media coverage of suicide, and its imitative effects and so on, is actually a good story from that day because coverage is much more sensitive. It is much improved. Editors and journalists are much more aware of the damaging effect of the wrong kind of sensationalist and detailed coverage of the methods of suicide. This is particularly true in broadcasting, where the statutory guidelines for producers and coverage and so on deal in great detail with the coverage of suicide. The media have for once a good story to tell in the way they deal with this subject. There is a substantial body of evidence from around the world which indicates that certain types of media reporting of suicide can have a negative influence on the behaviour of people who are already vulnerable and put them at greater risk.
I am worried about the uncertainty, the lacuna that exists, as we move from the PCC to the Leveson-compliant new formula. There is considerable uncertainty about the nature of that, who is going to sign up to that regulation and so on, which has been well rehearsed in the Chamber. I am worried that the progress that the media has made—and it is a good story—should not get lost. The Government, and those charged with setting up the new body, will understand that the good work that has been undertaken should not be lost in the transition from the PCC to whatever the new body concerned is.
Others have spoken about the good work that the Samaritans and other organisations do, and that has to be true. The “116” phone line that my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft alluded to is a serious worry. We have to find the money to make this happen. I do not think it has to be government money—it is only £1 million. I know it is easy to say that but, somehow, through the lottery—I declare I was once chairman of Camelot—there has to be a way to find this money on a regular basis, because those calls may well, although I am sure not always, be life-saving.
One of the most worrying aspects concerns the causes of suicide. Sadly, throughout my professional and personal life, I have been very close to far too many suicides. In one or two cases you could look at them and say they had everything to live for. Lack of recognition of the symptoms is the most difficult aspect of this subject. I hope that the ease and availability of the Samaritans service and the “116” lines will permeate people’s consciousness, that they will make that last despairing call and that they will be able to afford to do so because the Samaritans can pay for it. That could, in time, save lives.
It is rare these days to pay tribute to the sensibilities and sensitivities of the media, but in this particular case I am very happy to put that on the record. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for this debate, and all those who have taken part.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, I thank noble Baroness for this opportunity. It seems that we are all supporters of the Samaritans, which is a wonderful organisation.
As the Minister knows, a member of my family has suffered for four years from acute withdrawal from benzodiazepines, especially sleeping pills given to him during periods of overwork and stress. He still suffers from burning sensations, tinnitus, agoraphobia and occasional suicidal tendencies that have confined him to his room—mostly unable to work or help his family.
This group of patients is still beyond the reach of the National Health Service. They are living in a policy “no-man’s land” because there are hardly any statutory services available or even people who are aware of their condition. Friends and family feel helpless and, in fact, are unable to help beyond informal counselling. There are dangerous moments when no one seems to be able to do anything. In this sense, the urban community has failed much more than the rural one.
Those who suffer first addiction and then withdrawal from prescribed iatrogenic drugs cannot look to their GPs or local clinics like other patients, because it was their doctors who prescribed the pills in the first place. The patients may have desperate thoughts of going to A&E as their last resort, until they remember that they will only be referred to a psychiatrist who will put them back where they started. The only slender threads of hope may be online, with the next e-mail from a fellow sufferer, or via a helpline to one of the saintly withdrawal charities such as CITAp in Liverpool, Recovery Road in Cardiff, the Bristol & District Tranquiliser Project or MIND in Camden, which is the only voluntary service available in London, but only to those who live in Camden. Some of these charities take thousands of calls a year, and I have no doubt that the Samaritans take many more similar calls from the same people.
I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Involuntary Tranquiliser Addiction. We are a small core group of about 12 active MPs and Peers. With occasional help from the media, we have been able to bring this issue to the attention of successive Ministers. The BMA held a useful seminar recently. I am glad to say that the present Health Ministers are now well aware of the risks, because it is known that 1 million people or more are taking benzodiazepines long term, not short term, and that their doctors are not stopping them. The Minister will remember all the arguments that we put forward during the Health Bill, and they remain valid today. These include the obvious need for greater awareness among doctors and junior doctors of the risks, good practice in the voluntary sector, better NICE and NTA guidelines, more understanding of the general protocol of withdrawal from prescribed drugs, and the need for a stronger national policy backing up the confusing new local health agenda. I went to see Public Health England only this afternoon and was encouraged that the new health and well-being boards and CCTs will have this subject in their list of priorities, but it will need a lot of encouragement.
Equally important is the need for the department to shift its spending priorities and its drugs agenda just a little way away from illegal drugs towards prescribed drugs. It is really the Samson and Goliath story. Almost all the knowledge in the National Treatment Agency is about methadone and alternatives to heroin, and about counselling. There is very little knowledge of the dangerous effects of prescribed benzodiazepines, SSRIs and Z-drugs, unless they coincide because people are using them with heroin. The US has much more experience. Changing the dosage of Prozac, for example, can trigger suicidal tendencies immediately. There is a black box warning of this in the United States.
We have now reached a critical point with all the new NHS changes. The voluntary agencies have high expectations that the Government will take these various points to heart, recognise the good practice that is out there and give it their fullest support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, co-operation rather than competition is absolutely vital in this field.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for this important and timely debate. I am not a member of the Samaritans board. However, I fully support the calls for a free-to-caller number. I hope that Ofcom and the telephone companies are listening. I wonder whether we should all pen a joint letter to Ofcom and the telephone companies after this debate.
Like other noble Lords, I thank the organisations that have been mentioned, including faith groups, and especially the Samaritans in their important anniversary year. All these organisations, with their thousands of volunteers, work with, care for and support people who are troubled or have a mental illness. For too long, mental illness was shrouded by stigma and deprived of adequate resources. People with a mental illness, including those at risk of suicide, have always depended on what the Government might call the big society. The Samaritans have a shining record on this very tough subject. Thankfully, the stigma in society relating to mental health is increasingly being lifted, and all parties recognise the need for mental health to have parity with physical health. We would all agree on there being no mental health without physical health—and, I would add, without appropriate social care.
As Call to Action informs us, more lives in England are lost to suicide than to road traffic accidents, and every life lost to suicide is a tragedy. I welcome the cross-government strategy on preventing suicide. However, like Sarah Yiannoullou, the manager of the National Survivor User Network, I am concerned that self-help groups, survivor groups and small voluntary and community organisations that have helped with a preventive support have had increased burdens put on them and are having to close because of funding problems. There appears to be a conflict between what is said in the strategy and people believing that this can be delivered in the current climate. The right reverend Prelate made very important points about systemic and short-term funding.
Mental health services are clearly critical in providing the timely help and emotional support that can reduce the risk of people committing suicide. Having spoken to people working in mental health in my county of Gloucestershire, I know that they fear that recent changes in the NHS and the fracturing of services will have a negative impact on the delivery of mental health services in the community, especially in rural areas. There appears to be less co-ordination and less support for joint efforts between health services, charities, churches and other organisations that are working with people who have mental health problems. I would be grateful for the noble Earl’s views on whether there is appropriate integration where necessary. It feels as if the postcode lottery is being extended.
A briefing by the excellent organisation YoungMinds provides disturbing information about cuts by local authorities. Some have slashed 27% of their services, which has had an impact on people with mental health problems. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I am deeply concerned about the lack of local suicide prevention plans. The Government must not only provide requirements for such plans but must ensure that the funding is there in order for local authorities to implement the plans.
Society has changed profoundly in the past 50 years. We now live in a physically safer society, but emotionally people are far less secure. As many noble Lords said, many people live alone, and even when they do not live alone, they feel alone. We are all living longer, we have more stressful and isolated lives and we have to cope with huge and constant change. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the increase in young people’s mental health problems is very disturbing. The factors that contribute to mental health problems, and indeed to suicide, such as drug and alcohol misuse, unemployment, social isolation, poverty and poor social conditions, appear at the moment to be increasing, and there are so many stresses and strains in society with little help available. There is a lack of hope, and it is incumbent on us all to give people more hope and vision for the future.
I look forward to the answers from the noble Earl about the support that the Government are providing to the voluntary and statutory sectors. Perhaps one of the greatest supports would be for the Government to change some of their current policies so that factors such as poverty, which increase the risk of suicide, are reduced. The risk of suicide in the whole population increases when we experience times of financial difficulty—this is not only my view but a widely held one—so I urge the Government to maintain their support for suicide prevention over the coming years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Buscombe is to be congratulated for bringing forward this emotive and important subject for a debate, which has generated some splendid speeches for which I, for one, am very grateful.
The loss of a loved one to suicide is a tragedy, and yet suicides are not inevitable. There are often opportunities to intervene, and those missed opportunities can highlight systemic failings. Timely access to high-quality mental health services is an essential foundation for suicide prevention. Although good progress has been made in reducing the suicide rate in England over the past 10 years, the recent rise in the number of people dying by suicide to around 4,500 in 2011 is worrying. Suicide continues to be a major public health issue, particularly at a time of economic and employment uncertainty. That is why we set out a new suicide prevention strategy for England in September 2012, which highlights the importance of targeting the groups most at risk by providing the right support at the right time.
My noble friend helpfully set out the key strands of that strategy and I was grateful for her endorsement of them. She is right that success in suicide prevention depends on communities, individuals and organisations working together to tackle the issue. Much of the planning and work to prevent suicides needs to be carried out locally. The right reverend Prelate rightly referred to the role of the new health and well-being boards in planning and co-ordinating local services based on local needs. That role will clearly be a pivotal one in the future. These health and well-being boards will become the forums for determining local needs and priorities, bringing together local authorities, clinical commissioning groups, directors of public health, adult social services and children’s services. I am sure he is right that third sector and voluntary groups will pay a key part in the delivery of local plans in many parts of the country. The concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about fragmentation of services are not ones I share. She may recall that in the Health and Social Care Act we laid great emphasis on integration as a key driver of commissioning. The very existence of health and well-being boards acting as the hub for so many key players in the public health and health arena will itself be a driver for that kind of integration.
As well as targeting high-risk groups, improving the mental health of the population is another way to prevent suicide, as has been mentioned. Our mental health outcomes strategy, No Health Without Mental Health, sets out an ambitious vision for improving people’s mental health. The implementation of the measures set out in the strategy will build individual and community resilience, promote mental health and well-being and challenge health inequalities where they exist. Again, the Health and Social Care Act passed last year was the first one to contain an objective in all parts of the health service to drive out health inequalities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to the need for parity of esteem between mental and physical health. Of course, I subscribe wholly to that aim. The Government’s mandate to NHS England explicitly recognises the importance of putting mental health on a par with physical health, and closing the health gap between people with mental health problems and the population as a whole. We expect the NHS to have made measurable progress towards this goal by March 2015. This will include ensuring timely access to the best available treatment through extending and developing open access to the IAPT programme, Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, particularly for those out of work. I think that is an important part of the targeting philosophy.
Alongside the development of the suicide prevention strategy, Samaritans—to whose work I pay special tribute in their anniversary year—have been facilitating a Call to Action for Suicide Prevention in England, supported by a grant from the Department of Health. Over 50 national organisations have signed the Call to Action, committing to work together so fewer lives are lost to suicide and to support those bereaved or affected by suicide. Organisations include public and private sector bodies and a wide range of charities, including those set up specifically to reduce suicide such as Papyrus, a charity dedicated to the prevention of young suicide in the UK. This is the first time that so many organisations have come together to deliver real action to reduce suicide across England.
Most people who take their own lives have not been in touch with mental health services. We know that some people, particularly men, find it difficult to speak to their doctor if they are having mental health problems, and this is partly because of stigma and shame. By tackling the stigma associated with mental health problems, we can remove a barrier to people seeking and receiving the help they need before they get to crisis point.
The department is therefore supporting the anti-stigma campaign, Time to Change, with up to £16 million of funding over four years. The campaign is run by the charities Mind and Rethink Mental Illness, and is an ambitious programme to end mental health stigma and discrimination. It has the potential to reach 29 million members of the public with its vital messages on mental health.
We know that the media have a significant influence on behaviour and attitudes towards suicide. My noble friend Lord Grade was absolutely right to highlight this. A number of organisations have developed guidance for the media on the reporting of suicide and its portrayal. One of these is Samaritans, which plays a key role in supporting sensitive reporting of suicide.
As my noble friend said, the media have a significant influence on behaviour and attitudes. There is already compelling evidence that media reporting and portrayals of suicide can lead to copycat behaviour, especially among young people and those already at risk. The media is aware of its responsibility in the representation of suicide. In 2006 the Press Complaints Commission added a clause to the editors’ code of practice explicitly recommending that the media avoid excessively detailed reporting of suicide methods. The 2009 edition of the PCC Editors’ Codebook highlights, for example, the distress that can be caused by insensitive and inappropriate graphic illustrations accompanying media reports of suicide.
We have made grants to charities directly involved in suicide prevention. In March 2010, Maytree Respite Centre was awarded a three-year grant totalling over £154,000 to support the continued implementation and development of its service. Maytree is a sanctuary for people in suicidal crisis, providing a non-medical alternative to hospitalisation or sectioning. The grant helped the organisation support over 4,000 people, with 300 being supported through a stay at the house. It also helped them to develop outcome-focused relationships with several NHS and private organisations. In March 2011 we awarded a £50,000 one-year grant to Survivors of Bereavement by Suicide, a charity that serves more than 8,000 clients each year. They provide a range of services from a national telephone line to local area support groups.
Early intervention is imperative to suicide prevention and various organisations, including charities, can help highlight and address problems such as bullying, poor body image and lack of self-esteem. The commitment to early intervention is borne out by the Department of Work and Pensions’ expectation that all Jobcentre Plus advisers are trained to enable them to identify and support people who are vulnerable and who may be at risk of suicide and self-harm. This is important, as we know that community locations, such as job centres and young people-friendly venues, are more successful in engaging with young men than more formal health settings such as GP surgeries.
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, whose speech I listened to with great attention, spoke about statistics. I will certainly go away and reflect on his points on that score. He asked what the Government’s policy was on prevention at popular suicide spots. The suicide prevention strategy recognises that one of the most effective ways of preventing suicide is to reduce the means to access. Suicide risk can be reduced by limiting access to high-risk locations. Much of the planning and work to prevent suicides will, as I have said, be carried out locally; it will be for local agencies, working through health and well-being boards, to decide the best way to achieve the overall aim of reducing the suicide rate. I fully expect that the local agencies will work together to monitor those hotspots.
My noble friend Lord Roberts pointed to the effect of unemployment, a point made effectively by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft. We know that previous periods of high unemployment or severe economic problems have had an adverse effect on the mental health and well-being of the population and have been associated with higher rates of suicide. Despite the good progress that has been made in reducing the suicide rate, we need to remain vigilant on that particular aspect of the risk.
Faith groups were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Roberts. I assure the Committee that the department recognises the comfort and support that people receive from their faith and would expect all medical practitioners to treat their patients holistically, taking into account their physical, cultural, social, mental and spiritual needs. The Government’s mental health strategy, No Health Without Mental Health, draws attention to the importance of ensuring that services meets the needs of diverse communities and faith groups. The right reverend Prelate will know that the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and Time to Change recently hosted an event for leaders from different faiths to look at ways of tackling the stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental health problems in their communities. That seminar was held at Lambeth Palace and was extremely well received.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke about the risk of prescribed anti-depressants. The suicide prevention strategy highlights the potential increase in suicide risk in the early stages of drug treatment and risks associated with withdrawal where people are dependent on prescribed drugs. The noble Earl has expressed his concerns forcefully in debate and privately to Ministers, and he knows that these messages have not gone unheeded—at least, I hope that he knows that. It is, as he said, for health and well-being boards to build into the joint strategic needs assessment suitable provision for this particular type of suicide risk.
Over the past 10 years, good progress has been made in reducing the suicide rate in England. Voluntary organisations, charities and community and faith groups have all played their part in this reduction. The messages are clear. We need individuals and organisations to support our continued efforts, to join us in our drive to sustain and reduce further the relatively low rates of suicide in England and to respond positively to the challenges that we face over the coming years.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth
Will my noble friend the Minister be kind enough to give us the benefit of his advice on how we might move forward an initiative to roll out the 116 line? I am much taken with the noble Baroness’s view that we might all write a letter, but I wonder if it is an initiative that the department might want to take up and try to co-ordinate to see if we can get a resolution.
Syria: Refugees
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackstone
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the short and long-term implications of the large influx of refugees from Syria into neighbouring countries for those countries; and what steps they are taking to work with the international community to provide improved humanitarian aid.
Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I put down this Question for Short Debate in a context where the prospects of an end to the civil war and peace in Syria seem ever more remote. In these very sad circumstances the flight from Syria to neighbouring countries of people seeking a safe haven from the shelling, bombing and destruction of their communities seems likely to continue indefinitely. In the past six months there has been a rapid increase in the numbers fleeing, which shows absolutely no signs of flattening off. There are now close to 1.5 million refugees in neighbouring countries, nearly half of whom are children under 18. The United Nations predicts that the figure will rise to 3 million by the end of the year. Inside Syria there are currently another 2 million displaced people, and the UN estimates that more than 4.25 million are in need of urgent assistance.
