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, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
2. What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of article 8 of the European convention on human rights in respect of the removal of foreign criminals.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
Last July, we changed the immigration rules to ensure that, under article 8, the rights of society are properly balanced against the individual rights of foreign national offenders. The rules received the unanimous support of this House. Unfortunately, some judges are not applying the rules as Parliament intended, and our Immigration Bill will give the full force of primary legislation to them.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. What more can he do to try to ensure that judges strike the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society, which are sometimes under threat from them? Can he persuade judges to listen to the will of Parliament?
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Of course this House thought that that is exactly what it had done, as it sent a very clear message to judges about the balance that this House, on behalf of society, had struck to put the rights of the innocent first. Judges have not got the message, which is why we will legislate to make sure that it is reflected in the law.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Given what the Minister has just said, why on earth was the number of foreign criminals deported in 2011 just 4,522, whereas in the last year of the Labour Government it was 5,528? The Government are failing on this, and it is little to do with what he has said. Given that one of the best ways of making sure that suspected criminals are deported from this country is the European arrest warrant, which extradites them elsewhere, why on earth are the Government thinking of withdrawing from it?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman should know that this is about exactly the reason I set out; he will know, if he has done his research, that between 2011 and 2012 there was a significant increase, of more than 1,000, in the number of appeals made by criminals to prevent their deportation. That is exactly why we need to take action, and it is another area we will deal with in the Immigration Bill.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Home Secretary on the determination with which they have pursued this matter? I invite my hon. Friend to recall the remarks made by the Prime Minister last week in answer to me, when he expressed great concern about the European Court of Human Rights, which has been subverted from its original intention. Are the Government still prepared that the United Kingdom should secede, because the British people are absolutely fed up with this Court?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend will know that the Government have laid out our position clearly. I suspect that the issue he mentions—what happens to the Human Rights Act and with this country’s relationship with the European Court—will be dealt with in debate at the general election.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
4. What steps she is taking to reduce benefit tourism.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Home Office will tighten regulations to time-limit the right of unemployed European economic area nationals to reside and claim benefits to six months, unless they can prove they are looking for a job and have a genuine chance of getting one. The Department for Work and Pensions is also taking steps to tighten further its rules on access to benefits.
Glyn Davies
The Minister recently visited Wales to see at first hand the work that enforcement officers are doing to stop illegal workers. Will the Secretary of State use the forthcoming Immigration Bill to tackle illegal immigrants who are accessing services to which they are not entitled?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration was pleased to be able to visit Wales to see this at first hand. We will indeed use the Immigration Bill better to regulate migrant access to benefits and public services. We will: get tougher on employers of illegal workers; prevent illegal migrants from obtaining driving licences; and require private landlords to make checks on prospective tenants. We will also further restrict access to social housing and restrict migrant access to benefits by tightening the habitual residence test and closing the loophole that currently allows migrants without a right to work here to access contributory benefits. With our European partners, we will also tackle free movement abuse and its impact on social welfare and public services, and we welcome the commitment by EU Ministers at last Friday’s meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council to finding EU-wide solutions to this problem.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary mentioned access to housing, which is clearly an important point in relation to people coming into this country. What work has she done with the Department for Communities and Local Government on this issue, particularly in relation to private landlords? How can we do this if we do not have a statutory register?
Mrs May
Nice try, but the answers on the statutory register are the same as the Government have been giving the Opposition for some months now. I have had a number of discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, as has my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister. I am pleased to say that we have proposals that will ensure that we can indeed tighten access to housing for illegal migrants.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
23. The good people of Bracknell want their local health services to be used appropriately. Apparently, there is more than £500,000 outstanding on invoices to overseas patients, just from Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Does the Secretary of State agree that migrant access to the NHS needs to be better regulated?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, particularly as, like him, I have constituents who use that trust. We have a national health service, not an international health service. The rules governing migrant access to the NHS are too generous and ineffectively applied, meaning that they are open to abuse. That is why the Government propose reforming the residence test that governs free NHS access, and are proposing options under which temporary migrants would make a contribution before they used our health service— either through an up-front NHS access fee, or through comprehensive health insurance. We also intend to end free unrestricted access to general practitioners by visitors and illegal migrants, and to introduce measures better to identify patients who must be charged.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The impact of the migration rules on the benefits bill can cut two ways. This afternoon, the all-party group on migration, of which I am a member, published a report showing that some British families have been forced to claim benefits because a spouse who could support them cannot be admitted to this country. Will the Home Secretary consider the report of the all-party group carefully, especially the impact of the family migration rules on benefits claims?
Mrs May
I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government look carefully at all-party group reports on areas that relate to, or affect, the Home Office. On the changes that we propose to access to public services, and on the whole issue of people coming to join families, there is a principle, which is about being able to ensure that where people are accessing public services, they are services that they have contributed to. This is a great concern for many members of the public, and it is right for the Government to tighten it up.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I welcome everything that my right hon. Friend is doing in this area. May I urge her, in the context of the all-party group, to carry out a realistic assessment of how much it costs to support a family, especially in southern England, and of whether the limit of around £18,500 is high enough?
Mrs May
When we set the limit we did not just pluck a figure from thin air; we asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to propose a figure. It proposed a range of numbers, from £18,600 to a higher figure. The Government chose to go with £18,600; we felt that was the appropriate figure to use, although, of course, the amount is higher for those who have children in the family. When there is one child, it goes up to £22,400, and it goes up for each further child thereafter. I assure my hon. Friend that the work was done independently by the Migration Advisory Committee.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I was left unclear about the Secretary of State’s earlier answer about private landlords. If we do not know where landlords and private lets are—we will not know that without a statutory register—how exactly will we make the system work?
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
5. What progress is being made on Operation Alice; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The Metropolitan police are conducting an investigation under the supervision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. My hon. Friend will understand that there is nothing that I can add to that in Parliament without straying into the territory of a criminal IPCC investigation.