The number of refugees who have fled the country has almost doubled, then, since the beginning of February, when the Secretary of State for International Development made a Statement in another place. In that Statement she said that pledges at the special conference in Kuwait in January to discuss the humanitarian crisis amounted to £1.5 billion from 60 countries, which exceeded the UN’s target. Can the Minister indicate how far these pledges have turned into tangible commitments? The estimates I have seen make very depressing reading: only just over half the pledges appear to have been committed. It would be helpful if she could also give the most up-to-date figures on how the funds are being distributed across the region.
I am pleased, as I am sure other speakers will be, that at that time the UK’s total commitment to humanitarian support had reached £139.5 million. However, given the huge increase in the numbers of people displaced since then, I ask what plans the Government now have to increase aid, given the terrible suffering of those fleeing, which I have seen at first hand, as well as the intolerable pressures on neighbouring countries that are being overwhelmed by the escalation in the number of refugees.
Early in February, along with my noble friends Lady Jay and Lord Warner, who are also speaking in this debate, I visited the Lebanon under the auspices of the Council for European Palestinian Relations and witnessed what is happening to one particular group of refugees, Palestinians, who constitute 10% of all refugees from Syria. Their situation is even more dire than that of the Syrians. When they come across the border into neighbouring countries such as the Lebanon they are not eligible for UNHCR support but instead are looked after by UNRWA, the UN agency responsible for supporting Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as well as in neighbouring countries. Many of them arrive with little money and not much more than the clothes they are wearing. They are traumatised, having been bombed out of their homes, and in some cases have lost members of their families, too. They are poor people, made poorer by the war that has enveloped them.
When they arrive in Lebanon they are looked after by the existing Palestinian population who live in semi-segregated communities in refugee camps, many of which have existed since 1948. These so-called camps are already overcrowded and without the space and facilities needed to take in the new influx of refugees. As a consequence, families with children of all ages have to fall back on renting appalling accommodation at exorbitant rents with money that they brought with them from Syria, or sharing makeshift rooms that have been provided with the help of NGOs or the Palestinian political organisations. In some cases, Hamas and Fatah have made over their offices to house these families; in other cases, the refugees are accommodated in totally unsuitable vacant school buildings; in yet more cases, they are put up in new temporary buildings with tiny rooms divided by plywood partitions. Sometimes two or even three families have to share whatever accommodation they have managed to find in a room furnished only with thin mattresses. The washing and cooking facilities are primitive and shared by many people. Some rented rooms have water coming through the ceiling, and exposed wiring.
The influx of refugees has already pushed up the population in Lebanon by over 10%, compared with around 6% in Jordan. As the conflict in Syria continues, the numbers of refugees in Lebanon, and indeed elsewhere, will go on growing, exacerbating the problem of accommodating them. So far, the Lebanese Government have agreed to keep the border with Syria open, but, in a context where their survival is by no means certain, political pressure could push them into closing it.
Meanwhile many of those crossing the border arrive with unresolved health problems and injuries sustained from bomb blasts and shrapnel. They cannot afford to pay for the treatment they need after they arrive; even modest amounts of medication to relieve suffering among children and the elderly are often unavailable. Providing schooling for their children has been jeopardised by differences in the curriculum between Syria and the Lebanon, and many school-age children are receiving little or no education.
UNRWA is struggling to deal with the crisis and has insufficient funding. It is focusing its efforts on providing small cash grants to families and trying to rectify the lack of schooling. It seems unable to tackle the fundamental problem of providing adequate accommodation. The Lebanese understandably consider that it is a matter for the international community, and there is little or no political will to shoulder the burden. This means that the burden falls on the existing Palestinian community, which has never been able to throw off its refugee status in Lebanon.
While there has been some lifting of the prohibition on Palestinians obtaining jobs, the reality is that there are few employment opportunities for them. Hamas and Fatah are trying to raise money from their own sources and are co-operating with the UN. Sadly, the EU makes no contact with Hamas in Lebanon, even on humanitarian issues, and I would welcome a view on this from the Minister. Do the Government consider that contact on these issues would help?
My noble friend Lady Jay will focus on the effects of the influx of refugees from Syria on the surrounding countries, so I shall be brief. We owe our thanks not only to Lebanon and Jordan but to Turkey, Iraq and Egypt for their generosity in supporting thousands of traumatised and penniless people. However, it is imperative that the international community does more to help these countries, several of which have fragile regimes with their own problems of maintaining stable rule and political, ethnic and religious harmony. These countries also face increased economic pressures, with steeply rising rents caused by the increased demand for housing as well as rising food prices.
Most aid is going to refugee camps, even though about 70% of Syrian refugees live outside the camps, whether in urban or rural areas. Above all, the urban infrastructure needs to be strengthened. Cash assistance is also needed to help refugees feed their families. There is evidence that women are going without food to provide what little they have for their children. For the host countries the refugees are straining water, sanitation, housing, health and education systems. Obviously, as this continues there will be growing tension between the host and refugee communities in the already depressed areas where they settle. The political ramifications are obvious and could push some countries into closing their borders, trapping refugees inside Syria.
What progress have the Minister and her right honourable friends made in securing greater earmarked commitments, especially to Lebanon and Jordan, from other donor countries? Is further consideration being given to whether the UK’s earmarked contribution of £8.5 million for programmes in Lebanon might be increased? Could she also comment on how the vital co-ordination of humanitarian agencies’ work with UNHCR, which is needed to produce a more effective response to the complex challenges that they face, might also be applied to UNWRA? What is being done to facilitate co-ordination between the Gulf donors and the United Nations?
I end with the emotional plea of one elderly Palestinian woman I met outside the Wevel refugee camp not far from the Syrian-Lebanese border: “We are human beings but we are being forced to live like animals. Please help us”. She will of course be helped when a ceasefire takes place and a political solution is found that leads to peace, but we cannot leave her and the many others like to suffer so terribly until that happens. We have to prepare for a protracted humanitarian emergency with longer-term funding, allowing NGOs to plan for the future. We should also be aware that an end to the conflict and a post-Assad regime will not necessarily lead to an end to sectarian violence. I hope that the UK Government will act urgently to do all that they can in the international community to avoid a much larger-scale humanitarian disaster than the one that we already face today.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for initiating this debate.
The appalling humanitarian crisis in Syria is heaping significant pressure on neighbouring countries that are wilfully accepting refugees fleeing in search of a safer environment. I maintain very close links with the kingdom of Jordan and, as such, want to place a particular focus on the situation there. Since early 2011 some 500,000 Syrian refugees have fled to Jordan, an increase of two-thirds on the number that were already settled there beforehand. Of even greater concern is the extent to which the intensity of the crisis is increasing. Of those 500,000, 46% arrived just in the first quarter of this year. By these numbers, Jordan projects that an extra 1 million Syrians will enter the country in 2013.
Jordan has already established four refugee camps, run for the most part by the United Nations. However, it remains the case that only 40% of Syrian refugees actually reside in these camps, with the rest settling into numerous communities across the country. There are now monumental challenges to be overcome, just in terms of fulfilling basic human needs. Greater power generation is urgently needed, which will require greater imports of oil. This will have a negative impact on the economy and Jordan’s balance of trade. Jordan is already short of water supplies, and a sudden increase in population would serve only to put further pressure on an already strained system.
The Jordanian Government are also very concerned about the overcrowding in schools and the inevitable effect that this will have on the quality of education. Jordan has spent considerable money reforming its education system in recent times, and this overwhelming pressure undermines that progress. There are similar concerns in healthcare. Jordan has been providing thousands of vaccinations to Syrian children against a number of diseases and other forms of medical care to Syrians in general. Again, it is now in desperate need of extra resources and hospital expansions.
This has all come at a time of a slowdown in economic growth and employment rates in Jordan, as well as the country’s budget deficit reaching an all-time high. Last year, Jordan spent more than $251 million providing basic services to Syrians in its cities and communities. These costs are projected to skyrocket and my worry is that a potential emerging market such as Jordan is having its economy broken through its own goodwill to others.
Such a large and sudden influx of refugees is naturally going to present extreme political challenges, too. Some of the camps have witnessed riots and some Jordanian police have already been injured in clashes. While the security services are doing their best, it is impossible to ensure the completely smooth running of such a complex and ever-changing situation. The Government of Jordan have formulated their own response plan for the country to host an increasing number of Syrian refugees. I call on our Government to both increase their support to Jordan and use our position within the international community to call on others to do the same. We must all help to alleviate the pressure on Jordan’s fragile economy.
Diplomats at the Jordanian embassy in London told me that they see it as their moral and humanitarian duty to help anybody in the region seeking refuge and a better life. Given the level of tension and unpredictability in the region, I find such principles extremely heartening.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for asking this Question. I found our visit to Lebanon, short as it was, very disturbing but in a few days I learnt a great deal, particularly about the special problems of the Palestinian refugees from Syria. Of course, these people are refugees twice over. In Syria, they had fled originally from their homeland and now have fled again from the conflict in Syria. Interestingly, before the violence erupted there surveys suggested that many of the Palestinian population found Syria the best country of their exile. They had educational and work opportunities denied in other places, and living conditions which were reasonably pleasant. All that has of course now changed and my noble friend has vividly described the terrible poverty and despair of the displaced families we met.
I also felt among them a great sense of frustration. Many people, as I said, came from settled lives in Syria and many had professional careers. We talked, for example, to several teachers who are now unable to work in Lebanon because of the restrictions imposed on them by the host Government. These restrictions seem in some ways to illustrate the tensions which there are between the refugee population and the Government of Lebanon. It seems to create an obvious double difficulty, as the teachers cannot help the many children who are now kicking their heels in refugee camps. Neither can they earn their own living, so that any support they have comes from the specialist Palestinian agency UNWRA—the United Nations Relief Works Agency.
This situation is of course not only one for teachers but for many other professional people who have come from a Palestinian background from Syria. I was somewhat surprised that the UNWRA officials we talked to seemed to accept this situation as given. As far as we could tell, they were not pressurising the Lebanese and telling them that they should be lifting the work restrictions in the face of the influx of new people. I must say that we were not entirely convinced that UNWRA has been sufficiently flexible in its approach to the newcomers from Syria.
In the high-level government meetings that I attended in Beirut, our delegation raised the question of giving Palestinians the right to work. We were told that new laws had been passed in 2010 to ease the employment restrictions and improve general civil rights, but those laws have never been implemented. The Libyan president, who we saw, was quite adamant: his Government must give first priority to protecting Lebanese jobs for Lebanese workers. The country’s political and economic situation is too fragile to do anything else. The threat of internal instability was ever present in our discussions. Indeed, the EU ambassador told us that she was surprised that the Government had not yet collapsed under the new demands.
Memories of civil war as well as hostilities with Israel still dominate the politics of Lebanon. Indeed, both Jordan and Lebanon—the small neighbours of Syria—have internal and strategic reasons to be unstable. If their Governments cannot cope with the current refugee crisis, particularly the Palestinians, this will create an international danger way beyond the humanitarian crisis. The domino effect that could occur would reverberate throughout the Middle East and beyond.
The UK Government have been commendably active and generous in trying to alleviate the practical hardships facing the thousands of displaced people, but the time has come for us also to give a lead in supporting the governance of Syria’s neighbours, which are dealing with unprecedented pressures on an already fragile economic and governmental situation.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for giving us this opportunity to debate Syria in this short period of time. It is sobering to speak yet again on the situation of the people of Syria in the context of humanitarian assistance. It speaks to our impotence that more than two years into the civil war, which is bordering on genocide, all these rich and powerful countries are simply squabbling between themselves about not violating national sovereignty.
We are in 2013, eight years since the General Assembly of the United Nations passed overwhelmingly a resolution defining the international community’s responsibility to protect, yet all we can do is offer sticking plasters and bandages to the 22 million people who have had the misfortune to be born of Syrian nationality, who are now killed or driven from their homes, or take up arms on one side or another.
It is right that we have a generous programme of assistance to those unfortunate enough to be displaced, either formally as refugees or informally, relying on their friends and families or simply co-religionists in neighbouring Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Turkey. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, about the fragile situation in those countries. Our attempts to stabilise them are to be commended but to restrict this debate to the humanitarian situation, while pragmatic in the best British tradition, is to miss the point.
If the civil war continues for the next few years, there will potentially be no Syria left. What we might find when everyone is exhausted of fighting and everything is destroyed is a series of provinces run by warlords or rebel armies, ethnically cleansed, existing in a sullen peace if peace is there at all—a larger Yemen, in the grip of al-Qaeda or other Salafi groups, controlling their own territories with different degrees of terror, in the name of Islam.
So what is to be done by the West or at least by the United Kingdom and France? For a start, we should let the EU arms embargo expire so that arms can flow to the Free Syrian Army. Syria is flush with arms. They are mainly going to our opponents in the terrorist groups or to our opponents in the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, we should seriously contemplate enforcing a no-fly zone, at least over the part of the country that we might declare a humanitarian enclave, and then press the Syrian national coalition to work with the elements of the FSA that are representative of all communities to run that enclave peacefully. To do so would require us to equip the Free Syrian Army more adequately.
Noble Lords will have seen the interview in the Financial Times with General Salim Idriss, the chief of staff of the various groupings in the rebel forces, which are described as the “supreme military command”. He says:
“What’s the point of medicines to save one wounded soldier if the regime’s air force is striking and killing 40 people at the same time?”.
The only argument used against supplying lethal weapons to the Free Syrian Army is that the weapons we might give them will slip away into the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra, which declared its allegiance to al-Qaeda only last week. In Istanbul General Idriss gave a commitment to the West that his people would track every single advanced weapon provided and return it when the conflict was over. If one did not believe his assurance, the question remains: how do we expect the conflict to end when Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other neighbours are arming some factions, while Russia and Iran are arming the regime? Our Government must ask themselves how they expect to bring the conflict to an end. Is it the surest way to stop humanitarian disaster just to continue if everyone bar us puts arms into the equation or provides military support? How do we somehow obtain a peaceful Syria? What are we to do if chemical weapons are used or if genocide is committed but we do not live up to our legal obligations under the genocide conventions? Noble Lords will know that the ICJ ruled only a few years ago that every state has a duty to prevent genocide. That was the ICJ’s case in Bosnia-Herzegovina v Serbia.
Therefore, for those who fear a repeat of Afghanistan, their inaction may well bring about an analogous situation nearer our borders and lie heavier on our consciences than they have seen before.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I have just three points to make. The first concerns the humanitarian dimension of this crisis. The figures are horrendous. I shall not repeat what the noble Baroness has already said but simply note an acceleration in the number of refugees fleeing. There have been more than 40,000 a week since January, and in four host countries—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon—the number of Syrian refugees has to date already exceeded the UNHCR estimate for January to June this year in total.
We have already had our attention directed to Lebanon. It alone has received an influx equivalent to 10% of the host population, placing a huge strain on the country: communally, as most of the refugees are Sunni Muslim, which threatens Lebanon’s delicate communal balance; economically, as there are now food and power shortages; and socially, with a big increase in the crime rate. This inflow, bringing 32,000 Palestinian refugees from Syria into a country which already has around 450,000 Palestinian refugees, brings the potential for further destabilisation in a country where volatility is already great.
There are similar problems in Iraq, which not so long ago saw an exodus of its own refugees, particularly Christians, into Syria. It is now in receipt of at least 130,000 refugees, mainly in the Kurdistan region, with all its own uncertainty. Then there are other large concentrations of refugees inside Jordan with over 430,000, Turkey with nearly 300,000, and, increasingly, Egypt—a country which has also had to host a large Sudanese refugee population in the recent past.
Secondly, I turn to the geopolitical dimension. This very large movement of population not only is disruptive and damaging to individual lives, and a cause of deep concern for the receiving countries, with all the social, economic, demographic and political consequences that it brings, but is further undermining the stability of the region as a whole, as well as the sustainability of many of the existing states and political entities within it.
Just last week, António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who had led the UNHCR through the worst of the refugee crises in Afghanistan and Iraq, said that in his view the Syrian civil war was more brutal than both and was already the worst humanitarian crisis since the end of the Cold War. With regard to refugees, he said:
“The system is at breaking point. There is limited capacity to take many more. Where are the people going to flee? Into the sea?”.
However, he then went on to speak about the potentially even more serious geopolitical implications, with the political geography of the post-Ottoman Middle East, which has been in place since the end of the First World War, perhaps for the first time beginning to be put into serious question. Should the substantial possibility of partition in Syria be realised, this would inevitably have grave ramifications in Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and beyond.
In that context, I come to my third concern—the religious dimension—and especially the future of Christians across this part of the Middle East. For centuries, Christianity flourished in Syria, as it did in Iraq, and, it has to be said, since the Baathist coup in 1970 it has been a particularly safe haven for Christians fleeing from conflicts elsewhere. Indeed, one reason that Russia has refused to abandon President Assad is its sense of responsibility for Syria’s Orthodox Christian community, which is now under a sense of threat. Already, the Christian element of the Syrian population has fallen dramatically to around 10%, and Christians are continuing to haemorrhage from the area under the perceived threat of militant Islam. The spread of jihadist groups within the Syrian opposition and the growth of the mantra that “Islam is the solution” are only exacerbating this flight. Therefore, Christian refugees are fleeing into northern Lebanon as fast as Iraq’s 3 million refugees are beginning to pour back whence they came.
One estimate suggests that of the Christian community of Homs, until recently 150,000 strong, some 90% have now gone to Jordan, leaving only a tiny minority hanging on. Where Christians do remain, once cohesive communities marked by peaceful co-existence and co-operation are beginning to fragment, as those of different religious traditions increasingly draw apart. The disintegration, including the religious fragmentation, that has marked post-intervention Iraq, with all the desperate fallout and its consequences which that country continues to suffer, now looks to be replicated in Syria, and the exodus of refugees into neighbouring countries could exacerbate such a trend in this place as well.
On humanitarian assistance the UK has already done a great deal, but with so many western economies facing huge budget difficulties, what work have Her Majesty’s Government undertaken to meet their £50 million commitment at the Kuwait donor conference, and how will this money be spent? What diplomatic steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking, particularly with the Security Council, to seek ways of addressing the wider geopolitical concerns to which UNHCR has referred? What message, if any, does the Minister have for those Christians fleeing the area, and contemplating a Middle East in which they may no longer be secure or welcome?
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness most warmly on raising this extremely distressing but challenging subject. I have every sympathy with the points which the right reverend Prelate has just made. It was the Duke of Wellington who told the House of Lords on 2 April 1829 of his abhorrence of the nature and consequences of civil war. He said that,
“if I could avoid, by any sacrifice whatever, even one month of civil war in the country to which I am attached, I would sacrifice my life in order to do it. I say that there is nothing which destroys property and prosperity, and demoralizes character, to the degree that civil war does: by it the hand of man is raised against his neighbour, against his brother, and against his father; the servant betrays his master, and the whole scene ends in confusion and devastation.”
The iron Duke’s words still serve as an apt enough description of the terrible circumstances of the violent confrontation that has now raged for two years in Syria, and from which more than 1.38 million people have fled to neighbouring countries.
In the face of the huge and growing number of refugees, it is important that we do not forget that each one is an individual whose way of life has been shattered and impoverished. Frightened children, desperate women and the very elderly as well as the lame, the halt, and often the grievously disabled, daily make the long march to seek sanctuary in neighbouring countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Research by the children’s charity World Vision in the Lebanon reports how many of the youngest refugees speak of the violence and death they witnessed before leaving Syria. For example, it tells us of one eight year-old girl called Layla who recounted,
“I saw my cousin dying in front of me, so I always see this scene in front of my eyes.”
Other children describe images of their homes and schools burning, or of people getting shot and tanks roaming the streets of their neighbourhoods.
Earlier this month, the United Nations warned that the World Food Programme was running out of funds to help feed the Syrian refugees, as large amounts of money pledged for aid have not been forthcoming. Apparently, the provision of food aid in Lebanon is under threat as early as next month unless urgent new funding is received. World Food Programme officials have stressed that they cannot simply rely on donations from countries such as the United Kingdom and the US. They have particularly singled out Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Emirates and Kuwait, whose promised large donations have not arrived through UN channels but instead, the World Food Programme claims, are often being donated directly to opposition groups. In total, around $400 million out of the $1.5 billion pledged by international donors in January have actually been committed.
There are three terms for describing humanitarian aid. The first is contribution, which means that funds to a recipient organisation have been delivered. The second is commitment, which comes with contractual obligations. The third is the pledge, which is not binding and is only an announcement of intention. However, with rapidly rising numbers, it is vital that the humanitarian aid reaches those for whom it is intended. Therefore, I hope that the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government will focus on the need for international co-operation in delivering contributions and commitments. I hope that assurances can be given that the Government will use their good offices to try to ensure that desperately needed aid gets through and that our Ministers continue to show moral courage in vigorously and publicly urging all nations to fulfil their financial promises.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Blackstone for giving us the opportunity to consider this dreadful situation. First, I make a plea that we take this opportunity to express our solidarity with the front-line humanitarian workers who are doing so much on behalf of the international community. They are often very courageous people who deserve our full-hearted support.
I underline what has been said. If one is looking for an example of collective international cynicism, one has to look no further than at what has happened with the promises of assistance in this grim situation. To have had offered what amounted to some $1.5 billion of assistance at the recent conference in Kuwait and to now find the UNHCR telling us that only $200 million has been made available is a dreadful comment on us all. We need clear reassurance from the Government about what they are doing to make people live up to their reputations. It is little wonder that the cause of cynicism—if it is a cause—spreads so widely in the international community.
Dealing with refugees on this scale is, of course, highly complex. Specific elements arise within the general problem such as the acute needs of the elderly and those with physical and mental disabilities. Specialist support is crucial for people in those categories. There is also the whole issue of psychological trauma, particularly of children. I frequently think that in refugee situations around the world we give far too little attention to the assistance and support that can be provided for the psychiatric and psychological dimensions of the problem.
My noble friend rightly referred to the difference between the refugees in camps outside the country and those in more difficult, sometimes very distressing, situations who are not in camps. We have to ensure that whatever is being done in mobilising assistance is reaching and supporting both communities. In the middle of all this, we also have to remember that we must not engender a culture of dependency. We want to ensure that we are preparing people to return home. However, that is a big issue because how long will it take for any realistic expectations of return to be fulfilled? This issue is particularly acute in the spheres of education for the young and health. Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq have played an immensely important part in keeping their borders open. However, they may well be tempted to close them at some point. We all have to think what that would mean. That, again, puts a responsibility on us all to make sure that we give them every possible support.
Perhaps the last point to be made in the time available is that all this is putting a burden on the people of those countries which do not have social provision of the highest order. Are we considering the weight that is falling on them? How can we support the programmes of the Governments in those countries to meet the needs of their own people in the context of this situation? That is important not only in humanitarian terms but to the long-term prospects of having a settled solution in the area, as antagonisms could very quickly become aggravated and escalate unless we look to the needs of the local populations.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone on securing this debate and I support everything that she said. I declare my interest as an adviser to the Council for European and Palestinian Relations, under whose auspices our parliamentary delegation recently went to Lebanon. The Syrian conflict is a huge humanitarian disaster with well over 4 million people, and growing, still within Syria’s borders needing humanitarian assistance, in addition to the at least 1.5 million people who have fled to neighbouring countries. The scale of the population displacement caused by this conflict must start to call into question the sustainability of some of the smaller neighbouring states involved, unless there is significant international help over a long period of time.
I want to focus briefly on Lebanon, which has received over 450,000 Syrian refugees across its lengthy border with Syria. That is more than 10% of its population. Let us imagine how we would feel if 6 million people suddenly appeared in the UK, considering the fuss that we have made about a relatively small number of eastern Europeans coming into this country. Around 10% of the people coming across the Lebanon border at the rate of about 7,000 people a day are Palestinian refugees. They are fleeing from their camps in Syria, which have been bombed by Bashar al-Assad’s military. It is very difficult to explain to them why a no-fly zone was appropriate in Libya but is not appropriate in Syria.
The plight of these refugees, especially that of children, is heartbreaking. Most of them are fleeing across the border with little more than the clothes that they are standing up in. Lebanon, which has considerable political and economic problems of its own, as has already been mentioned, is paying a huge political and economic price for keeping its borders open—and, one must say, pretty much welcoming these people into their country in many ways. It is asking its own population for the most part to host these people. They call them guests, not refugees, and there are relatively few refugee camps into which these people are moving and living.
What we saw in Beirut when we visited the city were families of 20 to 30 people living in two or three rooms in bombed buildings that are open to the elements, with little access to water or toilet facilities. They sleep in shifts because there is not enough space for them to sleep at night. They are struggling with exorbitant rents, sometimes $500 a month, which is an enormous sum for these people. It is charged by what I can only describe as racketeering landlords, and there is a lack of food, clean water and medicines. Some have untreated wounds and illnesses. Many are groups of vulnerable women and children with few, if any, accompanying working-age men. Where there are men, they are forbidden by local labour laws from working. Even in the well run volunteer organisation camp that we visited, where the accommodation and facilities are less primitive, dangerous electricity systems and inadequate sanitation present their own hazards on top. The meetings that we had with UNRWA on our visit were less than encouraging. Many of the countries that pledged money at the January Kuwait summit have simply not followed through with the cash.
I do not have time to go further, so I should like to close by posing a couple of questions for the Minister. Are the Government satisfied that all the pledges made at the Kuwait summit are being delivered in terms of hard cash for UN relief agencies to use for Syrian refugees? If not, what action will they take with their international colleagues—with a particular focus, I have to say, on the Gulf states, which do not seem to have delivered on the promises that they made? Do the Government accept that the population displacement caused by the Syrian conflict is likely to prove permanent in many individual cases? What discussions do they contemplate having with international partners on this issue, particularly with regard to Palestinian refugees, many of whom have been subject to multiple displacements? We need to engage with these serious issues in a more strategic manner than we have been doing so far.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for tabling today’s Question. As we have heard in this debate, there is an escalating humanitarian crisis in Syria. The situation is spiralling out of control, leaving relief agencies overstretched and struggling to cope. I thank all my noble friends for their first-hand accounts of the situation in Syria and neighbouring countries.
The two most strategic issues are, first, the need for longer-term funding to enable an effective humanitarian response and, secondly, as my noble friends have pointed out, the need for increased support for national authorities in neighbouring countries. DfID has recently announced additional UK humanitarian funding for the response in recent weeks, which front-line agencies estimate will last approximately through to the summer. That is welcome, but it has become increasingly clear that this is not a short-term crisis. Longer-term funding for the host government authorities is necessary to ensure that their national infrastructure does not collapse under the refugee burden. As we have heard from the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Warner, the refugee influx into Jordan now constitutes 6% of Jordan’s population. Some estimates suggest that up to 1 million may have arrived by the end of this year.
Support for the host government capacity in Lebanon has been mooted as an element of the next UN appeal, to be announced on 28 May for the period June to December this year. I understand that DfID has also seconded one staff person to a government ministry in Lebanon to assist in liaising with the UN system on the humanitarian response. It is possible that other steps are being taken that I am not aware of, but support for the host Government has not featured in a serious way in the UN-led humanitarian strategy for Jordan, and that needs to change.
I have a number of specific points and questions to put to the Minister in respect of these key elements of the strategy. What steps will DfID take to provide longer-term funding to enable a more effective humanitarian response to what is proving to be a long-term crisis? Can DfID ensure that its future funding pledges will allow for multi-year programming by agencies, and use its influence to encourage the UN system and other donors to shift beyond the current short-term six-month timeframes?
What steps will Her Majesty’s Government take to increase support to host government authorities in neighbouring countries to cope with the refugee influx? Will there be a particular focus on supporting health services, water sanitation and education, on addressing the needs of the host communities and, as we have hard from my noble friends, on addressing the rising tensions between host communities and refugees?
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. The scale of the humanitarian crisis in Syria and the region has reached catastrophic proportions. We already have a protracted humanitarian emergency. While the suffering of ordinary people increases, humanitarian operations on the ground are becoming ever more constricted, as we have heard from noble Lords.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, briefed the UN Security Council last Thursday, she said:
“We are approaching a point of no return”.
The international political agenda must now refocus itself on the humanitarian response. Without this, the human suffering will only worsen and the threat to the stability of the region will be ever more severe, as noble Lords have so clearly flagged up. My noble friend Lady Falkner and other noble Lords portray a very chilling and bleak picture.
More than 70,000 people have died. Some 10 million people—half of Syria’s population—could be in need of assistance by the end of the year. The commission of inquiry has found evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Children have been murdered, tortured and subjected to sexual violence. The long-term implications of such horrors are huge.
The right reverend Prelate has noted the effect on the Christian population. Minorities often suffer disproportionately in these situations, as we are well aware.
The humanitarian situation is now desperate, but it could rapidly worsen should chemical or biological weapons be deployed on a large scale. The implications of the usage of such weapons, accidental or otherwise, are extremely serious. Such weapons usage could lead to large numbers of critically ill persons as well as causing major population movements across the region, as noble Lords have flagged up. All parties to the conflict must recognise the seriousness of the threat posed by these weapons. We are increasingly concerned that there is evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and we press the UN to investigate further.
The crisis is having a devastating impact on the region. More than 1.3 million refugees have now fled Syria for other countries in the region, and the UN predicts 4 million refugees in the region by the end of the year. This is putting unprecedented strain on the Governments and communities so generously hosting refugees. We are well aware of the effects on those countries. That is why aid is targeted to them, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. Aid is often given in a way that supports not only the refugees but their hosts as well.
The right reverend Prelate was right to say that the system is near breaking point. Prior to the refugee influx, Jordan was facing its own internal domestic challenges. There are now almost 500,000 Syrians in Jordan, with approximately 2,000 more arriving each day. While media images often show refugees living in camps, such as Zaatari, the majority of refugees live, as noble Lords have emphasised, in Jordanian communities, which were already resource-constrained. Tensions are already beginning to rise. Last weekend saw the most serious violent incident to date in the Zaatari refugee camp.
Lebanon is hosting 428,000 refugees. The projected refugee caseload by the end of the year is 1 million. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, flagged up, that means that one in four people in Lebanon will be a Syrian refugee. The cost to the Lebanese economy is no less worrying. The response for July to December 2013 is expected to be $600 million. The refugee influx is also putting pressure on Lebanon’s delicate political balance. North Lebanon has already seen increasing levels of violence spilling over from the conflict in Syria.
Turkey and Iraq are hosting 291,000 and 133,000 refugees respectively. Egypt is now hosting more than 50,000 refugees. As the right reverend Prelate noted, Egypt has also hosted Sudanese refugees. As numbers increase, so too does the need for the international community to respond.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, were right to flag up the position of the Palestinians. The impact on Palestinian refugees is acute. Of a pre-crisis population of 500,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria, 400,000 are now in need of urgent assistance. A further 40,000 have fled to Lebanon and 5,000 to Jordan. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, highlighted, before the crisis Lebanon was already hosting close to 500,000 Palestinian refugees, and Jordan was hosting 2 million, in very difficult circumstances.
Countries hosting refugees must not be left to shoulder the responsibility alone. The UK has been and is at the forefront of international humanitarian efforts. We have provided more than £141 million in humanitarian funding to provide vital food, water and medical care to hundreds of thousands of people in Syria and across the region. We are very close to the top of the table in terms of our national input. We are assessing the level of support needed for the next two years, looking to the longer term.
I assure noble Lords that the United Kingdom is fully committed to the pledge that we made in Kuwait. Aid will go to the United Nations World Food Programme, the United Nations children’s fund, UNICEF, and the World Health Organisation to provide lifesaving assistance. We are also working tirelessly to encourage others to move from the pledges that my noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned, through commitment to contribution. At a time of global financial constraint, the longer-term need to do so is self-evident.
Some £56.8 million of UK funding is going to support the refugee response in neighbouring countries. We are seeking to assist those host countries because we are well aware of the pressure on them. We are targeting some of the most vulnerable refugees. Our aid includes psychosocial help for people who have experienced trauma, including sexual violence, as well as £5 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to support Palestinian refugees affected by the crisis.
We are supporting vulnerable host communities. For example, in Lebanon we are funding the delivery of clean water, undertaking upgrades to sanitation infrastructure and providing schooling in the Lebanese host communities. That addresses the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we realise the importance of supporting children who have been traumatised.
Humanitarian aid to the region is only one part of the story. In Jordan and Lebanon the UK is also providing support through the Arab Partnership to support political and economic reform, as well as funds through the Conflict Pool to tackle the drivers of conflict and provide support, where appropriate, for security-sector reform. However, the levels of humanitarian funding remain woefully inadequate. We continue to lobby donors to deliver on the pledges made at Kuwait. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the UN has still received only 52% of the funding that was pledged. We are working very closely with other countries. Last week Kuwait fully translated its $300 million pledge from the Kuwait conference. That is an update since I answered the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, recently. We continue to use all channels to lobby those who have not yet committed their pledges.
In order to meet needs in the long term, the international community must radically increase the levels, timeframe and predictability of funding for its response, including by further engaging development actors such as the World Bank, the EU and the International Monetary Fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked how the funds were being distributed across the region. I can supply a lot of detail if needed, but will outline a few points now. For the UN appeal for Syria in the region there is a $1.5 billion contribution, with $0.5 billion going to Syria, $0.5 billion to Jordan, and $0.5 billion divided between Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. The UK and the UAE met with UN representatives in the Gulf recently to discuss closer co-operation over Syria. We constantly discuss with the Gulf states the importance of working together and with the UN in this area, something that noble Lords flagged up.
Access for humanitarian agencies operating inside Syria is indeed increasingly constrained, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, emphasised. They are facing considerable bureaucratic hurdles as well as enormous insecurity. The noble Lord is right to commend the enormous bravery of those working on the front line in Syria. The UK is calling on the Government of Syria to remove the bureaucratic barriers as a matter of urgency, and are calling on all parties in Syria to take immediate steps to ensure that humanitarian agencies have safe, full and unimpeded access to deliver lifesaving aid to those in need by the most effective routes.
I understand the frustration expressed by my noble friend Lady Falkner, who urges that we should consider no-fly zones and selectively arming. This is an extremely challenging situation. We believe that political transition has to be the best way to end bloodshed in Syria. However, in the absence of a political solution, it is right that we do not rule out any options. The use of chemical weapons would force us to revisit our approach but these are not straightforward or easy decisions, as my noble friend knows. I also point out to her that humanitarian enclaves in other contexts have not always operated to protect people; she will be acutely aware of that. At a minimum, we urge all parties to the conflict to respect international and humanitarian law and point out the consequences that we see through the International Criminal Court for those who do not do so.