Richard Ottaway
We have a situation where police from the Met appear to have fabricated evidence against a Cabinet Minister; the Met Commissioner is put in charge of the investigation and admits to discussing the case with journalists; in breach of his own rules, he fails to keep a note of the discussion; and, six months later, we do not even have a report. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Commissioner has a lot of questions to answer?
Damian Green
I am as eager as my hon. Friend is to see justice done at the end of this episode, but I am sure that he will understand that the service of justice would not be improved by my providing a running commentary, from the Dispatch Box, on an ongoing criminal investigation.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Commissioner promised a ruthless search for the truth when he established Operation Alice, but, as the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) said, this has taken eight months, involved 30 investigating police officers and cost the taxpayer £144,000 for an incident in Downing street that lasted 45 seconds. We are not asking for a running commentary; we are just asking the Minister when we can have a timetable so that this and other investigations currently costing £23 million in terms of past errors by the police are investigated thoroughly but quickly?
Damian Green
This is an investigation done partly by the Metropolitan police, who are operationally independent, and by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, so it is not for Ministers to set timetables. Indeed, I urge the House to recognise that to ask Ministers to intervene closely and in detail in the work of operationally independent police forces or the IPCC would be the wrong way to go.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In view of the revelations of the past week, will the policing Minister put in place a strict disciplinary code that requires all police officers of all ranks to keep a comprehensive and accurate record of all contacts they have with the press?
Damian Green
I will, as ever, listen carefully to my right hon. Friend’s suggestions, but I emphasise the important distinction, which I know he as much as anyone would recognise, between actions that should be taken by Ministers and actions that need to be taken by operationally independent police forces.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
After a terribly bruising encounter at the hands of the media, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) attempted to clear his name in the press. It now seems apparent that he was the victim of media spin at the highest level of the Metropolitan police. Does the Minister understand that this case is particularly important not because the wronged party was a Member of Parliament but because it could happen to any one of our constituents who do not have the vehicle to put things right?
Damian Green
I absolutely understand the importance and the very many lessons that may well be drawn from that case. What I should not and will not do is draw any conclusions in the middle of the investigation.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme took 10 days to establish that the video record was completely at odds with the police account of events. Since the police have now interviewed 800 officers, spent £144,000 and taken eight months apparently to go nowhere, might it not be an idea to invite Channel 4’s “Dispatches” to be put in charge of the investigation, as it appears to be more effective and would certainly be more independent?
Damian Green
I am, as ever, grateful for my hon. Friend’s suggestions, which I am sure will be heard in the appropriate quarters.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
6. How many people made subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure order have subsequently been charged and prosecuted since the inception of the TPIM regime.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
10. How many prosecutions have been brought against those subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure regime was introduced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
Prosecution is always our preferred option to deal with terror suspects. TPIMs are used to protect the public from individuals whom we cannot currently prosecute or deport. The police will seek a prosecution if new admissible evidence comes to light. As of 28 February, the end of the last reporting period, four charges had been brought in relation to TPIM subjects, with one prosecution.
Steve McCabe
Given that the Minister sought to make more prosecutions a central feature of his argument for replacing control orders with the TPIM regime, and that there has been very little progress in prosecution— I think there were three failed prosecutions for those who had breached their TPIM order—does the hon. Gentleman regret making such proud boasts in the House that have proved so ridiculously optimistic, if not downright wrong?
James Brokenshire
As I indicated, prosecution remains the primary objective in relation to terrorism offences. I hope the hon. Gentleman would, for example, congratulate the work of the police, the Security Service and prosecutors in successfully securing lengthy prison sentences today in respect of six individuals for planning a terrorist incident in Dewsbury last year. The focus certainly remains on investigating TPIM subjects, and I would have hoped that he recognised the package of TPIMs plus the additional resources that have been made available to the police and the security services for that purpose.
Heidi Alexander
The independent reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson QC, has recommended that the Government release the regional location of individuals who are subject to a TPIM. This information would let my constituents know whether potential terrorism suspects had returned to London. Why did the Minister refuse this perfectly reasonable request?
James Brokenshire
I congratulate the independent reviewer, David Anderson, on his work. He has underlined the fact that the TPIM regime continues to provide a high degree of protection against those subjects who cannot be prosecuted or deported. We considered carefully his specific recommendation on the location of TPIM subjects. We believe that such disclosure might make it harder to manage TPIM subjects and add to community tensions, but we will certainly keep his recommendations under review.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
One individual currently on a TPIM is AM, who was originally detained for being involved in a plot to bomb an aircraft. He was described by Mr Justice Wilkie in the High Court as “highly intelligent” and
“prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives”.
Under the coalition’s TPIM regime, he has been allowed back to London. As his TPIM has already been renewed once, it cannot be renewed again. Will the Minister confirm that once AM’s TPIM expires next year, Ministers will have no power to supervise him or restrict his movements?
James Brokenshire
For TPIM subjects, the time period is a maximum of two years, as the hon. Lady highlights. At the end of that period, a number of alternatives may be available. If there is sufficient evidence, it may be possible to bring a prosecution. At the end of that period, if there is evidence of new terrorist-related activity, it is possible to secure a further TPIM. The Security Service and police robustly enforce the TPIM regime and manage subjects in the community, and I have every confidence in their ability to do so.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
7. What assessment she has made of the ability of the public to access front-line police services through the provision of local police stations in London boroughs.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I regularly meet the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to discuss policing in London. The Mayor and Commissioner are responsible for ensuring that their officers are accessible. Following extensive consultation with the public, led by the Mayor's office, the Met will add 2,600 officers to neighbourhood policing teams, and there will now be around 200 safer neighbourhood bases to enhance this access.
Mr Slaughter
West London has lost 400 police officers in the last three years, 44 in Hammersmith and Fulham. Half of all police community support officers have gone and now my local police station, Shepherd’s Bush, is closed to the public. When my constituents cannot find an officer or a police station, does the Minister seriously expect them to report serious crimes such as rape and sexual abuse in their post office or in Tesco?
Damian Green
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents welcome the fact that crime in Hammersmith and Fulham has gone down by more than 4.5% in the past year. I am glad that he brought up the Shepherd’s Bush front counter because the latest data show that the number of visitors each day to that counter was fewer than six. If he thinks that that is a good use of police resources, frankly, he is not fit to run the proverbial whelk stall.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
Wandsworth came pretty much the lowest in a reform think tank league table of visits to London front desks, with only 1.2 visitors an hour. My local police inspector has confirmed that as a result of shutting a front desk, he can put more resources on the front line. Does the Minister agree that that is a good use of the police’s time?
Damian Green
I do agree. My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The way to cut crime is to have police officers deployed correctly, not to have buildings open that in many cases very few people ever visited.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
In addition to losing more than 200 police officers, in Westminster, three out of the four police stations north of Oxford street are closing. This is not just a question of access for reporting crime, although that can be important, but of community bases from which safer neighbourhood teams can operate. Does the Minister agree that the Mayor’s consultation proposal of surgeries of one hour a week to replace those police stations represents a massive reduction in police accessibility?
Damian Green
No, I do not. The hon. Lady says that front counters are important for reporting crime, but only one in eight crimes are reported that way, so they are not as important as they used to be. She needs to accept that a more flexible approach to making the police accessible—for example, by making them available at regular times of the week in places where people are anyway—is much better than having them sitting in police stations that we know many people will never visit.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On policing resources in London, following the strong words of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, will the Minister join the Opposition in condemning the recent attacks on Islamic institutions, which put many lives at risk and sought to spread fear among our communities, and will he ensure that all our religious institutions are properly protected from those who wish to spread hatred, division and terror?
Damian Green
I am very happy to share the hon. Lady’s sentiment. I am sure that everyone in the House will abhor and reject in the strongest possible terms the attacks on religious institutions that we have seen since the terrible event in Woolwich. I commend the Metropolitan police for ensuring that the protection available is greater than normal, because that is very important.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
8. When she next expects to discuss policing with the Police Federation.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Both the policing Minister and I regularly meet representatives of the Police Federation and other policing partners to discuss a wide range of issues, and we greatly value those meetings. We will continue to engage with police officers and staff to ensure that their opinions help to shape the future of policing.
Jonathan Reynolds
Is the Home Secretary reviewing the use of community resolutions, which were used 10,000 times for serious violent crimes last year, and which the Police Federation has said are connected to the police having to do more with less?
Mrs May
We are looking in general at the whole question of out-of-court disposals to ensure that they are being treated proportionately but also consistently across the country, but the whole question of community resolutions and restorative justice plays an important part in resolving crime, and victims often welcome such resolutions, but of course we keep that under review.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Did the Police Federation persuade the Home Secretary that any of the proposals in either of the Winsor reports were unreasonable or unfair?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am pleased that the recommendations of the Winsor report on important reforms to police pay and conditions are, in the main, being put into place. There are one or two aspects that the police arbitration tribunal decided to refer back or not to progress at this stage, and on both occasions I accepted its response, but I must say that I was not persuaded by the Police Federation’s argument that we should abandon the Winsor proposals.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
24. When the Home Secretary next meets the Police Federation, will she discuss police numbers in Harrow, where we have seen a reduction in the number of PCs, PCSOs and other police staff from 516 in March 2010 to just over 400 three years later, a 22% drop and part of the loss of over 4,000 PCs and PCSOs in London since the general election?
Mrs May
I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that crime in London has fallen by 3% over the past year or so, which I think reflects the work that has been done by police offices and others. We all want to see crime continue to fall, because that means better protection for our constitutions, whether in Harrow or anywhere else.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
When the Home Secretary next meets the Police Federation, will she highlight the success in Northamptonshire, where crime is falling and the new police and crime commissioner, Adam Simmonds, and the chief constable, Adrian Lee, are not moaning about their lot or about budgetary restraints but getting on with providing an effective three-point policing plan that involves a crackdown on criminals, prevention rather than cure and maintaining police numbers and visibility at 1,220 full-time equivalent officers?
Mrs May
I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. I think that that is a good example of how chief constables and police and crime commissioners—Adam Simmonds is doing a first-class job as PCC in Northamptonshire—can work together to ensure that they deliver what the public want, which is policing that reduces crime, which has gone down by 4% in Northamptonshire, and confidence in the security of their neighbourhoods.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Further to discussions that the Home Secretary might have with the Police Federation, what recent discussions have been held between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the police service on the mainland on the secondment of police officers to police the G8 conference in Enniskillen?
Mrs May
There has been considerable contact on this matter. My right hon. Friend the policing Minister met representatives of the Police Federation of England and Wales to discuss any issues that they wished to raise about the secondment of officers to work alongside the PSNI to police the G8 conference. I am pleased to say that I have met a small number of police officers who will be giving mutual aid to Northern Ireland and who were very complimentary about the training course they have undergone to do that work.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
9. What assessment she has made of increases in waiting times for visa decisions.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
The Home Office’s performance in granting visa applications overseas has been excellent and remains so, with average waiting times decreasing rather than increasing. As I have acknowledged myself at the Dispatch Box, there have been problems with our in-country performance in the past financial year, but since the abolition of the UK Border Agency and the creation of UK Visa and Immigration we have got that on the right path, with waiting times decreasing too.
Richard Burden
We are probably all aware from our own casework of the real problems that visa delays cause for our constituents. Given that the average waiting time for a skilled worker—somebody whom the British economy needs—has gone up from 36 days in 2010 to 56 days in 2012, does the Minister really think that measures of the kind he mentions are going to crack the problem, and if so, when are we going to see the results?
Mr Harper
I acknowledged openly and honestly that there had been a problem in the past financial year, and that is what the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman reflect. However, as I said, in the past quarter the figures have improved, so when they are published in the instalment of that information that we give to the Home Affairs Committee, he will see that we are getting things back on track. There is an open session with Members of Parliament this Wednesday, and I hope he will attend to listen to the steps we are taking to improve performance.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister pay particular attention to the business community in China, where there is evidence that people are being disincentivised from coming to the UK because it is easier to get elsewhere in the EU and because of the time taken? Surely there is an argument for having a fast-track procedure for bona fide business visitors from China so that they can come to Britain to help our economy.