We fully recognise the importance of this terrible conflict and the enormous challenges in tackling it. Noble Lords have rightly highlighted the particular destruction and devastation of civil war. We seek a negotiated end to the conflict and continue to work with UN Security Council members in pursuit of this. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to monitor closely the situation in Syria and the region. We will remain, as we have been thus far, at the forefront of the international humanitarian response.
House of Lords
Prisoners: Indeterminate Sentences
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further steps they will take to release prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public in the light of the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in James, Wells and Lee v UK.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the European Court’s judgment did not find sentences of imprisonment for public protection to be unlawful. Therefore, it remains for the Parole Board to determine whether to direct the release of an IPP prisoner once he has completed his tariff. The National Offender Management Service continues to improve opportunities for IPP prisoners to progress towards release.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
The noble Lord will know that currently more than 3,500 IPP prisoners have passed their tariff date and are waiting to come before the Parole Board. Does he accept that, at the current rate of release on licence, which is running at about 400 a year, it will be nearly nine years before the backlog is cleared? If so, is there not an overwhelming case for the Lord Chancellor to exercise the powers he was given under Section 128 of the 2012 Act to vary the release test to make it easier for these prisoners to satisfy the Parole Board?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord’s figure on the release of IPP prisoners is roughly correct; I do not think it is until Thursday that we release the full figures, but his estimate is not far out. That compares with 300 releases in 2011, 97 in 2010 and 53 in 2009. I hope he will acknowledge that the abolition of IPPs in LASPO and the greater flexibility that we are now employing in trying to manage the IPP sentences are going in the right direction. I acknowledge that it is a slow process. I will take back to my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor the noble and learned Lord’s point about the power that was given in the LASPO Act, but even if that power were exercised the Parole Board would have to take public safety into account in making its decisions.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, at its conference in 2012 the Prison Governors Association passed a motion overwhelmingly welcoming the ending of what it described as the “iniquitous” IPP system. It also said that unless some action is taken either to resource appropriate interventions to reduce perceived risk or to review the Parole Board criteria on what constitutes risk to the public, existing prisoners will face disproportionately long sentences. What action have the Government taken?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I think the key word is “risk”. The fact that these prisoners were given IPP sentences indicates that it must have been in the mind of the judge imposing the sentence that they posed a significant risk to society that had to be dealt with before they could be considered for release. That was the intention behind IPPs and that must remain uppermost in our minds when deciding the future of these prisoners. However, we are bringing in accredited courses, which may help to make the point that they are available for these prisoners. Other interventions such as work, education and employment may also provide evidence of reduced risk. NOMS is investing in interventions that have the most beneficial impact in reducing risk, and priority for those programmes is given to IPP prisoners.
Lord Wigley
Does the Minister accept that these prisoners are in a totally invidious position, a Catch-22 position, in that they have to undergo rehabilitative courses in order to be considered for eligibility for parole, yet the vast majority of them have not been offered such courses? Does what he said a moment ago about new courses mean that a substantial number of these prisoners will now be offered them?
Lord McNally
My Lords, within the constraints that we are having to operate in we are trying to introduce new courses. I fully accept that one of the reasons we abolished IPP is that it contained that Catch-22 whereby you had to fulfil certain courses, which may not be available, to qualify for release. I believe that NOMS is doing its best to bring in new systems and that there is greater flexibility in qualifying for release. However, I go back to the point that we are dealing with men who were sent to prison because the judge who sentenced them judged that they posed a serious risk.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, one of the problems is that when a prisoner is transferred to another prison, they find that there is no accredited course in that prison. Who has the specific responsibility for ensuring that when a prisoner is transferred, there is an accredited course in the prison to which that prisoner is transferred?
Lord McNally
I understand that almost all IPP prisoners now have a managed programme to help them prepare for release. That should be part of sentence planning. But, again, I freely acknowledge that in some cases prisoners have been moved for other reasons and then find that they cannot complete the relevant courses. We are trying as best we can to iron out of the system what the noble Lord referred to as a Catch-22 situation so that prisoners can qualify, but to leave with the Parole Board the overriding assessment of whether they are suitable for release or whether a risk remains.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, what is the Government’s estimate of the number of prisoners to whom the judgment in the European Court of Human Rights case of James, Wells and Lee v UK applies? Have the Government estimated the cost of providing sufficient resources to comply with the requirement to ensure that prisoners have an opportunity to progress and to be properly assessed for release on licence?
Lord McNally
I am not sure of the number of prisoners to whom the judgment applies, but cases are being taken. It may be of interest to hear that two of the three prisoners involved in that case are now back in prison due to breaching their terms. We are being very careful to make sure that the system is flexible enough and effective enough to allow prisoners to earn—that is the reality of it—their release. However, we have to consider this issue in the context of prisoners who were given this sentence, when it existed, because they posed a threat to the community. It is for the Parole Board to assess whether they are fit for release.
Judicial Review
Baroness Whitaker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how their proposed new policy on judicial review ensures the right to a fair hearing in respect of time for individual applicants to prepare and lodge their cases, and the opportunity for an oral permission hearing in all circumstances.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness on her impeccable timing because today the Government published their response to the consultation on reforming judicial review. The response sets out changes to the judicial review procedure which the Government intend to take forward. As set out in the response, we believe that these changes to the fee structure, oral renewals and time limits will help to reduce the burden of judicial review while, most importantly, maintaining access to justice, the rule of law, and the right to a fair hearing.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, the consultation paper refers to problems with challenges to large planning developments. Why should individual applicants, often unfamiliar with legal processes or perhaps not even very good at reading and writing, like some Gypsies and Travellers, pay the price with so much less time? Secondly, does the Minister agree with Lord Justice Laws when he said,
“that judges … change their minds under the influence of oral argument”,
is central to the system, bearing in mind that more than 60% of all hearings are successful? Where is the justice in reducing them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness is right to raise the important issue of vulnerable groups and people who represent themselves. However, a total of 11,359 applications were lodged in 2011, of which only 144 were successful. I hear what the noble Baroness says, and I am sure she will appreciate that for every application made in written form it is down to the judge to make an adjudication on whether it has merit to go forward. Even if the case is decided in the negative, the individual still has a right to take the matter forward to the Court of Appeal.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, will the Minister draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the oral evidence given to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee on 13 February by the president of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury? I refer in particular to where he said:
“If you have shorter time limits, the risk is that people start proceedings when maybe, if they had more time to think, they would not. There would be many more applications for extensions of time and you might find that the bright idea of cutting time limits turns out to increase the amount of litigation rather than decrease it”.
Does the Minister share these concerns? I declare my interest as a practising barrister.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord always comes to these matters with great wisdom and experience, which I fully acknowledge. Various groups, including the judiciary, were fully consulted in putting forward the response. The senior judiciary who were consulted included the president of the Queen’s Bench Division, the Master of the Rolls, the vice-president of the Court of Appeal, the Civil Division and Lord Justice Richards, the deputy head of Civil Justice. As I said earlier, in the case of such appeals the judge is there to decide if an extension is required to the time period. The noble Lord may have an opinion that this may extend the period, which his quote highlighted, but it is important that the right thing is done. If the judge decides to extend the time, so be it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I declare a similar interest. The Government propose withdrawing the right to an oral hearing in cases deemed on paper to be totally without merit. Does my noble friend accept that unrepresented applicants often find it very difficult to express their cases adequately on paper, and that it is only at oral permission hearings that judges can sometimes discern from such applicants an arguable case which was not apparent on paper? Will the Government consider limiting the restriction of the right to an oral permission hearing to legally represented applicants?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank my noble friend for raising this concern, but I believe that the risk is somewhat limited. I am sure that many members of the judiciary both in here and those practising outside will agree that the test of “totally without merit” is something that is well understood by the profession and is, indeed, applied by judges. This reform applies only to the weakest cases, and as I said in a previous response, if there is still an issue, the right to apply to the Court of Appeal remains for the individual.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the observation of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, that there is no principle more basic to our system of law than the maintenance of the rule of law itself and the constitutional protection afforded by judicial review? When will the Government publish their response to the consultation on their proposals, and can the Minister indicate whether the view of consultees that has emerged from the consultation on the question of shortening the time limits for procurement and planning cases has been noted?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I agree totally with the noble Lord. The point of judicial review is to hold the Executive and public bodies to account, and that is a principle to which the Government are utterly committed. I have referred already to the issue of time extension. If an extension of time is required, the judge can grant it. It is important to highlight three key points around these changes. The reduction in time limits on planning and procurement, the introduction of fees and the dismissal of decisions that are totally without merit were all referred to the judiciary and, indeed, carried their support. Matters were raised in the consultation which the judiciary felt were not right to take forward; the Government have listened and are not doing so.
Lord Bach
My Lords, linked to the issue of judicial review is the idea of a residence test, which is presently being consulted on. If put into effect, that residence test would mean that someone here lawfully but who had not been here for 12 months or more would not be entitled to legal aid in civil actions, presumably including judicial review, however overwhelming their case might be. Does the Minister agree that such a proposal goes against the traditions and principles of British justice and is more akin to the traditions of more unsavoury judiciaries?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I do not agree with the noble Lord. It is right to say that our justice system is one of the best in the world, demonstrated even in cases such as that of Abu Qatada. Here is a man who does not believe in our democracy, who does not believe in the freedoms our country stands for, and who takes a noble faith, hijacks it and then presents it in his own erroneous way. Even then, our justice system stands up for him. That is British justice at its best and those rights are protected within judicial review. The noble Lord also noted that these matters are currently out for consultation. The whole issue of legal aid for anyone seeking to apply for it is to protect the vulnerable. That remains the central aim in terms of how the Government will continue to support such cases.
Crime: British Victims Abroad
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they give to British citizens, and their families, who are victims of serious violent crime abroad.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, the FCO will assist any British national who gets into serious difficulty overseas. The victims of violent crime are especially vulnerable and get urgent and priority attention. We offer support to help to address both the immediate effects of violent crime and the longer-term needs of the victims and their next of kin. We also work closely with partners who can provide specialist long-term support and advise us on our services.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, British citizens and their families who are the victims of serious violent crime abroad face considerable difficulties getting criminals brought to justice and in dealing with the aftermath of the crimes that have been committed against them. Language, cultural, judicial and other differences make the situations they find themselves in all the more difficult. Will the noble Baroness agree to meet me and Maggie Hughes, the mother of Robbie Hughes, who was the victim of such an assault, to hear at first hand the difficulties that this and other families have experienced with a view to improving the situation for victims and their families?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord makes an important point. It is always when British citizens travel overseas and find themselves in these distressing circumstances that expectations are at their highest. Some 56 million people from this country travel overseas, but only tens of thousands require consular assistance, and within those the number of very serious cases is around 60. It is important that we are quite open about what help we can provide and what support we can give. That usually takes the form of providing information about the local police and legal services, while sometimes we will attend first appointments with a list of local lawyers and victim support services. We work with local NGOs to provide support for families on the ground, but we have to be honest about what we are obliged to provide and what it is that we can provide. We have to be clear and transparent about that when providing information about travelling overseas.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, does the same position apply in relation to British citizens who are dual nationals?
Baroness Warsi
That is an interesting issue which we face regularly, most often in relation to the case of forced marriages where young girls are taken overseas. They are, by default, dual nationals because of their heritage and the origins of their parents. Thankfully, we have quite good relations with many countries where our citizens would be considered to be dual nationals, but strictly, when that national is in a country for which they also hold the nationality, they are citizens of that country and that provides us with great challenges.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty in helping victims in some jurisdictions. For good reason, we do not have missions and consular services everywhere. However, this gives little comfort to individuals in frightening circumstances where there are language barriers or to their families. Can the Minister give them more comfort? What targets do we ask other Governments to observe in notifying us of violent crimes committed against our citizens abroad? What are our consular services’ targets for responding to those individuals and will the Government publish, country by country, the numbers of violent crimes committed against our citizens?
Baroness Warsi
The figure in relation to the number of murders and violent deaths that have occurred in the past year is 60. I am not sure whether that is broken down by country. It probably is, and if so, I will certainly make it available to the noble Lord. There are some very clear guidelines under the Vienna Convention as to the obligations that states have about notifying us and doing so within a specific timeframe when our citizens are caught up in these matters. Going back to the main issue, it is important that we are very clear about what support we can give. We are very clear about the travel advice we give to people when they go to many places where we may not, for example, have embassies or high commissions and that we then support those who are the most vulnerable.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, is it not correct to say that the Vienna Convention on consular relations prohibits our consuls, or the consuls of any other country for that matter, from making representations on behalf of their citizens who are also citizens of some other country?
Baroness Warsi
It is a real issue, but I can also inform the noble Lord that there are many occasions where citizens are dual nationals, but we still make representations to those Governments, even though they happen to be dual nationals within that country.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, is it not the case that the murder of a citizen of the United Kingdom is triable in the United Kingdom wherever that murder occurs? What efforts are made in such cases to bring the perpetrators of such offences before British courts?
Baroness Warsi
The view of the Government and indeed of successive Governments has been that a crime has to be tried in accordance with the law of the land in which that crime was committed. It would be just as unusual for countries to make a request to us to have their nationals who commit murder in this country to be tried back in their home country. Therefore, it is right that nationals are tried in the country in which they are caught.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, will the Minister wish the English nation well on this lovely sunny St George’s day?
Baroness Warsi
It gives me great pleasure to wish the English nation well on this glorious day.
NHS: Leeds General Infirmary
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Eaton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the extent of their involvement in the decision to suspend surgery at the Leeds General Infirmary Children’s Heart Unit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Government did not play any role in the decision to suspend children’s heart surgery at Leeds. By agreement, this was a local decision taken by the trust, in agreement with Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS England’s medical director, and the Care Quality Commission. The Government strongly believe that it was the right thing to do. It is absolutely right that the NHS should act quickly and decisively if there is any evidence that patient safety may be at risk.
Baroness Eaton
I thank the Minister for his Answer and for the concern that I know he shares for those who have been affected by the decision. We all wish to see the safest surgery possible for our children. The Minister quite rightly understands that specialist doctors and experts, not politicians, should be responsible for asking and answering questions of safety. In the particular circumstances of Leeds, however, a number of the experts—
Baroness Eaton
My question is coming. The experts in Leeds have been causing understandable concern because of their partiality and apparent vested interest. In Bristol and Birmingham, children’s heart units have recently had mortality alerts and 14 NHS trusts are under investigation. Will the Minister explain why surgery has not been suspended at any of those trusts? Will he also explain why NHS England has chosen to spend resources appealing the decision of the High Court judge, who called the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s heart units flawed, when the decision for the Independent Reconfiguration Panel and the Secretary of State is imminent?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend raises quite a large number of points. I simply say to her that in regard to Leeds, which is the matter on which I have been briefed, the decision to suspend surgery was taken because concerns had been raised from a variety of sources about the safety of surgery at the unit. Mortality data were supplied to the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with significant flaws, and until those flaws had been rectified, it was impossible to be sure that the trust was operating within acceptable mortality thresholds. Those mortality concerns have, I understand, been resolved, which is why low-risk children’s cardiac surgery has been resumed at the hospital. However, NHS England’s appeal on the Safe and Sustainable review—which, I emphasise, is quite separate from the events of late March and early April—has to be a matter for NHS England. The review of children’s heart services was an NHS review, independent of government, and if NHS England wants to appeal the decision and thinks that there are good grounds for doing so, that is a matter for it.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the people most affected by this are the children and many of the families who do not understand and cannot comprehend what is going on at the moment across these services? I declare an interest as the patron and trustee of Little Hearts Matter, which deals with hundreds of children who have half a heart and therefore all have surgery across the country. The Government may not have a direct interest in dealing with this matter but what are they going to do to make sure that the health services reassure these families that wherever they get surgery it will be safe for their children?
Earl Howe
My Lords, children’s heart surgery has been the subject of concern for more than 15 years. Clinical experts and parent groups have repeatedly called for change, and there is an overwhelming feeling in the NHS that the time for change is long overdue. The review that has taken place was about making sure that children’s heart services are as good as they possibly can be, and that has to be the message to the parents involved. It is of course an extremely complex issue but it is generally accepted that concentrating surgical expertise will deliver better outcomes for the children concerned. In view of the legal proceedings, it is very difficult for me to go any further than that at the moment.
Lord Warner
My Lords, if NHS England decides, under its new responsibilities, to undertake and control the specialised commissioning functions within the NHS, and if it chooses to implement the McKay panel’s recommendations on paediatric surgery, can the Minister say whether they would accept that judgment by NHS England or whether they would seek to overturn it?
Earl Howe
I take the noble Lord’s question to mean: would the Government accept that decision? Yes. This is a matter for the health service to determine. As I mentioned earlier, the Safe and Sustainable review was an NHS review. The Government and Ministers were not in any way involved in it, and that is appropriate. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that the Government would stand back from any such decision.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, it is clear that murky internal health politicking has been going on here. However, the underlying question is: why are the Government determined to deny the people of Yorkshire a children’s heart unit when Yorkshire’s population of 5.3 million is similar to that of Scotland, Denmark and Finland, and is larger than Norway and Ireland? Yorkshire is double the size of the north-east of England, and the Government are happy to see that region locally served.