Mr Harper
I am grateful for that question because it gives me an opportunity to set out the excellent performance we deliver on visas applied for from China. We grant 96% of visa applications and deliver 95% of those within 15 days; for business visitors, we deliver the vast majority within five days. We are increasingly rolling out premium services, with an ongoing increasing performance level, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend sets out.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The recent report on family migration by the all-party migration group—I am vice-chair of the inquiry committee—shows that the processing time for non-European economic area partner applications has significantly increased over the past 18 years. What is the Minister doing to keep families united rather than dividing them?
Mr Harper
My response to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a very close interest in these matters, is similar to the one that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He is right: in the past financial year, those processing times increased. We have split family applications for spouses from, so to speak, straightforward applications, and we are making decisions on them much more quickly. They had been grouped with applications that were taking a great deal of time. The hon. Gentleman will see in the latest figures that we have made a great improvement, and I hope to see more of that in future.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Minister clearly has a personal commitment to getting waiting times down—I thank him for his recent visit to Cambridge to see some of problems there—but will he be able to change the culture within the new borders agency? After all, the permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, said:
“Most of us will still be doing the same job in the same place with the same colleagues for the same boss.”
We want the Minister to succeed, but will he be able to?
Mr Harper
I very much hope so. I was encouraged by my visit to Cambridge with my hon. Friend, where I listened, yes, to some of the concerns that people had, but also to an acknowledgement by the university, for example, that it had seen recent improvement. The new interim director general of UK Visa and Immigration, Sarah Rapson, has a great commitment to creating such a culture. I think that the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to end the UK Border Agency and set up the new approach will be successful.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
11. What assessment she has made of the contribution of police measures to falling crime levels.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
14. What assessment she has made of the contribution of police measures to falling crime levels.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Recorded crime is down by more than 10% under this Government. The latest figures show that this downward trend is replicated across every police force in England and Wales. Our reforms are working.
Karen Lumley
In my own area of West Mercia, crime fell by a huge 11% last year. This is due in large part to the dedication of people such as Inspector Ian Joseph and his team in Redditch. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating West Mercia police on the excellent work they do in Redditch and the wider region?
Mrs May
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating West Mercia police on the 11% fall in crime shown by the most recent figures and, in particular, Inspector Ian Joseph and his team in Redditch. Dedicated police officers across the country are working to keep our streets safe and to protect members of the public.
Chris White
According to the latest figures, crime in Warwickshire has decreased by 12.4%, meaning that 80 fewer crimes a day are being committed across the county. This reflects the excellent work of the officers of the Warwickshire police force and I am delighted that its chief constable, Andy Parker, has been reappointed for another two years. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Warwickshire police force and commit to supporting forces such as Warwickshire in reducing crime through strong neighbourhood policing?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary will know that one of the most expensive crimes to investigate is child sexual exploitation. She will also know of this morning’s excellent report by the Home Affairs Committee. When I started a campaign about these gangs five years ago, the police told me on occasion after occasion that the reason they were so slow to respond to the total scandal of the exploitation of children was that it was expensive and the resource implications were immense. Do they have the resources now?
Mrs May
We will of course look very carefully at the Home Affairs Committee report. I am aware that a number of Members remain concerned about ensuring that the police response to cases of child sexual exploitation is appropriate. As well as the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) has taken a particular interest in the issue. Across Government we have pulled together a cross-departmental piece of work to look at the lessons we need to learn from recent and, indeed, historic cases of sexual exploitation. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will lead that work at ministerial level, asking questions about the police response and ensuring that it is appropriate.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
It is vital to use police time properly, but Ministers are taking police officers off the beat for 152,000 hours in order to train them in things such as changing the name of a litter clearing notice to a community protection notice and of a crack house closure order to a closure order. That is not the best use of police time, is it?
Mrs May
I am pleased to say that the figures show that the percentage of police officers who will be involved on the front line is going up under this Government. Moreover, through the action we have taken to reduce bureaucracy and red tape—something the previous Government did not do—this Government have cut the number of hours taken on bureaucracy by 4.5 million man hours.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
12. What change there has been in the number of businesses fined for employing illegal labour since 2010.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
Dealing with illegal working is a priority for the Government. As has been mentioned, I attended an illegal working operation in Cardiff about a week ago and saw a number of successful arrests of people who were working illegally. We want to do more of this. Recent figures have not been as encouraging as one would have hoped. This year, with the creation of the immigration enforcement command, I am determined to see an increased focus on the issue in order to deliver the results we expect.
Ian Austin
Despite all that, the Minister has not had much success, has he? In 2010, 2,092 companies were fined for employing illegal labour, but by 2012 that figure had almost halved to 1,215. Will he work with other Departments, not just to get a grip of illegal employment, but to tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts and of the minimum wage, so that British workers are no longer undercut by cheap, illegal labour from abroad?
Mr Harper
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer. I acknowledged that the statistics had not been as good as we had hoped. I will take no lectures from somebody in the party that let immigration spiral out of control and that had no grip on the system. It is this Government who are getting a grip and who have seen net migration fall by more than a third.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
13. What assessment she has made of the potential effects of incorporating legal highs in the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
The Government have banned a significant number of so-called legal highs following expert advice, including two groups of drugs from today. That sends a clear message about their harms and gives law enforcement bodies more powers to take action. We continue closely to monitor new drugs through our early warning systems to inform our response.
Stephen Mosley
I welcome my hon. Friend’s response, especially given that my local council has spent two years prosecuting the sellers of an illegal high called Gogaine, which left a 17-year-old student in hospital suffering convulsions. The prosecution fell mainly because the product was labelled as harmful and not fit for human consumption. Will my hon. Friend commit regularly to review the list of legal highs to ensure that as new legal highs come on to the market, they can be banned immediately?
Mr Browne
I am aware of the extremely serious case in my hon. Friend’s constituency and we have received representations about it. I pay tribute to him for raising that harrowing example in the House. We actively monitor new substances and already control hundreds. We act rapidly to respond to new threats and continue to keep our response under review.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Several constituents have approached me about the serious consequences of taking legal highs, including the famous Black Mamba. There seems to be no help or redress, and the Government do not seem to be helping the victims to prevent legal highs from getting into the hands of their friends or anybody else.
Mr Browne
The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. When people talk about legal highs, there is a tendency to believe that just because a substance is legal, it cannot be harmful. That is certainly not the case, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). That was a severe warning. The Government try to protect the public through appropriate changes to the law, including the two that I have mentioned, which take effect from today.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
15. What training is undertaken by police forces in respect of child sexual exploitation cases.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
All front-line police officers receive training in protecting and safeguarding children. Dedicated child protection police officers also receive specialist training in investigating child abuse cases, and the College of Policing is delivering additional training for front-line staff so that they can recognise, protect and refer children at risk of child sexual exploitation.
Ann Coffey
Children who are being sexually exploited are sometimes involved in antisocial behaviour, theft and other criminal offences. Often, the underlying problem is missed because the child is perceived to be an offender rather than a victim. Does the Minister agree that the training for all police officers should include an understanding of the behaviour associated with child sexual exploitation, including criminal behaviour, so that sexually exploited children are identified at an early age and police resources are used as effectively as possible?
Damian Green
The hon. Lady’s point about training is right and I mentioned training in my answer. I am sure she will welcome the fact that the College of Policing and the Crown Prosecution Service will shortly consult on a fundamental review of investigative guidance on child sex offences, precisely so that we can develop greater expertise and sensitivity throughout the system.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
In the course of the inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee into grooming, one excuse that we heard for areas failing to tackle child sexual exploitation was that prosecution was difficult. Does the Minister agree that with forces in Lancashire and Oxford demonstrating that innovative investigative methods can be used successfully to back up witness testimony, there is no excuse for any police force failing to protect victims or to prosecute these depraved criminals?
Damian Green
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I commend her and the rest of the Select Committee on the report that they produced today. She is right that one improvement, which needs to be extended, is in the capacity of the police to investigate and of prosecutors successfully to prosecute those who commit these disgusting crimes. A number of trials around the country have led to multiple convictions and I know that many more such cases are in the pipeline. I hope that sends a clear signal that this crime is absolutely unacceptable and that the police are getting better at rooting out those who commit it.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
16. What plans she has to speed up the deportation of those refused asylum in the UK.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
We want to continue to deport those who have no right to be in the United Kingdom, whether they are failed asylum seekers or foreign national offenders. Increased use of detained fast track and our national removals centre will reduce the risk of absconding, as well as being more successful in deporting people.
Stephen Phillips
One of the frustrations felt by all our constituents about the asylum and wider immigration system is the seemingly endless ways in which failed asylum seekers and immigrants are able to keep on appealing. I hope that the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will use the forthcoming immigration Bill to clamp down on the many rights of appeal.
Mr Harper
I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. and learned Friend that that is exactly what we are going to do. The immigration Bill plans to reduce the number of decisions it takes to remove someone who has no right to be in the country. Reducing the number of appeals will make the process easier and swifter.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
17. Whether Scots would be able to retain UK citizenship if Scotland became an independent country.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Decisions on UK citizenship are for the UK Government. Any decisions on the retention of UK citizenship by Scottish citizens after independence would be affected by future Scottish Government policy decisions. To date, the current Scottish Government have not set out what their proposed policies would be in these areas.
Mr McCann
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s response, which will be noted by my constituent Colin White. Does she wish to take the opportunity to debunk the myth peddled only last week by high-profile Scottish National party supporter Jim McColl? He said that a vote for independence would mean that Scotland would remain a part of the United Kingdom.
Mrs May
I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman and debunk that myth. To be absolutely clear: a vote for independence is a vote for a Scotland that will be outside the United Kingdom. The referendum offers a fundamental choice between staying in the UK or leaving it and forming a new independent Scottish state. That is the legal reality of independence. As the Prime Minister said in Stirling on Friday:
“There is simply no challenge we face today where breaking up Britain is the right answer.”
The United Kingdom is stronger together and better together.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
We just wish that the Prime Minister would come to Scotland much more often, because it increases support for independence. The right hon. Lady will know that after independence it will be possible to keep a UK passport. The real question is why, with a new dynamic Scotland in charge of its own resources and making its own peaceful contribution to the world, anybody would want anything other than a Scottish passport in Scotland.
Mrs May
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he thinks very carefully about what he has said, and perhaps looks at the Hansard record of it. As I made clear in answer to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), decisions about UK citizenship rest with the United Kingdom Government. However, if there is a vote in the referendum for separation, Scotland will become a separate state and not be part of the United Kingdom. That is a very simple fact and I suggest the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) recognises it.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
This is my first opportunity to address the House on the dreadful events that took place on the streets of Woolwich on 22 May, and to offer in this House my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Drummer Lee Rigby. This shocking and barbaric crime has been rightly condemned by all communities in our country. I would like to pay tribute to those brave civilians, police officers and medical staff involved in dealing with the incident; they represent the best of this nation. As I said at the time, this was not just an attack on an individual soldier, but an attack on everyone in this country—people of all faiths and of none.
Sadly, in the aftermath of this horrific incident we have seen an increased number of attacks on mosques and Islamic centres. These are deplorable, disgusting acts. British Muslims make a valuable contribution to our society. The murder of Drummer Rigby was no more in their name than it was in mine or in the name of anybody in this Chamber. I welcome the extra steps taken by the Metropolitan police and others to counter this threat to them. Alongside the increased tensions, however, we have also seen some actions that give great cause for hope. We have seen leaders from all faiths condemn the attack. We have seen far-right supporters invited into a mosque to enjoy cups of tea and football. We have seen religious leaders from different faiths openly embracing each other in a show of unity. This House, like the whole country, stands united against violence, extremism and terror.
Andrew Bridgen
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to prevent the abuse of free movement rights within the EU?