Earl Howe
I say to my noble friend with great respect that the premise of his question is incorrect. The Government have not taken a role in this matter. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, this is a matter that the NHS itself has led. There is no agenda by the Government at all, apart from our desire to see the best possible children’s cardiac services provided in this country.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. Would the noble Earl accept that Sir Bruce Keogh has an outstanding record in the health service in improving outcomes from heart surgery, and therefore he has to be listened to with a great deal of respect?
On the more general issue of the reconfiguration of services, on which NHS England has promised to become much more assertive—which, I am sure, is welcome—is the noble Earl concerned that the Office of Fair Trading and the Co-operation and Competition Panel seem to be intervening in sensible reconfiguration decisions on the spurious basis that they impact on competition? Will he tell these bodies to desist?
Earl Howe
My Lords, if the noble Lord can supply me with some examples, of course I will look into them. I remind him that tomorrow we are debating a set of regulations that bear on this very question and I shall have plenty to say on that occasion, which I hope will assuage his concerns.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it has been really splendid to witness the Members of Parliament from all over Yorkshire supporting their constituents? Will the Government listen to them?
Transport for London Bill [HL]
Public Service Pensions Bill
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(c) the Defence Fire and Rescue Service”
Commons disagreement and reason
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 78 for the following Reason—
Lord Newby
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 78, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 78A.
Lord Newby
My Lords, your Lordships’ House now returns to the Public Service Pensions Bill, on which there remains one outstanding issue. The other place has invoked parliamentary privilege on the amendments made by this House that sought to reduce the normal pension ages for fire and police workforces employed by the Ministry of Defence.
I will explain in a moment the reasons why the Government cannot simply agree to give these workforces a normal pension age of 60. First, I put on record that I recognise the arguments that have been made here and elsewhere. I have met members of these workforces to discuss their position, and there is no question that they deliver an extremely important service, often in demanding and dangerous circumstances. However, sympathy for these individuals should not lead to our oversimplifying the issue that we are discussing. The debate today is over just one design element of their pensions, which in turn forms just one element of their overall remuneration and employment package.
We have heard the argument that these individuals are identical to their local authority counterparts. But these workforces are subject to separate working practices, terms and conditions and, specifically, pensions entitlements. These workers receive different pay, pay a much lower level of contributions, have access to a compensation scheme, unlike their local authority counterparts, and receive different allowances—for example, when they work abroad.
We must recognise that the proposal to reduce the retirement age involves substantial changes in their terms and conditions. Those changes to date have not been subject to thorough consideration or the proper process. That is why we should not attempt to conduct detailed discussions here about what the changes may look like. This is not just about normal pension age; there is much more to be explored, and there are several interrelating factors that must continue to be discussed between the parties. It is right that those discussions take place outside the legislative process, and we do not have to resolve this in the Bill. My colleague, the Economic Secretary, said yesterday in the other place that further primary legislation is not necessary in order to do so.
The Ministry of Defence has already committed to discussing this issue further. This is the right approach. As we have these discussions, we cannot shy away from discussions about the costs. Reducing the normal pension age of those workforces to age 60 could create extra expenditure for the Exchequer of up to £10 million in every year that the scheme operates. That is why these two amendments are subject to the Commons financial privilege. These costs would have to be picked up by somebody—either the taxpayer, possibly at the cost of front-line MoD services, or extra contributions from the members of these workforces. The current situation is that dialogue is already under way between the DFRS, the MDP and the MoD. The MoD has written to the representatives of the members of these forces and offered to discuss how a normal pension age of 65 might be maintained when the new schemes come into force. The first step has, therefore, already been taken, and we will keep up the momentum in the coming weeks and months.
I realise that there is some concern about how long these negotiations might take, which was reflected in the Commons yesterday. While I do not wish to tie the hands of either the unions or my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, I should think that working towards agreement over the next 12 months is an achievable goal. We are definitely not seeking to kick this issue into the long grass. Colleagues in the other place also wanted assurance that if—I stress that this is very much an “if”, not a “when”—the MoD decided that a reduction in its current NPA was appropriate, the Bill would be flexible enough to allow this. I can reassure the House that this is indeed the case. This Bill is framework legislation. This is usually the case in the public service pension arena and, as such, a number of things are possible within the framework of the Bill that do not require amendments to primary legislation. I am, therefore, happy to repeat that if the Government decided that it would be appropriate for some or all of these workforces to be able to access an unreduced pension before normal pension age, there are ways that this change can be delivered using only secondary legislation.
The opposition amendment would effectively require a review of the effect of this Bill on the Ministry of Defence fire and police services. In particular, it would require the Government to have regard to impacts on the health and well-being of the individuals affected; the ability of the MDP and DFRS to meet the Ministry of Defence’s statements of requirement; and early retirement statistics in these forces. I have already stated that the Ministry of Defence is engaging with these forces to look at their pension ages in the new schemes. These are exactly the kinds of factors which they would look at in doing so. As we had already intended to look at this issue again with these workforces, I am happy to accept this amendment from the Opposition, and the Government will support it. I hope that seeing this provision on the face of the Bill will give the forces and Members opposite the reassurance they need that the review will indeed be carried out.
As is normal practice, a few elements of wording will need to be ironed out. The Government will look to make these changes in the other place when the Bill returns there. Allow me to reassure the House that any changes to the wording will be purely to ensure that the provision works properly. However, the Government can today accept the substance of the amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for taking this very constructive approach to the remaining issue in the Bill. I invite the House to accept the decision of the other place and also to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 78, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 78A, but do propose Amendment 78B in lieu.
“Defence Fire and Rescue Service and Ministry of Defence Police Capability Review
(1) The Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Defence, will, within six months of this Act coming into force, prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s assessment of the impacts of this Act on current and future members of the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and current and future members of the Ministry of Defence Police nominated under section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.
(2) A report under subsection (1) will include, but not be limited to, consideration of the following
(a) the impacts on the health and wellbeing of members of the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and members of the Ministry of Defence Police nominated under section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987;
(b) the ability of the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and members of the Ministry of Defence Police nominated under section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 to meet the Ministry of Defence's statements of requirement of these personnel;
(c) the number of members of the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and members of the Ministry of Defence Police nominated under section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 taking early retirement, the consequences of early retirement for those members and the costs to the taxpayer of such members taking early retirement.”
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I beg to move the manuscript amendment on the Marshalled List. We were told last night—that is to say, at the last minute—that the Government intended to assert financial privilege over our attempt to achieve fairness for the members of the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and the Ministry of Defence Police. We have learnt that the Government know they have lost the argument when they assert financial privilege. However, it is worth examining what this financial privilege is being asserted over. The noble Lord quoted the possible cost to the Government as £10 million. We had the opportunity to take actuarial advice overnight and the figure is a maximum of £2 million. So the Government are asserting financial privilege over the magnificent sum of £2 million per year and are using that argument to prevent the debate on your Lordships’ amendments, which would have achieved fairness for Ministry of Defence firefighters and police by equalising their retirement age with those of other police and fire services.
The amendment I have tabled requires a review of the impact of these measures on the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and Ministry of Defence Police. We want to know the impact on the health and well-being of these members, particularly because there is substantial evidence that the vast majority of members of the fire service and police are required to retire before the age of 60, because they can no longer meet the Ministry of Defence statements of requirements for these personnel. In effect, they are stood down for health reasons already. What is striking is that the Government have not taken the cost of people retiring early through ill health into account in their calculations of the overall impact. Indeed, the cost calculations are simplistic in the extreme.
The other area that we are particularly concerned about is whether early retirement due to inability to meet exacting standards is taken into account in considering the settled retirement age. The noble Lord again raised this issue of fixing the retirement age of this group of workers at 65 and not letting it creep up in future years, as anticipated in the Bill. I hope that the Government will dismiss these thoughts from their mind and instead concentrate on achieving fairness. I refer the noble Lord to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hutton of Furness when we considered this matter on Report. He stated that,
“this is fundamentally a matter of fairness”.—[Official Report, 12/2/13; col. 570.]
As noble Lords may remember, my noble friend also pointed out that if he had known about this anomaly when he produced his report on public service pensions, he would have included the MoD firefighters and police within his general recommendations for those who would have a retirement age of 60. My noble friend Lord Hutton told us that this was simply a mistake on his part and that he wanted the House to have the opportunity to correct that mistake.
I am grateful to the Government for accepting our amendment and our request for a review of the circumstances of MoD firefighters and police, but I wonder if the noble Lord could answer a number of questions for me. For example, have the Government sought the views of the heads of the MoD fire service and police force? What do the heads of these services actually think about the Government’s proposal not to equalise the retirement age of their men and women to the retirement age of other police and firefighters?
Moreover, the noble Lord made quite a point about the difference in conditions of the pension scheme that the MoD police and fire services are currently in and the pension scheme to which they might transfer. He referred to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, to which they have access. How many times in the past two years have MoD firefighters and police accessed this scheme? Why did they do so and what has been the outcome of their application?
In moving this amendment, I seek to give this House the opportunity to debate once again, on a report by the Government, this particular anomaly in the Public Service Pensions Bill. We wish to be clear on the impact on the health and well-being of members of the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and the Ministry of Defence Police. We wish to be clear on the circumstances under which the firefighters and police meet, or fail to meet, the Ministry of Defence’s statement of requirements for its personnel. We also want to be clear on the cost to the taxpayer of the early retirement which has become such a standard characteristic of service in these professions because of the failure, through advancing years—which I understand, as I am sure many of us do—of the firefighters and police to meet the requirements of service.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I had not necessarily intended to participate in this debate, knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, had put down an amendment which I wholeheartedly approve and agree to. I am very pleased that the Government have decided to accept it, especially after all the work that was done in trying to persuade them about the Ministry of Defence fire service and the Ministry of Defence police. I emphasise this point because it is tantamount to having made them accept that this really must be looked at again, and I think it was the work that was done in Committee in this House that made this happen. Like the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I was surprised to find that financial privilege had been put forward as the reason not to accept something a little stronger. So I can assure my noble friend the Minister that during the year that this amendment will be looked at, mulled over and digested, we will be looking very carefully to see the progress that is made and to make sure, through questions and other means, that we keep the Government’s feet to the fire.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in congratulating the Minister on his change of heart. He has in effect very graciously recognised not only the justice of the case that we on this side of the House, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, put in Committee, but that it is pretty absurd for the Government simply to claim financial privilege to resist an amendment that manifestly will bring justice and equity to an extremely special group of workers, putting them on the same basis as people who are doing almost exactly the same job but who are employed by other public sector employers.
I suspect the Minister had some difficulty with the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence in reaching this conclusion. I therefore doubly congratulate him on seeing it through and at least recognising the very difficult position we all find ourselves in. We cannot really resist the Commons claiming financial privilege, but we can ensure by my noble friend’s amendment that the Government think again about this and address the real issues.
I do hope, however, that the Government do not make a habit of using financial privilege to resist a principled amendment from this House that has a minimal cost even in the Government’s terms and, as my noble friend has said, that is probably actuarially inaccurate in any case. If the Government continue to do this, this House has some serious thinking to do about how seriously our amendments and our scrutiny are taken. However, I return to my congratulations to the Minister on seeing sense over this. I hope it is a precedent that will be followed by some of his other colleagues in future.
Lord Newby
My Lord, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I would just like to deal with the issue of financial privilege, because there is a widespread misunderstanding of how financial privilege works. Privilege is not determined by the Government. Privilege is determined by the Speaker in advance of debate. In this case, the classification of your Lordships’ amendment as being subject to the Commons financial privilege has been known for a month. Once an amendment has been classified by the Speaker as being subject to financial privilege, obviously the Commons considers whether to agree or disagree with each Lords amendment. If it disagrees, it must offer a reason. The only reason it can give is privilege. The Clerk of the Commons explains this as follows:
“If an amendment infringes privilege, that is the only reason that will be given. This is because giving another reason suggests either that the Commons haven't noticed the financial implications, or that they are somehow not attaching importance to their financial primacy”.
I strongly recommend that all noble Lords who seek enlightenment on this matter look up the Hansard of 14 February last year, when the Leader of the House gave a little tutorial on financial privilege before your Lordships discussed a number of issues relating to a Bill. There is a long-established pattern of financial privilege that has in essence been unchanged for several centuries, and it is not for the Government to decide whether an amendment is covered by it. The Speaker does that.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I fully accept that it is for the Speaker to designate financial privilege, but the debate last year to which the noble Lord referred related to expenditure of several hundred million pounds of the welfare budget. During that debate, several Members referred to the fact that there must be a threshold beyond which a Lords amendment was considered an issue of financial privilege. The only point I am making is that the Commons, or whoever jogs the Speaker’s elbow in these matters, needs to take into account the issue that a relatively small amount of financial expenditure and alteration in either direction should not be taken as an issue for claiming financial privilege. I do not want to labour the issue, but there would be a danger of the two Houses coming into conflict if this position were to be adopted by the Commons on a regular basis in relation to relatively small amounts of money.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I hope that the Speaker in another place is listening to your Lordships’ debate and taking note.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked whether we had sought the views of the heads of the Ministry of Defence fire and police services. The Government are routinely in contact with all their employers and discuss a number of issues with them. We are accepting the idea of a formal review, and the heads of those workforces will be consulted as part of that process. The noble Lord also asked me how many times the Civil Service Compensation Scheme had been used. I simply do not have the answer, but I will seek it out and write to him about it.
I realise that although the Government are accepting the opposition amendment, a number of noble Lords would like us to go further today. In urging patience on noble Lords, I end simply by reminding them of the words of that well known hymn, “Lead, kindly light”, which says,
“I do not ask to see the distant scene.
One step enough for me”.
I hope that we have taken a positive step today.
Motion A1 agreed.
“(c) includes members of the Ministry of Defence Police nominated under section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987”
Commons disagreement and reason
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 79 for the following Reason—
Lord Newby
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 79, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 79A.
Defamation Bill
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:00 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 275 - Motion B1 disagreed.
“Arbitration Service for defamation and related civil claims against members of Independent Regulatory Board
(1) The Lord Chief Justice shall establish a Defamation Recognition Commission.
(2) Schedule (Recognition Commission) makes provision relating to the Defamation Recognition Commission.
(3) The Defamation Recognition Commission shall certify bodies as Independent Regulatory Boards in accordance with the criteria in Schedule (Recognition Commission).
(4) An Independent Regulatory Board shall provide a recognised arbitration service as set out in Schedule (Specialist Arbitration Service).
(5) A court shall take into account when awarding costs and damages whether either party, claimant or defendant in a dispute has chosen not to use the recognised arbitration service of an Independent Regulatory Board.
(6) A court shall award costs under subsection (5) on an indemnity basis unless the interests of justice require otherwise.
(7) A court may order a successful party to pay all the costs of proceedings if such party has unreasonably refused to use an available recognised arbitration service.
(8) A court awarding in its judgment exemplary damages where a defendant is guilty of a flagrant breach of a defendant’s rights can also take into account whether—
(a) a claimant refused to use a recognised arbitration service;
(b) a defendant refused to use or join a recognised arbitration service.”
Commons disagreement and reason
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 15 and 16 for the Reason set out at 16A.
“Schedule
Recognition Commission
1 This Schedule provides the method by which the Recognition Commission may be constituted for the purposes of this Act.
2 Appointments to membership of the Recognition Commission will be made by the Lord Chief Justice.
3 An individual may be appointed only if he or she has consented to act and is—
(a) a present or former Civil Service Commissioner;
(b) a present or former holder of high judicial office (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005); or
(c) a person who in the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice is suitable for appointment having regard to their reputation and experience and is independent of all political parties and all media organisations.
4 The Recognition Commission must consider whether an Independent Regulatory Board body has—
(a) sufficient guarantees of independence, including suitable independent, fair and transparent procedures for appointments and funding,
(b) suitable functions, powers, personnel and resources to ensure that it can fulfil its principal objectives effectively,
(c) an appropriate standards code,
(d) an arbitration service able to deal with defamation and related civil claims, effective processes for upholding standards,
(e) an efficient procedure for handling complaints, and
(f) is open to all news publishers.
5 The Recognition Commission must review a recognised regulator at least once during the period of two years beginning with the date of certification, and at intervals of not more than three years after that.
6 If having reviewed a body the Recognition Commission is no longer satisfied that it complies with paragraph 4, the Recognition Commission must consult the body and give directions designed to ensure that the body complies with paragraph 4 within a reasonable time.
7 If the body fails to comply with directions given under paragraph 6 the Recognition Commission must revoke the body’s certification.
8 The Recognition Commission shall not be involved in the regulation of any subscriber to an Independent Regulatory Board.”
Commons disagreement and reason
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 15 and 16 for the Reason set out at 16A.
“Schedule
Specialist Arbitration Service
1 An Independent Regulatory Board must provide an Arbitration Service in relation to defamation and related civil legal claims drawing on independent legal experts on a cost-only basis to the subscribing member.
2 The arbitration rules must provide for a fair, quick and inexpensive process, which is inquisitorial and free for complainants to use (save for a power to make an adverse order for the costs of the arbitrator if proceedings are frivolous or vexatious).