Mrs May
I have consistently raised the problem of the abuse of free movement at meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and we are working with other EU member states to curb that abuse. Free movement of persons is a long-standing principle of the EU, but those rights are not unlimited, and the Government take a robust approach against those who come to the UK not intending to work, but simply to rely on benefits. Abuse of free movement is not just a UK problem; it will take the joint efforts of all our EU partners to tackle it. We have been raising concerns for the past three years at meetings of EU Ministers, and I am pleased to say that last Friday it was decided that the European Commission and Ministers would take the issue forward.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s condemnation of the vile attack on Drummer Lee Rigby and of the recent attacks on Islamic religious institutions. I also welcome her comments about the importance of protecting all our citizens and communities from hatred and of supporting hope instead.
The Home Secretary will agree that the intelligence we get from abroad is vital to our national security and to protecting people against terrorism, but that it needs to be gathered under a clear legal framework with proper safeguards, checks and balances in place in order to maintain public confidence. In addition to the Foreign Secretary’s forthcoming statement, will she therefore respond on the issue of the legal framework operating for the Home Office? Will she tell us whether all Home Office, police and security service requests for intercept information from the internet, whether secured from UK agencies or from abroad, are governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and covered by ministerial warrants and the oversight of the intercept commissioner?
Mrs May
As the right hon. Lady said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement shortly on this issue. She will also understand that it is a long-standing principle that the Government do not comment on intelligence matters, but I want to make it absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend has also made clear, that at all times GCHQ has operated fully within a legal framework. I recognise that Parliament has a legitimate interest in these matters, which is why the Intelligence and Security Committee has a remit to look at such issues, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has indicated that his Committee will indeed be conducting an urgent inquiry.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the Home Secretary’s response, and clearly the House will listen to the Foreign Secretary’s statement shortly too. I understand that she cannot answer publicly about the content and detail of intelligence procurement, but will she set out very clearly what the legal framework is that governs Home Office and Home Office-related access to intercept and intelligence, and will she write to me setting out her understanding of the current legal framework? It would be very helpful. Will she also confirm that the ISC will have the full support of the Home Office and herself in accessing all the information it needs to pursue this issue? She will know that because intelligence is so important for our future and our national security, public confidence in it must be maintained.
Mrs May
As the right hon. Lady is aware, intercept warranty is covered by RIPA, and as I said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly make a statement about the legal framework under which the agencies operate. I suggest that she waits for that statement. I am clear that the ISC will have available to it the evidence it needs to conduct the inquiry, and it is right and proper that it does that. Of course, it has a new status in terms of its relationship with Parliament. I think people will want the Committee to conduct that inquiry, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, who chairs it, has indicated it will.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
T2. What plans do the Government have to regulate covert surveillance by private investigators?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
We are looking into the compulsory regulation of private investigators, which would apply to private investigators involved in covert surveillance. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that we expect to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
T5. Last year, the number of inspections to enforce the minimum wage fell to half what it was in the final year of the last Government. Why?
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
That is really a matter for the Treasury, but I think I know where—[Interruption.] Let me just answer the question. I think I know where the hon. Gentleman is going with this. I have checked these matters carefully. If we compare the whole period of the last Labour Government, from when the national minimum wage was introduced, with the whole period of this Government, we can see that this Government have been prosecuting at a slightly faster rate. However, we are not doing it fast enough. We have set up a number of taskforces, including one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), which is taking significant action on these matters and will continue to do so.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
T4. Despite the 30% reduction in net migration since this Government came to power, people across North Wiltshire are extremely concerned about the whole issue of immigration, particularly with regard to Bulgaria and Romania later this year. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that people from Bulgaria and Romania in particular are not tempted here by the ability to avoid our tax system or, even worse, the ability to benefit from our benefits system?
Mr Harper
On Bulgaria and Romania, my hon. Friend will know that in the Immigration Bill and elsewhere we have set out a number of changes that we are making to ensure that only people who are here exercising treaty rights—who are here working—can access the benefits system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out some of those earlier. I hope my hon. Friend will see that tough and firm action continue.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
T8. I would like to press the Secretary of State a little further on the question of a landlord register. Does she agree that it might assist her in some of her other duties, such as in relation to antisocial behaviour? If she wants to see how a landlord register can be introduced as a self-financing system—and one that has worked very well—she should look no further than north of the border, where one was introduced by the Labour-Lib Dem coalition.
Mr Harper
I thought I would have a go this time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered very well before, but I thought I would take a different tack, because it gives me an opportunity to say, as my right hon. Friend did, that we will bring forward proposals to ensure that landlords have to check the immigration status of tenants. I have had some good discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We will be bringing those steps forward, and I am confident they will be sensible, proportionate and effective.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
T6. Have Ministers checked whether the family migration rules are compliant with our obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child?
Mr Harper
Yes, we are confident that they are. Last week I met the chair of the all-party group on migration, the noble Baroness Hamwee, to discuss the report. The Government will consider the recommendations in that report, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out clearly the objective of the family migration rules: to ensure that those who want to make their family life in the United Kingdom are able to support their families, rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
T9. Reductions in overdose deaths; reductions in in-patient A and E admissions for drug addicts; reductions in house burglary; increases in employment of drug addicts in treatment—on all these indicators, Bassetlaw is outperforming the rest of the country. Why?
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
It must be because Bassetlaw has an outstandingly talented local MP, I assume. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House’s attention to the three strands of the Government’s strategy: reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery. Great progress is being made on all three in Bassetlaw and elsewhere.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
T10. My constituents are fed up with extremists and hate-preachers such as Anjem Choudary receiving thousands of pounds of benefits. Will my right hon. Friend look at limiting those benefits?
Mrs May
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the benefit position of an individual, but I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss policy proposals on a range of issues. As the Prime Minister said to the House last week, we should do all we can to challenge poisonous ideologies. It is right that we look at all options, including whether it is possible to limit the right of individuals of concern to access straight benefits. We robustly challenge behaviours and views that run counter to our shared values, such as democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and the tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. When appropriate, we will use the full force of the law to challenge extremist activity.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The issue of legal highs is difficult, because if we just ban them, another substance quickly springs up. Have the Government given any consideration to following the example of New Zealand and legislating to put the onus on the sellers of legal highs to prove they are safe?
Mr Browne
Those who study these matters closely, such as the hon. Gentleman and me, will be familiar with the New Zealand model. It raises some interesting questions, which we are considering as part of our international case study. It is not without practical problems, however, and I do not think that it would provide an instant solution to our woes, but it is worthy of further consideration.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Returning to Operation Alice, restoring public trust in the police and maintaining public trust in senior police officers is vital. Does the Minister therefore agree that there should be full disclosure of all the meetings between the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the press relating to the operation?
Damian Green
As my hon. Friend might know, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has just responded to a freedom of information request on this matter. I can only repeat that the course of justice is not served by my giving the House a running commentary on an ongoing criminal investigation.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s earlier response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) showed that she was completely oblivious to the steep increase in the use of community resolutions for ever more serious crimes, including domestic violence and knife crime. Does she not understand that the overuse of this simplistic measure gives rise to an issue of justice for the victims?
Mrs May
What I said to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and what I say to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), is that we are looking at the use of community resolutions of various sorts to ensure that their use is proportionate and that there is consistency across the country. We are discussing the use of cautions with the police, and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, in his capacity as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, has launched a review of their use.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Will the Minister meet the Attorney-General to discuss the issuing of strict instructions on the extent to which senior police officers may discuss active cases with journalists, so as to prevent prejudicial outcomes?
Damian Green
I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I meet the Attorney-General on a regular basis to discuss a number of matters. I will of course continue to do so.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Minister for completing the mop-up on Question 5.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
On 6,000 occasions in the last year, the Met police used cautions for serious violent and sexual offences, including seven cases of rape. A caution obviously involves an admission of guilt, and there is huge concern about this. I have to say that the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) seemed slightly flippant. She did not seem to understand the seriousness of the concerns. No one seems to understand why this is happening. What is the Home Secretary going to do to ensure that cautions are used only in appropriate circumstances?
Mrs May
I have not given any flippant response. What I said was that the Government were reviewing the issue. The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on cautions, and it is absolutely right that we should look not only at the numbers but at the evidence behind the way in which the cautions are being used and at the circumstances in which they are being used. That is what the review is about.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while net immigration quadrupled during the first 11 years of the previous Government, it has been brought down by 72,000 in just two years under this Government, despite the fact that the Opposition have fought us every step of the way?
Mrs May
I can absolutely confirm that. I am pleased to say that net migration has gone down by more than a third since this Government came to power. That is a result of our relentless work to deal with the lack of control in the immigration system under Labour, and it is a great pity that Labour Members have not been willing to support any of the measures that we have taken to ensure that immigration can come down.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Following today’s report from the Home Affairs Committee on child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming, will the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice set out what joint working will take place with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that we can prevent other young women from suffering the same horrific ordeal?
Damian Green
Yes; I have already read the report. It makes a number of important recommendations, which we will respond to fully in due course; and yes, joint working is happening between the Home Office and the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government, as there are clearly a number of problems that need to be solved and they cross the governmental spectrum. We need to solve all of them before we can get a full grip on this issue.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The fee for a firearms or shotgun certificate for a new applicant is £50. That has not changed since 2001, but research shows that the cost to the taxpayer of granting such a licence is £189. Does the Minister agree that there is absolutely no case for subsidising those who wish to obtain those licences for recreation and leisure purposes, and that they should be charged more?
Damian Green
I am conscious that the Association of Chief Police Officers has made representations about the cost of gun licences, and the Government are looking at the issue very carefully.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I welcome reports that the Government intend to introduce stronger and clearer guidance on how the police should issue firearms licences, but may I point out to the Minister that following the multiple fatal shootings in my constituency on new year’s day 2010, ACPO, the coroner and the Independent Police Complaints Commission found that the police had not looked at the guidance?
Damian Green
I am sure they do. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have met his constituent, Bobby Turnbull, and will do so again shortly. As the hon. Gentleman says, apart from the issue of the cost of licences, we are issuing completely new guidance, which we will do by the end of this year.
Bilderberg Conference
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Bilderberg conference, which he attended.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
This is a first occasion for me, as I have never previously answered a question in the House of Commons on behalf of a private organisation for which the Government have no responsibility. I have been a member of the steering committee of Bilderberg for many years now—about 10 years, I think—and by chance this will be my last year, as we have a rule against being on the committee for too long, so I am on the point of stepping down. [Interruption.] Other roles are timeless, with no rules at all, but in this role I have now reached the end of my allotted span.
The Bilderberg organisation exists for the purpose of holding meetings once a year in various countries; it exists for no other purpose. This year, the meeting was held at a large hotel near Watford in Hertfordshire. I did not receive adequate notice of the right hon. Gentleman’s question—because I was not found in time—to put to hand the list of those who participated and the agenda we discussed. We always circulate those before the meeting, and they are readily available. I can certainly put any hon. Member in touch with a source of the list of those who took part.
Each year, we invite over 100 people—it was about 140 this year—drawn from both sides of the Atlantic; from Europe including Turkey; and from the United States and Canada. The people who attend are drawn from the worlds of government, politics, academia, defence and journalism. The people who attend change slightly each year. There is a core of those who attend regularly; different people come—[Interruption.] Well, I am trying to guess why on earth a parliamentary question has been asked about this and in what people are interested.
All the people who attend do so as individuals; we invite people as individuals. Nobody attends representing any particular organisation to which they might belong. A very interesting two or three days take place in which we have discussions on matters of public affairs. A very wide range of experience and a very wide range of political opinion is represented. I always find that it greatly adds to the depth of my understanding of what is being talked about and contemplated in many parts of the United States and in Europe as well. It is one of the many political gatherings I attend from time to time as part of the background to my activities.
If the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) finds something deeply disturbing in all this, I can advise only that he finds different people on the internet with whom to exchange tweets, and perhaps the House might be allowed to return to some matter of rather more real public interest in which this House of Commons has a role to play.