3 The arbitrator shall have the powers set out in section 48(3) to (5) of the Arbitration Act 1996.
4 The arbitrator must be able to hold hearings where necessary or dispense with them where not necessary.
5 The process must include provision for frivolous or vexatious claims to be struck out at an early stage.”
Commons disagreement and reason
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 15 and 16 for the following Reason—
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1, 15 and 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, Amendments 1, 15 and 16 constitute a partial enactment in statute of a number of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson in his report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press. The reasons given by the other place for disagreeing with these amendments reflect the fact that, as the House will be aware, on 18 March cross-party talks were resolved successfully and a draft royal charter was agreed as the vehicle by which the recognition body should be set up.
Detailed criteria by which self-regulators would be assessed were also agreed, and provisions to enact Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations on incentives in costs and exemplary damages have subsequently been included in the Crime and Courts Bill. A further “no change” clause has also been included in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill as a safeguard against political intervention with the royal charter. These measures have cross-party support.
I take this opportunity to address an issue that I know is of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on how provisions are being taken forward to provide access to justice and cost protection for those of limited means. It may be helpful to provide the House with an update on the action we are taking. As noble Lords are aware, we asked the Civil Justice Council to report on the issue of cost protection by the end of March. It has done so, and recommended that the regime of qualified one-way cost shifting, or QOCS, should be adapted to defamation and privacy cases. A number of adaptations are necessary, given the rather different nature and variety of defamation and privacy proceedings compared with personal injury claims. We are now considering the CJC report, and as your Lordships will appreciate this is quite a complex area. While the report does not represent a blueprint of the new rules to be applied, it does set out the issues that need to be addressed, and makes recommendations on how to address them.
It will be for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to make the rules on costs protection in due course, once the Government have set out the way forward. My officials will work with the Committee on this. I am conscious that the CJC has not consulted on this issue, and I believe that we need to consult before we finalise the proposals. Our aim is therefore to work with the Rule Committee in drafting appropriate rules, perhaps with alternatives, on which we can consult more widely over the summer.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, will be interested in that consultation, and I will ensure that he and other noble Lords with an interest in this area are included in the consultation. Depending on the outcome of that consultation, we then aim to implement a costs protection regime later in the year.
I hope that provides reassurances to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and to others, about the promises I have made about cost protection at various stages of the Bill. During our debate on the Crime and Courts Bill provisions on 25 March, both the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, indicated that they were happy for the Bill to complete its passage without Amendments 1, 15 and 16. I hope that remains the case, and that noble Lords will agree to the removal of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, first I would say that we often refer to Fox’s Libel Act. I hope that when this Bill becomes law it will be referred to as Lord McNally’s Libel Act, because he above all has had the energy to drive it forward. He said at one stage that he would not allow the Bill to be overwhelmed by what he called the tsunami of Leveson. The reason why I strongly support Motion A is because it provides a way of avoiding being overwhelmed by the tsunami of Leveson. It removes what I consider to be unnecessary hostage-taking in some amendments to the Defamation Bill. It has now been freed in the Commons, and therefore I strongly support it. I have some difficulty with the reason, in a sense, because it says that,
“the draft Royal Charter … and … the Crime and Courts Bill and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will be sufficient to implement the recommendations in Lord Justice Leveson’s report”.
I think that is completely true. Whether Lord Justice Leveson’s report will eventually pass muster is quite another question, but that is not to be debated now.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I am delighted to welcome this situation, and to see the Defamation Bill back on its ordinary course. I do not entirely agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has said about the amendments that were passed by this House, but now they are certainly unnecessary and I am delighted that the Defamation Bill can proceed.
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A, but do propose Amendment 2B in lieu.
“( ) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, in speaking to this Motion, I shall speak also to Motions B1 and B2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and Motion B3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Amendment 2 concerns two distinct but related issues which have already featured extensively in debates in both Houses during the passage of this Bill. These are whether there should be restrictions on the right of bodies corporate and other non-natural persons to bring an action in defamation, and whether any non-natural person which is performing a public function should be prevented altogether from bringing a claim in relation to a statement concerning that function. I shall focus my comments on government Amendment 2B and the other amendments that have been tabled, rather than on Amendment 2 in its original form.
Amendment 2B amends Clause 1 to make clear that a body trading for profit will satisfy the serious harm test only if it is able to show that the statement complained of,
“has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss”.
In speaking to Lords Amendment 2 in the other place, the Government made it clear that although we were opposed to that amendment, we recognised the strength of feeling that exists on the issue of whether there should be a specific provision in the Bill requiring non-natural persons trading for profit to show financial loss, and that we would consider the point further. This amendment reflects the outcome of those considerations.
As I have explained at earlier stages of the Bill, we amended what was initially a “substantial harm” requirement to one of “serious harm” in order to raise the bar for bringing a defamation claim. The amendment therefore refers to “serious” financial loss to reflect that aim, and now links explicitly to the serious harm test. The use of the phrase “serious financial loss” makes it absolutely clear that the financial loss required to meet the serious harm test must itself be serious. By contrast, the reference in Lords Amendment 2 to “substantial financial loss” could inadvertently have had the effect of weakening what has to be shown to satisfy the test.
Secondly, the term that we have used to define those who will be subject to this requirement—
“a body that trades for profit”—
is a much clearer and simpler definition than that used in Amendment 2. These are the bodies that this House has expressed concern about, so we have phrased the amendment specifically and directly to meet those concerns. A vaguer formulation such as that in Amendment 2 would have risked inadvertently catching other bodies, such as charities, which are not the subject of concern. I believe that this effective and proportionate approach addresses the concerns that have been expressed in this House and elsewhere.
The Government are unable to accept Motions B1, B2 and B3. In relation to Motion B1, as noble Lords are aware, in the case of Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers, the House of Lords held that local authorities and central governmental bodies are already prevented from bringing actions for defamation. Motion B1 would add Amendment 2C, which seeks to extend that principle and put an absolute bar on any non-natural person performing a public function from bringing a claim in relation to a statement concerning that function. This would remove completely the right of a wide range of businesses and other organisations to protect their reputation. We consider that to deprive them of this right would be excessive and disproportionate. Although the amendment focuses on criticisms in connection with the exercise of a public function, that criticism could have a wider impact on the reputation of the business more generally. It is important to recognise that unjustified and defamatory allegations can cause considerable damage which affects all those connected to a business, including shareholders and employees.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
As an amendment to Motion B, after “2B” insert “and 2C”.
“Non-natural persons performing a public function
Non-natural persons performing a public function do not have an action in defamation in relation to a statement concerning that function.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, in moving Motion B1, I start with an extraordinarily warm welcome for government Amendment 2B. There is absolutely no doubt that, late conversion though it may have been by the Government to the arguments of our Benches and of this House, it is a most important and welcome clause. It owes much to the persuasive charms—or energy, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester—of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The McNally Bill will do us fine.
However, there are still some outstanding issues, not least the one of cost, to which the Minister has just referred. Despite his efforts, and indeed the CJC report on this which was published only last week, we have of course not received the sort of assurance that we had hoped to receive by the time this Bill was enacted, of having agreement on costs. There was clearly a lot of disagreement within the working group, and there is no clear answer in the report as to how, in the absence of CFAs following LASPO, most people will be able to either start or defend a defamation claim. Without resolution on this, the risk of substantial costs remains, which more or less makes either the taking or the defending of an action open only to the super-rich, as the Government have acknowledged.
I turn to the two issues passed by this House but overturned by the Commons, which the Government have not accepted. First, there is the right of public services to sue for defamation. Derbyshire, as the Minister has said, is really shorthand for the democratic principle that government bodies should be open to uninhibited public criticism and therefore have no right to sue for libel. I assume that arm’s-length bodies, such as the former Border Agency, English Heritage and the Health and Safety Executive, are already covered under Derbyshire. However, there is a wider and growing ring of organisations contracted or commissioned to provide public services, such as independent treatment centres, opticians, dentists and GP consortia, which are either treating or diagnosing NHS patients. There are private organisations providing care homes, school dinners, public transport, advice agencies, prison management, free schools and DWP assessments. These organisations deal directly with consumers, patients, travellers or users—call them what you will—and are spending taxpayers’ money to provide such services on behalf of the state.
Two issues arise if such private bodies can sue for libel. First, there is not a level playing field in tendering. Such organisations can criticise a local authority provider with which they are competing to provide a service completely free from the risk of being sued for libel by that local authority. However, the local authority can be stopped from speaking about a private body in competition with it for the provision of services by the receipt of a chilling letter. Secondly, consumers and users cannot comment on a service they are getting without the risk of that infamous chilling letter.
In a debate in the other place last week, Sir Peter Bottomley reported that Atos, which does disability checks for the DWP, had sent a legal letter which resulted in the closure of a forum for disabled people because of their comments on Atos’s performance. This is deeply worrying. It is quite wrong to deny users the right to discuss their experience of what is, after all, a public service paid for by taxpayers. It is this that most concerns me. Mid Staffs hospital patients and their families were able to go to the press and finally get something done, as were the Hillsborough campaigners who were aghast at the police’s actions and the coroner’s findings. For big effective monopolies, this is the only way of driving up standards or penalising poor services, as consumers cannot shop around for an alternative provider.
It is much the same for other big, albeit now private, providers of public services. Users must be free to voice their concerns. This is what Motion B1, which adds Amendment 2C, is all about. It is about uninhibited users’ criticism of their public services, whether their provider is a local authority or a private concern. In the other place, the Minister did not really disagree with the case that we made, only about whether an amendment was necessary. Worryingly—and this has been echoed by the Minister this afternoon—she said that rather than a statutory provision it would be much better for the courts to develop the Derbyshire principle as they consider appropriate and necessary in the light of individual cases. However, this runs completely counter to the whole thrust of this Bill, which has been to codify and set down in one place, rather than in umpteen legal judgments that are effectively unavailable to the layperson, the whole law on defamation, clearly accessible to all and according to the decisions of Parliament on each issue. That is what this Bill and indeed the Minister in working on it have sought to achieve. If we agree that private concerns delivering a public service should be treated as a public body with regard to libel, Parliament should so decide and should write it into law.
Lord May of Oxford
I wish to make a few remarks which may embarrassingly reveal my lack of full acquaintance with the legal arcana in this case but at the same time remind us of at least one of the major reasons why we are having these discussions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for doing a good job extremely conscientiously in complicated circumstances with a lot of opinions swirling round him.
I remind noble Lords yet again of what prompted this action in the first place: libel tourism to this country to shut up people who wish to point out instances of malpractice in pharmaceutical companies in a variety of contexts. I come mainly from the science base, where there are interminable examples, about which I could go on for hours. I will inflict one example on your Lordships and then I will speak more briefly. It is a typical example, which raises many of the issues that still concern me despite the good job that is being done. It comes from a chap called Peter Wilmshurst, who wrote to me in an e-mail:
“I am a consultant cardiologist in Shrewsbury. A US medical device corporation, NMT Medical, sued me for libel and slander three times in the High Court in England. I was the principal cardiologist in research, which was conducted on UK citizens and used a cardiac device made by NMT. At a medical conference in the USA, I expressed concern about the findings of the research and some of my comments were reported on a US cardiology website. As a result NMT sued me in England over the website article and a subsequent article. The journalist and the website were not sued. When I spoke about what happened on the Today programme on Radio 4 I was sued again, despite the interview being pre-recorded so that the BBC’s lawyers could make sure that there was no risk of further litigation. NMT did not sue the BBC. Everything that I said was provably true, but that did not prevent NMT starting expensive claims with the expectation that the cost would stop me expressing concerns about the lack of safety and lack of efficacy of their device. I know that fear of being sued by NMT prevented other doctors expressing similar concerns. The libel cases lasted almost 4 years and my legal costs were £300,000”—
which is actually low compared to some of the incidents in mind. The journal Nature, for example, spent £1.5 million successfully defending one of these libel cases.
Peter Wilmshurst continued:
“The cases ended when NMT went into liquidation as information about the problems with their devices filtered out and cardiologists stopped using them”—
something I will come back to. He continued:
“During the years when NMT silenced doctors who had legitimate concerns, the ineffective and unsafe devices were implanted in patients in the UK and elsewhere. Some patients needed urgent cardiac surgery to have devices removed and some died. That was the true cost of the English defamation laws having no adequate public interest defence to prevent spurious claims by wealthy corporations. I believe that if Parliamentarians did not have absolute privilege when speaking in Parliament”—
and that is a comfort I have here, having once been silenced in a cowardly way—
“and they had only the same protections as ordinary citizens, they would ensure that there was an adequate public interest defence and protection from corporations using the defamation laws to silence whistleblowers and prevent freedom of expression”.
We did that way back.
I mention that example in particular because, as noble Lords will notice, the original action was effective. Ultimately, it caused this company to go bust. One of the amendments we are talking about asks for a way of preventing this sort of bludgeoning of people into silence by the power of the purse and the extraordinary extravagance of our legal procedures. It comes home to us very clearly that simply saying that a company must prove you are damaging them by what you are saying is not going to prevent many of these cases because the aim of what many people are saying when they provoke these actions is, indeed, to inflict damage. The aim is to point out bad and unsafe practice and unsound publications, and to damage the people responsible. I am not clear that simply saying that companies must show they are damaged would really cure the problem at all. I may be revealing my ignorance, but I wanted to say again that this is what provoked it. In what sometimes seemed to me interminable sessions in Grand Committee, in which I took a form of perverse enjoyment, the intense arcana of the legalisms occasionally seemed—to put it gently—to distract from the essence of the problem. My understanding, imperfect though it is, is that we are going a long way to addressing this problem but not all the way that, were I supreme dictator, we would go.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I hope, in what will be a short speech, to deal with all the amendments together. In answer to the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord May, corporations are not the same as private individuals. They cannot have hurt feelings but they can be seriously damaged by defamatory statements. I therefore share the view of many courts across the world that corporations should be able to bring libel proceedings but on certain conditions. The short answer to Dr Wilmshurst is that we now have, in what will be Clause 4, a public interest defence which, quite apart from the other provisions in his favour, he would be able to rely upon.
I begin by dealing with the question of damages. I do not want to crow about it, but it was actually in my own Private Member’s Bill that I required corporate bodies to have to prove the likelihood of financial loss or actual financial loss. That was commended by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights on which I serve and, as a member, was able to inform its report. I think that the Government have made an important concession and I am delighted that the Opposition have recognised that and, indeed, have called for it themselves. It is, of course, extremely important that corporations are able to bring libel proceedings but, as I say, are able to do so if they are trading corporations by proving serious financial loss or the likelihood of serious financial loss.
All of that is now common ground, and what is left are the two important issues of the Derbyshire principle and the notion of a special procedural step to be taken, which is set out in Amendment 2D. It requires the permission of the court before a trading corporation can sue. I am persuaded by my noble friend Lord McNally’s way of dealing with that. It is a procedural point that will be dealt with by the early resolution procedure and by proper case management. It does not require a rigid rule to be inserted into the Bill, and therefore I would not support Amendment 2D.
What, then, about the Derbyshire principle? The House has the benefit of having as a Member of the House of Lords the judge who decided Derbyshire when he was even younger than he now is, my noble and learned kinsman Lord Woolf of Barnes, and I am sure that he will correct anything I am about to say. I want to say something about Derbyshire because I think that it has been misunderstood. It has been misunderstood by the Government because they seem to think that if one were to codify—I am now against codifying for a reason I shall come to—that would be in some way rigid and inflexible because it would prevent a body exercising functions of a public nature being able to vindicate its reputation. That is wrong because, as the Derbyshire case establishes and makes clear, unlike the position in the United States where no one can sue to vindicate the reputation of a government body, it is always open to a body exercising public functions through its officers or any individual who is defamed to bring their own defamation proceedings. It also makes it perfectly clear through Lord Keith of Kinkel in his speech for the House of Lords that there is also the tort of malicious falsehood. This means that if a government body can prove bad faith or reckless disregard for the truth, it can also bring proceedings. The Government are therefore mistaken in thinking that to codify in the way that the Opposition wish to do—with my support the last time round—would create a rigid and inflexible position. That is not so, but the question is whether we were right last time to try to codify the principle.
Since then, something has happened which has caused me to think again. It is the situation in Northern Ireland, and I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, will say something about it. Since the last occasion, the governing authorities in Northern Ireland have decided in their wisdom that the Defamation Bill should not apply to the Province. NGOs, newspapers, broadcasters and citizen critics often convey information and ideas which are not confined to any particular part of the United Kingdom but extend to the whole of it.
What troubles me about codification is not what troubles the Government. What troubles me is that, were we to codify in the way that is now suggested, in Northern Ireland, Mr Paul Tweed, in particular, who is the king of libel suits in that part of the United Kingdom, would argue, “This is codified in England and Wales but it is common law in Northern Ireland and the way in which it is codified suggests that Parliament had serious doubts about what Derbyshire meant. Now we are going to seek to apply a narrower view than Derbyshire itself”. That has made me think about the whole issue in this context of codification versus common law.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with government Amendment 2B. Initially, I was very sympathetic to the idea of restricting a company’s right to sue because of the instances of bullying, which are now well known. I have become slightly more troubled by the restriction which is to be imposed in what I hope will not be impolite to call something of a volte-face by the Government in this respect. I understand the reasoning behind it but I seek from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reassurance about what a company must establish to show that it has been, or is likely to be, caused serious financial loss.
In the well known case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal in 2007, the House of Lords considered, among others, the Derbyshire case. In particular, in his leading speech Lord Bingham said that he was satisfied that it was appropriate for a company not necessarily to prove special damage but to establish that a publication had the tendency to damage. I shall quote from paragraph 26 of his judgment:
“First, the good name of a company, as that of an individual, is a thing of value. A damaging libel may lower its standing in the eyes of the public and even its own staff, make people less ready to deal with it, less willing or less proud to work for it. If this were not so, corporations would not go to the lengths they do to protect and burnish their corporate images. I find nothing repugnant in the notion that this is a value which the law should protect”.
He went on to say:
“I do not accept that a publication, if truly damaging to a corporation’s commercial reputation, will result in provable financial loss, since the more prompt and public a company’s issue of proceedings, and the more diligent its pursuit of a claim, the less the chance that financial loss will actually accrue”.
What concerns me a little is that a company that has genuinely been damaged in its reputation will often find it very difficult to surmount this hurdle which is inserted in the Bill when it is not easy to produce by reference to a balance sheet an exact equivocation between the damage to a reputation and the damage to a company. It may be much more subtle than that, yet there is genuine damage to a reputation. Therefore, I would welcome some clarification from the Minister about what a company may need to establish short of producing a balance sheet, nevertheless having some evidence of real damage to the company.
There is a problem with the alternative tort of malicious falsehood in that the offer of a mens rea defence is not available. Of course, malicious falsehood requires proof of malice and is a somewhat unsatisfactory hurdle where a defamation action is, on the face of it, more suitable.
As to the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, concerning non-natural persons, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Lester. I can add that the courts are currently considering a number of cases where they are patrolling the border, as it were, of the Derbyshire principle and deciding whether, on particular facts, the ratio decidendi of Derbyshire should be applied to a public role or public function having been performed by a particular body. I suggest that it is much better for the law to evolve, as the Minister said, rather than to codify it in this way. Of course, at the moment the courts are generally considering the question of public function in the context of the Human Rights Act and whether the obligations under the convention apply. There are many hybrid cases which are going to make these cases very fact-sensitive, and that is an indication that we should avoid trying to codify.
I strongly oppose Amendment 2D proposed in Motion B2. The initial requirement of seeking the permission of the court is going to add to costs. Largely thanks to the helpful intervention of the CPR—I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his place—the courts have the flexibility to intervene on questions of meaning. They can strike out the whole or part of a case. In any event, I suggest that there is sufficient flexibility to make this initial hurdle supererogatory. It will be expensive and I fear that it will not in fact achieve what I understand lies behind this amendment, and so I strongly oppose that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I shall talk briefly to Amendment 2B and, in so doing, I echo what has been said about my noble friend Lord McNally. I do not know about McNally’s Bill but I certainly knew a Bill McNally, who was one of the finest poachers in Suffolk.
I am not happy with Amendment 2C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, but I have a lot of time for her Amendment 2D, supported by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. As was said by my noble friend, there seems to be considerable anxiety around the bullying of corporations, which seems to get worse as time goes by. Some of the largest and wickedest of them are some of the most brutal in the way that they will abuse the law to silence critics.
I want to raise with my noble friend Lord McNally a point on Amendment 2B because this is potentially a Pepper v Hart occasion, where he could say in the most trenchant terms that my concern is misplaced. The amendment enlarges on Clause 1 of the Bill, headed “Serious harm”. It says:
“For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit”.
I am not absolutely clear that the phrase,
“a body that trades for profit”,
is beyond ambiguity. I am thinking particularly of charities, some of which trade for profit in the mainstream of the work that they do—for example, some schools, some hospitals and gymnasia. There are many areas where charities carry on a trade, but it is a charitable trade and it is, in one obvious and simple sense, for profit because it generates the wherewithal enabling them to run their hospital or whatever it is. I could have chosen language, I think, that would put the meaning beyond doubt, but we have to live with the wording that is here. As I understand it, there is no further opportunity to change the phrasing of this part of Amendment 2B. So I hope that my noble friend Lord McNally will assure me that this wording is specifically designed to exclude from its ambit the work of charities. Otherwise, I think we have a very large problem with this amendment.
Lord Bew
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 2C. However, I feel I have to respond immediately to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which I have to say, on behalf of Northern Ireland as a region, makes me feel very uneasy.
The point about this Bill is that it is not just about enhancing press freedom but about public debate more generally, including academic freedom. I find it very disturbing that the region of the United Kingdom from which I come is opting for a more restrictive type of public debate and deciding not to engage in the wider freedoms that will now be available for public expression in the United Kingdom more generally. I find that is almost a self-mutilating act. The only thing I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is that I hope over time—but not too much time—the Northern Ireland Assembly will rethink its position. It was a position taken up when the tsunami of Leveson was sweeping over this Bill and it was not at all sure that this Bill would pass. It was a very surprising statement even in its timing. The best resolution of that would be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to reconsider, because innumerous anomalies will otherwise be created as regards the circulation of British media—not just newspapers but organs like the New Statesman and the Spectator—in Northern Ireland unless there is a rethink. I hope that there will be a rethink because otherwise it would leave us in a very unsatisfactory situation. It might be helpful in promoting that rethink if the leaderships of the parties in this House all indicated their unease with the situation in Northern Ireland. This Bill has all-party support and it might be useful to indicate a certain unease with the situation that we are facing.
Viscount Colville of Culross
I would like to express my relief that the Defamation Bill has finally been unblocked and returned to your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lords on both Government and Opposition Front Benches for their tireless efforts to make sure that the Bill reappeared in this place.
I strongly support government Amendment 2B. During my career I was a journalist, and I spent some time on small regional newspapers. There were a number of occasions when I felt the mighty weight of companies bearing down on my reporting. I am ashamed to say that on some occasions, even when I had a powerful and well supported case revealing wrongdoings by a company, the legal letters from the company’s representatives threatening libel action, and the uncertainly of the outcome under the present libel laws, meant that those articles were not published. We live in an era when business PR regards anything but abject praise as an attack on a company. It seems to me that an amendment which demands a threshold of serious financial damage to a company before it can sue for libel will allow a much greater atmosphere of transparency and openness when questioning its activities.
I support the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I listened with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as I always do. Why, if Northern Ireland is having such problems with this, should the rest of the United Kingdom suffer? Why should it not be allowed to have the benefits of the Bill? It extends the Derbyshire principle into statute rather than waiting for it to work through common law, as suggested. This amendment attempts to incorporate the Human Rights Act 1998 which says that a private company performing public functions should be considered as an organ of the state. The ever increasing expansion of private companies being subcontracted to run public services makes it ever more urgent that the Derbyshire principle should now be established to cover those companies as well.
I have a short example. Last year, the Guardian received evidence from whistleblowers about the company, Serco. The allegations stated that the private health care provider, Serco, which runs the GP out-of-hours service on behalf of the NHS in Cornwall, had not employed enough skilled staff to meet patients’ needs and that the company was altering performance data to show a more positive outcome. Throughout May of last year the solicitors, Schillings, on behalf of Serco, sent a series of letters to the Guardian threatening it with libel action if it went ahead and published the evidence. The Guardian ignored these threats and published a series of articles by Felicity Lawrence. Then in July 2012, a report by the Care Quality Commission found that Serco had indeed not employed enough qualified staff to meet the patients’ needs, and a National Audit Office report this year found that there was evidence that the performance data had been altered to overstate the service’s performance.
The Guardian is big enough to resist these libel threats, but a smaller paper or website might well not have been able to do so. Had the service been run by the NHS it could not have issued those threats, but under the present law Serco was able to do so. Why should a company carrying out public functions be able to threaten critics with libel—possibly using public money—while a public body itself carrying out those functions would not be able to do so? In considering how to vote, I ask your Lordships whether we should not provide a level playing field in this matter.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions that have been made. This is not the Bill that my noble friend Lord Lester introduced into this House just over two years ago. It is not the Bill that the Government produced in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. I am proud that it is a Bill that has gone through every process of political and parliamentary procedure, from a resolution at a Liberal Democrat conference to being an Act of Parliament, if we are successful today. However, this means that people around the House and campaigning groups around the country have not got everything they wanted from this Bill. One of my political heroes was the late George Woodcock, the general secretary of the TUC, who once said that good trade unionism was a series of squalid compromises. I do not suggest that the compromises that we have arrived at thus far are squalid. Nevertheless, when looking at a Bill such as this, it is necessary to remember the various pressures—some of which have been reflected in the useful debate that we have had—before making a judgment about challenging the other place once more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the matter of cost still being in doubt. I would personally like to have had a clearer position, but we are working through on this. I have given enough assurances that we will make sure that the cost issue is clearly dealt with before this Bill comes into force. There are enough indications of the way that Parliament, Lord Justice Leveson and the CJC want to go that I am pretty confident that we can get a cost protection measure in parallel with the Bill which will satisfy the wishes of this House.
Perhaps I may also deal with an issue that has been raised in a number of interventions, including by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. We have a dilemma that has happened under successive Governments. It is that what was once a clear line between the public and private sectors is increasingly becoming blurred, wavy, or even dotted. It is not as clear as it once was. I personally believe that at some stage we are going to have to deal with the anomalies created by the blurring of those distinctions and the fact that far more private sector companies carry out public service duties. However, I hope from what my noble friend Lord Lester said, and I said, that there is sufficient argument to say that for the moment we should rest on common law to deal with this matter. I fear that if we try to push too hard to implement this into statute now we will not convince the other place.
On the workings of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, another matter that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned, it is not true that we will have to wait two years for case management. We are hoping to have guidance on case management in place, as with the costs, by the time that the Bill comes into force later in the year.
Before I move on, I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in his place. I want to put on record that the noble Lord, Lord Browne and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, are a model of constructive opposition in the way they have handled this Bill. I hope that does not ruin his reputation. He will never recover from that.
The noble Lord, Lord May, referred to Committee stage as being a perverse pleasure. I think I know what he means, but it was a pleasure and an honour to have so distinguished a scientist contributing to our deliberations. It is an area which, along with the academic freedom that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to, has been among the things that I have been most concerned that this legislation should try to protect.
The noble Lord, Lord May, referred to the question of Dr Wilmshurst. Another name that has often been referred to has been Simon Singh. They have been the cause célèbre about the deficiencies in our law. I have constantly said to my officials, “How will it be different after our Bill becomes an Act?” It will be different in both those cases. People pursuing them would have to satisfy the serious harm test. The defendants would have the new public interest defence contained within Clause 4 of the Bill. Alongside the Bill we are introducing cost protection measures to provide additional protection to those with limited means. More generally, to support the scientific and academic debate, the Bill also creates a new defence against libel for peer-reviewed material in scientific and academic journals and extends qualified privilege to reports of scientific and academic conferences.
Although I am not sure that we will ever be able to protect everyone from the speculative chilling solicitor’s letter, I hope that people receiving that chilling letter will realise that the law has changed. It has changed to protect them and build in protection for the Dr Wilmshursts and Simon Singhs of the future.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to my noble friend. Although my noble friend is not a lawyer, and has the great advantage of not being a lawyer, would he agree with me as a matter of common sense, that it cannot make the slightest difference whether it is the prison department or a private contractor managing the prison so far as the Derbyshire principle is concerned, because the Human Rights Act makes that quite clear?
Lord McNally
I have no doubt that my noble friend is right. What I would prefer to do, as we have been arguing throughout this, is to leave that matter to a judge and a court, when it comes before it. Where I do think there is a relevant question—not that my noble friend’s question was not relevant, it is just that I did not want to answer it—is on the question of charities. I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Phillips that it is not our intention to catch charities. We think that it is very unlikely that a court would find that a charity was a body trading for profit. There is a clear distinction between trading for profit and simply making a profit to reinvest as part of the more general purposes of the organisation. I hope that will give comfort to my noble friend.
He was another one that was concerned about bullying, and I have just made the point about balancing. I was pleased to hear about Bill McNally, not least that he was a successful poacher.
The points made by the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Lester, about Northern Ireland are worrying, and I will take up the point about whether there can be some cross-party demarche to our fellow parliamentarians in the Northern Ireland Assembly, because it would be a great pity if Northern Ireland were to be out of step on this.
I understand why I am being asked to make definitions. However, the fault lines are moving and we will have to trust the courts with this strengthened Bill for them to make the right decision in this area. I take the point made by the noble Lord, which is very valid. Although I and Parliament have made clear our desire for a direction of travel here, there is a danger that the Derbyshire principle may be eroded because of this new configuration. However, trying to put the Derbyshire principle into statute at this time is not the way forward. The common law can be trusted to develop in the right direction. As I have said previously, no law on earth can prevent a speculatively threatening letter from a solicitor.
The Bill has been the work of many hands. If a piece of legislation were to be subject to a paternity test and DNA testing, this Bill’s DNA would be far more likely to be that of my noble friend Lord Lester than me. However, I have enjoyed—I think that that is the right word—taking the Bill through with the help of many hands and some very constructive contributions. I hope that the House’s last and most constructive contribution will be to accept the Government’s amendment and reject the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making reference to my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, who has just talked about surrogate parentage. Perhaps we can all claim a little of that. However, the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord May of Oxford, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Lord Bew, Lord Faulks and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, actually reflected what was going on in Committee and on Report. The Minister used the tactful words, “development of thinking”; we are therefore not going to talk about u-turns, but simply welcome the development of thinking behind the new government clause.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bew. It sounds as if Northern Ireland in itself is a bad example, let alone the suggestion that this House or Parliament should make our laws on the basis of something decided in that Province. No matter how important that Province is, that is not the right way to make our laws here.
As regards two further issues, the first was on whether permission should be sought by corporates before they start an action. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, made a slip of the tongue, for which he is not renowned, when he said that in order to bring an action, companies would have to show serious financial loss. Of course, that is not right with the Bill at the moment. Corporates do not have to show financial loss in order to bring an action, but only to succeed in one. That is the crux of the matter in terms of whether permission should be given before they are able to start an action.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am very sorry to intervene, but Clause 1 has to be read with what we are talking about.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It was the word “bring”. What we are trying to say regarding permissions is that permission of the court should be required in order to bring that action. In a sense, the most effective speech about permissions was, of course, made not by me but by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. He discussed the case of Wilmshurst, which involved four years, £300,000, a risk to patients and actually of course no serious case at the bottom of it, because what he said was true. That is what we are trying to get rid of.
To turn to the main issue of Derbyshire, in a sense this is quite a simple judgment. It is a judgment about whether the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Lester and Lord McNally, are right that we should leave it to the courts and to judges to decide on whether the Derbyshire principle should now apply to other organisations providing public services, or whether we as Parliament want to take that decision. My fear about leaving it to the courts is how on earth users—patients, Travellers, people who are receiving those public services, the disabled who go to Atos—are to know what their rights are if we have to wait for the court to develop the Derbyshire principles. How are parties going to know? Who will fund the test cases? What message does it give to users and patients, and indeed to journalists wanting to report their complaints, if they must wait to know what the outcome is?
Lord Faulks
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I understand her desire not to encourage unnecessary litigation, but perhaps she could help me and the House with this. Even under the amendment it will be necessary for a court to decide whether a non-natural person is performing a public function. That of itself may be the question of a judicial decision, so even her amendment is not going to preclude any involvement of the judges.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It is interesting, but performance of public function will be under either a contract or a commission given out by the DWP or the local authority. They will be able to define that, because they do not simply stand up and say, “I am now providing a hospital”. A contract will exist with what used to be a PCT and is now a GP commissioning group. There will be a contract and it can be defined in that way. If that was the only problem and the Government wanted to concede other than on that, I would happily take that. No, the offer is not coming. I would like to conclude, if possible—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am very grateful. The problem is that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act talks about functions of a private or public nature. That is fact-sensitive and cannot be codified, and has not been codified by Parliament in the Human Rights Act. That is why one cannot simply brush it aside and say, “Well, now Parliament must do so”, because Parliament has not done so in the Human Rights Act and cannot do so here. It has to be left to the courts to apply the test.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Parliament can decide that the organisations contracted to do those public functions should have the same restrictions on them, whether that be FOI or anything else, as a corporate body. That can be part of the contract. In a sense, it is a simple issue, and I mean this with absolute respect. I know that lawyers much prefer that these issues are decided in court. I think non-lawyers prefer it to be clear in law, and that is what we believe should happen. We do not want the Derbyshire principle to be eroded, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, by the threats continuing until a case is brought. For that reason we would like this to be in the Bill, and I would like to test—
Lord McNally
Before the noble Baroness sits down—no, she is absolutely right—and before she lures Lord May and others into her Lobby, would she confirm that what we are doing in this Bill would have significantly assisted both Simon Singh and Mr Wilmshurst? We have not left the situation as it was. We have made significant changes and built in significant protections, which should be taken into account before people decide which way to vote.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
If they read my article, they would see that it says that this Bill has gone a long way towards what we want and it is only a shame that it is not perfect. As somebody who likes perfection, I am going to ask the House if, particularly on the first amendment, we should ensure that organisations carrying out a public service should not have the right to sue for libel.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Meaning of “relevant publisher”
(1) In sections (Awards of exemplary damages) to (Awards of costs), “relevant publisher” means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material—
(a) which is written by different authors, and
(b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control.
This is subject to subsections (5) and (6).
(2) News-related material is “subject to editorial control” if there is a person (whether or not the publisher of the material) who has editorial or equivalent responsibility for—
(a) the content of the material,
(b) how the material is to be presented, and
(c) the decision to publish it.
(3) A person who is the operator of a website is not to be taken as having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the decision to publish any material on the site, or for content of the material, if the person did not post the material on the site.
(4) The fact that the operator of the website may moderate statements posted on it by others does not matter for the purposes of subsection (3).
(5) A person is not a “relevant publisher” if the person is specified by name in Schedule (Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher”).
(6) A person is not a “relevant publisher” in so far as the person’s publication of news-related material is in a capacity or case of a description specified in Schedule (Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher”).”
“Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher”
Broadcasters
1 The British Broadcasting Corporation.
2 Sianel Pedwar Cymru.
3 The holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996 who publishes news-related material in connection with the broadcasting activities authorised under the licence.
Special interest titles
4 A person who publishes a title that—
(a) relates to a particular pastime, hobby, trade, business, industry or profession, and
(b) only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the main content of the title.
Scientific or academic journals
5 A person who publishes a scientific or academic journal that only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the scientific or academic content.
Public bodies and charities
6 (1) A public body or charity that publishes news-related material in connection with the carrying out of its functions.
(2) “Public body” means a person or body whose functions are of a public nature.
Company news publications etc
7 A person who publishes a newsletter, circular or other document which—
(a) relates to a business carried on by the person, and
(b) only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the person’s business.
Book publishers
8 (1) A person who is the publisher of a book.
(2) “Book” does not include any title published on a periodic basis with substantially different content.”
Lords agreement and amendment to the Commons amendment
The Lords agree with the Commons in their Amendment 131, and do propose Amendment 131A as an amendment thereto—
“Small-scale blogs
7A A person who publishes a small-scale blog.”
Commons disagreement and amendments in lieu
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment 131A, but do propose the following amendments in lieu—
“(7) But a person who is not a “relevant publisher” as a result of paragraph 7A of that Schedule (micro-businesses) is nevertheless to be regarded as such if the person was a member of an approved regulator at the material time.”
“Micro-businesses
7A (1) A person who, in carrying on a micro-business, publishes news-related material where either condition A or condition B is met.
(2) Condition A is that the news-related material is contained in a multi-author blog.
(3) Condition B is that the news-related material is published on an incidental basis that is relevant to the main activities of the business.
(4) “Micro-business” means a business which—
(a) has fewer than 10 employees, and
(b) has an annual turnover not exceeding £2,000,000.
(5) The number of employees is to be calculated as follows—
(a) find the total number of hours per week for which all the employees of the business are contracted to work;
(b) divide that number by 37.5.
(6) “Employee” has the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see section 230 of that Act).
(7) “Multi-author blog” means a blog that contains contributions from different authors.”
Lord McNally
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 131A, to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18A and 131B in lieu.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
I beg to move Motion A standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
Noble Lords will recall that when this House considered the Commons amendments to the Bill on 25 March it accepted a series of Commons amendments that form part of the cross-party deal on Leveson and ultimately seek to establish an incentive-based, self-regulatory system for the press as envisaged by Lord Justice Leveson.
In advance of the debate on 25 March, the Government recognised that there was continuing concern in relation to the impact of the new system on small-scale blogs. Indeed, Lord Justice Leveson himself was clear that he did not expect very small publishers to join the new self-regulatory body. In recognition of the continued debate around the extent of the definition of “relevant publisher”, this House accepted the government amendment, Amendment 131A, to allow a period of further reflection over the Easter Recess and thereby ensure that the issue remained in play and could be discussed further in the Commons during the next round of ping-pong.
It might at this stage be helpful to remind noble Lords briefly of the context of these further amendments and explain the rationale behind the definition of relevant publisher. At present, four interlocking tests serve to define who is, and is not, a relevant publisher and therefore affected by the system of incentives. A relevant publisher must publish news-related material, which must be written by different authors, be subject to editorial control and be published in the course of a business, whether or not carried out with a view to profit.
Further to this, a number of specific exclusions have also been set out in the new schedule provided for in Commons Amendment 131. These exclusions include special interest titles, scientific journals, publications by public bodies and charities, book publishers and company news publications. However, the provision as drafted raised concerns on the part of small-scale blog sites that they could be caught by the definition of a relevant publisher, and that this was not an outcome we sought in establishing the definition. We have now had the opportunity to hold discussions with a number of relevant parties to understand their concerns about the extent of the relevant publisher definition. These were valuable discussions and Amendments 18A and 131B agreed yesterday by the Commons reflect the outcome of those discussions. I can also confirm that the amendments were agreed in advance on a cross-party basis.
Amendment 131B develops the list of exclusions from the definition of relevant publisher. Specifically, it exempts microbusinesses where they are either a blog or where their publications are only incidental to their other business activities. Microbusinesses which publish news-related material that is incidental to the main activities of their business are also exempted, whether they do so online or offline. The definition of microbusinesses in this amendment captures any business with fewer than 10 employees and a turnover of less than £2 million. This definition is frequently used by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We consider that measuring both the number of employees and the turnover of an organisation, and setting the bar at this level, provides the most appropriate proxy for potential impact and harm and ensures that the incentive system is proportionate.
The aim is to make certain that the incentive system affects only those publishers Lord Justice Leveson intended to capture and that, by extension, many blogs, small web forums and think tanks will fall resolutely outside the incentive framework. Noble Lords will appreciate that it is, of course, ultimately and properly a matter for the courts to decide in any particular case whether a publisher falls within the revised definition of a relevant publisher. It is worth noting here how blogs may be perceived to be different from, for example, the online edition of a newspaper. Blogging takes many forms and is an evolving concept. However, there are some key features which distinguish blogs, even where they are edited and multiauthored, from online news reporting. A blog is used primarily for the expression of opinions, comments or personal experiences by an individual or group of individuals. Multiauthored blogs usually cover a single subject of interest, such as food or fashion, or a particular viewpoint, such as a political blogsite. Blogs do not usually report in a factual or neutral way on news or current affairs but are led by the personal views and voice of the individual or group of individuals concerned. The amendment intentionally contains no definition of a blog. It will take its natural, commonly understood meaning and, in the usual way, the term will ultimately be subject to interpretation by the courts.
Amendment 18A allows those parties not captured by the new exemption to benefit from the incentives around exemplary damages and costs, should they choose to join a recognised regulator. We consider this ensures that the system is fair and that those parties not captured by the definition can remain competitive. By joining a recognised regulator, parties not captured by the definition will now have the opportunity to benefit from the system of incentives we are putting in place.
Before concluding my remarks, I will clarify again the effect of the definition of “relevant publisher” on some other interests, in particular news aggregators. It is not our intention that these provisions should capture news aggregators such as Yahoo!, MSN or Google. News and content aggregators who license or otherwise acquire news-related content from third parties control this content only in so far as they decide how to present it in its totality to the end-user. To that extent, they are not subjecting the material to “editorial control” as defined in the provisions.
Lord Justice Leveson did not intend services that provide a platform for bloggers to post content to be captured. Again, the control that is exercised by aggregators here is limited to the high-level presentation of the content. It is for these reasons that news aggregators are not intended to be captured by our definition. Likewise, the definition is also not intended to capture political parties. These were not the target of Lord Justice Leveson’s reforms and it has not been the Government’s intention to capture them. In order to qualify, an organisation must meet all four tests in the definition: it must be publishing news-related material; the material must be written by different authors; it must be subject to editorial control; and it must be carried on in the course of business. An individual MP who runs a blog site should also be safely outside the definition as they would be unlikely to qualify for the four tests. If for some reason it was felt that they did, they would also be able to look at the microbusiness exemption.
It is also likely that many smaller political campaigning organisations will be able to take advantage of the new microbusiness exemption. They will qualify if they are microbusinesses and operating a multiauthored blog. If they are operating a multiauthored blog but publication of news-related material is incidental to their main activities, they will also be exempt.
I would like to underline that the activity of running a web forum is also not caught by this definition. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the additional provisions in the legislation which explain that the moderation of websites does not qualify. This is also true of blogs if they are posted without the exercise of editorial control. Therefore, a site like Mumsnet, to the extent that it runs a blog forum, is not caught by these provisions. However, any site, including Mumsnet, that moves into commissioning and publishing news stories may be caught by the definition.
I hope that this has helped to provide some clarity on who it has been the intention to capture in the definition and, equally importantly, who is not caught. I believe that these provisions provide a proportionate approach to implementing a crucial part of Lord Justice Leveson’s reforms. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Avebury
Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he could help me on material that is published in the cloud. He went into very helpful detail on blogs, but material can be aggregated in the cloud in specific folders. Can the Minister say whether that is exempt in the same way that blogs are?
Lord McNally
I am not as au fait as the noble Lord and I have only just come to terms with clouds and things like that. What exactly is his concern?
Lord Avebury
Would material which is aggregated in a cloud folder with something such as Dropbox, where you can put a number of different items which may be news or other kinds of material, be exempt in the same way that blogs are?
Lord McNally
I am reliably informed, post haste, that such aggregates in clouds are not covered. If by any chance that is not true I will write to the noble Lord and make sure the letter is circulated to the House. I cannot see over my shoulder but I sincerely hope that the Box is currently nodding firmly.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I can inform the Minister that the Box looked absolutely transfixed by that recent exchange. I do not know who is more surprised, them or us, by the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to come to the white heat of the technological revolution and ask a question that has stumped us all. On this side of the House, we would venture to say that we think they are covered, but that just adds a little piquancy to the debate which will, I am sure, be resolved before we get too far down the line.
Following the Leveson trail is a bit like appearing in “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead”. We pop up at odd times as other events seem to be filling the spaces. We pay a small contribution to it and then we discover that the whole event has moved on, another Bill has appeared, and yet another set of amendments appears which look awfully like the ones we have just been discussing. Only earlier today, we knocked out one set of amendments, yesterday we could have done the same, today we hope they will stick. I want to reassure the Minister that we will be supporting him in this event and he will not need to use the wiles he displayed when he almost reached across the Dispatch Box to my noble friend Lady Hayter to try to persuade her not to push her vote. The vote was unsuccessful so he won out in the end anyway: he has all the luck.
As the Minister has explained, these amendments, inserted into the Bill late in the process, provide for new rules on exemplary damages and costs. They are an essential part of the cross-party agreement on a royal charter which is part of the new framework of independent self-regulation, guaranteed by law, as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson. This part of the Bill aims to provide publishers with incentives to sign up to the new system of self-regulation that should meet the criteria set out in the royal charter. Publishers that join a recognised regulator will receive protection from the award of exemplary damages in media disputes, the opportunity to use an arbitration service and cost benefits from having access to this service. That is one reason why it would benefit local as well as national newspapers. If a complainant chooses not to use the arbitration service, they can still be liable for costs even if they win.
Lord Justice Leveson’s report was mainly about the press but the original drafting of this Bill had the unintended effect of catching blogs. That said, Lord Justice Leveson did express the hope, in Recommendation 73 of his report, that online publishers would also join a regulator. The Bill therefore needs to be amended to ensure that exemplary damages did not apply to blogs and they could receive the benefits of joining a recognised regulator. In recognition of the fact that this is a complex area, your Lordships’ House agreed a placeholder amendment on 25 March. The Government’s decision to hold a mini consultation and pause for reflection to consider how the Bill should deal with the blogosphere was sensible and we agree with the policy objectives that the Government are seeking to address to exempt micro businesses from the definition of relevant publisher where they are a blog or where their publications are merely incidental to their other businesses and to enable such micro businesses to receive the benefits and cost incentives of joining a recognised regulator. The Minister has been helpful in setting out a number of accompanying thoughts around these points and the issues relating to what would and would not qualify, and I think they will bear further consideration once we see them written up in Hansard.
However, the main point is that the amendments we are now looking at and which we support define a small blog as one whose turnover is below £2 million and has up to 10 employees. It exempts such businesses from exemplary damages and enables them to benefit from the cost advantages of an arbitration service if they join a regulator, and that last point will be particularly welcome to the community. As I say, we support the proposals, and I am grateful for the manner in which they have been pursued within the all-party agreement which has underpinned the whole process, so we will not be dividing the House.
In the time available, I would like to make a couple of ruminations about some of the issues that we are talking about today, and within that are two questions to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. The first is that the digital world as we know it is changing rapidly and the complexity and parliamentary arithmetic of changing the royal charter means that it will be hard to alter the legislation after this Session, so it needs to be right. What consideration have the Government given to the health and future of the blogging industry, and can the noble Lord share with us the Government’s thinking on this point? I understand that the indicators for a micro-business have come from a definition used by BIS, and in that sense they are not specific to the blogosphere. I have had representations already, and I am sure that other noble Lords will also have received them, from those who argue that the figures being used are on the high side, as rarely do we find 10 employees or even an annual turnover of £2 million in a blog company. That would make for a very healthy company, but it is not how the sector operates. Can the Minister estimate roughly how many blogs this definition would capture at present?
I turn to a related but more general point. We are talking about an industry that is in the process of change. For example, the print circulation of newspapers is estimated to shrink by at least a quarter in the next five years and yet we are facing a rather bizarre situation where newspapers are exempted the full 20% rate of VAT on print sales despite the fact that in many cases online traffic now represents the majority of their audiences. This is something which is bound to grow as we go forward. In fact, we are fast approaching a situation where what we previously believed, which is that we in this country do not tax reading, is becoming the reverse of what will happen. Those who read using electronic means, which will include those who are caught by this amendment, will be paying 20% VAT. Is this something that the Minister can say is under consideration, because it seems to me that we will need to face up to it before too long?
I am very grateful to the Minister for mentioning Mumsnet because it was the subject of discussions in another place, and others have raised it. The break point that he expressed is one to which we may need to return. Perhaps when he concludes he will reflect on this. At what point do those who blog and use it as a campaigning tool get caught? There is some doubt in what he has said about whether Mumsnet, which is not a charity but exists largely to circulate material that is in favour of a particular point of view, could possibly be caught by this exception. It is one of a number of areas in which, as the Minister has said, time will show us what emerges. However, a little more clarity at this stage would be helpful.
Finally, the Minister was keen to assert that it would not be sensible at this stage to define a blog. He was then caught quite quickly by a question related to blogging which illustrates that sometimes it might be sensible to have in primary legislation clear definitions which we can all use. I understand and support the idea that it is probably wrong to try to be definitive at this stage and that we should see how things go, but if that is the case, are there are any thoughts about how the Government might consider revisiting the issue within a reasonable time if it turns out that we need to move? After all, as I have said, this is the digital age and things are moving fast. What is a blog today may change into something else, and we want to be sure that we have the flexibility which I do not currently see in the Bill.
Lord McNally
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, not only for that reply but for the constructive role he has played in getting us as far as we are today. It is important to retain an all-party approach as we take this through. The noble Lord asked how many blogs this amendment will cover. We cannot provide an accurate estimate because blogs are constantly started up and then stopped. However, we feel that this is the right figure in order to exclude all those who we hope and intend to exclude. On the definition of a blog, I was tempted to call in aid that used by Clement Attlee when he wanted to exclude Trotskyists from the Labour Party. They said, “How do we know who are Trotskyists?”, and he said, “It’s a bit like an elephant—when you see one, you know one”. In a way, we are groping with blogs in an age of technology that is constantly and frighteningly rapidly changing.
We have tried to get some key features which distinguish blogs from online newspaper reporting. A blog is used primarily for an expression of opinion. Multi-authored blogs usually cover a single subject of interest. In all cases, blogs do not report in a factual and neutral way on news or current affairs but are led by the personal views of the individuals. While an online news site may contain comment, opinion or bias, comment pieces are not its principal focus. What constitutes a blog may change over time as convergence increases.
It is a difficult area. When we debate these areas, we often point out that future-proofing is virtually impossible. We hope that the definition I have given today has been sufficiently carefully drafted to provide the maximum possible clarity to organisations seeking to know whether they are caught. We have produced a handy set of questions on our website to help organisations to work this out. This is intended as guidance only. Ultimately, as in the case of all legislation, the decision on whether an organisation comes within or outside the scope of any particular piece of legislation will fall to the courts. The intention of the definition is to capture news publishers who were the focus of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry and his subsequent recommendations. They are intended to act as the key incentive for those publishers to join the new press regulator, while also protecting those not intending to join.
On Mumsnet, protection is the interlocking test, but such an organisation may branch out or develop a kind of activity which takes it into the realms of news and newspapers—a news media. Again, we would have to be flexible. If an organisation develops in a way that makes it a news organisation, it would have to consider its position. Lord Justice Leveson, in making his recommendation and recognising the changing architecture of our media, specifically said that he hoped news organisations that were primarily online would consider themselves willing to join any new regulator.
Parliament at both ends of the Corridor has done a good bit of business in dealing with a specific concern that was raised. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his very constructive and helpful approach, not only at the Dispatch Box, but in bilateral discussions.