Mr Meacher
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that filibuster. The Bilderberg conference involves about 130 of the western world’s top decision makers from the banks, the multinational companies, the European Commission—[Interruption.] I am coming to the politicians. It also involves representatives of the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and, of course, leading politicians from the United States, Canada, the eurozone and the United Kingdom. Given that those people were clearly discussing some of the biggest issues confronting the western economies at this time, why have we heard no statement from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor or, indeed, the Minister without Portfolio, all of whom attended in an official capacity? Why did none of them offer a statement, although decisions of this kind may well have a significant effect on UK Government policy or the livelihood of future UK citizens?
It is said by some, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that Bilderberg is a conspiracy. Of course it is not a conspiracy. Nevertheless, 130 of the world’s top decision makers do not travel thousands of miles simply for a cosy chat. Those people came here in order to concert their plans to deal with a particularly awkward stage in western capitalism, and in view of that we, the public, are entitled to ask some questions and to hold them to account. The Prime Minister said in 2010:
“For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors…and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture—and it’s called transparency.”
In the same year, the Chancellor himself announced his commitment to
“the most radical transparency agenda that the country has ever seen.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 206.]
So why is there no transparency about a very crucial meeting that could affect us all?
Finally, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how at the start of last week the Prime Minister could announce a crackdown on corruption and lack of transparency among lobbyists, and by the end of the week he and the Chancellor could be insisting that the largest and most powerful lobbyists’ group in the western hemisphere—an anti-democratic cabal if ever there was one—should operate in conditions of utter blackout and complete secrecy?
Mr Clarke
The Bilderberg meeting does not make any decisions. It does not have any resolutions. We could not possibly reach decisions, because of the range of opinions represented there. It is purely a Chatham House rules discussion between the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. The shadow Chancellor was there, Peter Mandelson was there, the Prime Minister was there, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was there, and most of us said things during the discussion that would not have come as a surprise to any of us, because we knew what our opinions were. We go there for the chance of having an off-the-record, informal discussion with the range of people described by the right hon. Gentleman, who are indeed distinguished, but who are not remotely interested in getting together to decide or organise anything.
If the right hon. Gentleman would like an invitation—if that is what really lies behind his question—I will take his own distinguished claims to participation in the group carefully into account, although I will of course consult the shadow Chancellor before taking that a step further.
Let me say with the greatest respect that this is total, utter nonsense. I would normally regard the right hon. Gentleman as not the sort of person to be taken in by this sort of rubbish. We all take part in lots of political and other discussions as private individuals, under Chatham House rules, and we do not expect everyone to go out giving a version of what we have just said. No one alters their opinions when we are there. As for transparency, this Government are by a street the most transparent Government I have ever been in, but we can only be transparent in regard to things for which the Government have responsibility, and for what we are doing as a Government.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister without Portfolio said, rather prosaically I thought, that Peter Mandelson was there. I assume he was referring to no less a figure than Lord Mandelson of Foy. I think that is the person he had in mind.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister can resume his seat. No one in the House has a better sense of humour than the Minister, but I thought that he realised that I was gently teasing him.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Is it not rather cruel to oblige the Prime Minister to spend a weekend with Lord Mandelson of Foy and the shadow Chancellor? Did anyone at the Bilderberg conference go away any the wiser as to how the Labour party, if it were to win the next general election, would square the circle and manage to tackle the deficit?
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
The idea of Lord Mandelson attending any meeting informally is not something I have ever experienced.
As one of the British parliamentarians who attended the weekend meeting in Watford, alongside the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, Lord Mandelson, Baroness Williams and the Minister without Portfolio himself, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he agrees that it is important that Ministers and shadow Ministers meet regularly to discuss important issues with fellow Ministers and Opposition politicians, academics, journalists and business leaders from around the world? Can he confirm that over the past 60 years the annual Bilderberg meeting has properly been attended by Prime Ministers, Chancellors and shadow Ministers from all parties, including Lord Healey, Lord Ashdown and the late John Smith?
Does the Minister without Portfolio agree that it is welcome that the Bilderberg group now publishes a list of all those who attend the meeting and the topics that are discussed? Does he agree that the list of topics on this weekend's agenda, including “Can the US and Europe grow faster and create jobs?”, “Africa's challenges”, “Trends in medical research” and “Developments in the middle east” are vital issues with which every Government and Opposition must grapple for the benefit of all citizens?
We fully understand that it is because the Minister without Portfolio is a member of the Bilderberg steering group that he is well qualified today to answer the urgent question that was addressed to the Chancellor; he is not doing so because of his economic expertise. If on the other hand the Minister without Portfolio were to stand in at the next Treasury questions, we and all conspiracy theorists would rightly be concerned.
Mr Clarke
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for perhaps addressing the question more straightforwardly than I did. He is obviously feeling a little defensive. He is dealing with it a little more seriously and probably much more wisely than I did. Everything he said is entirely right. I have attended Bilderberg meetings for many years. The only reason I attend is that my own understanding of political and economic problems in various parts of the world is improved by the opportunity to have an informal weekend with the kind of people who go to the conference. Discussing things with, among others, the shadow Chancellor in a completely informal way, off the record, is also of considerable value. I am sure that he agrees that we derive a great deal from the meeting and we hope that it improves our contribution to debates here, too.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Our hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) was invited to a previous Bilderberg conference, and I wonder whether the Minister, as a member of the steering committee, could tell us why he has been dropped. Has he done something wrong?
Mr Clarke
Every year, about half those participating have never been before. Quite a lot of people come only for one meeting. The number of people who come every year is comparatively small—there is a kind of core and for some extraordinary reason I have been a part of that core over the past decade. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made a most distinguished contribution but he should not be disappointed that he was not invited again. The British committee was trying to bring in a rising star of a younger generation, because we do not want the whole thing to become an ageing establishment of people who used to be something important in government. I have no doubt that one day my hon. Friend will be implored to attend again, but I cannot guarantee when that will be.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
I wouldn’t be seen dead with them.
How come when all those media moguls, the bankers and politicians have been meeting together since 1954, not one of them was able to spot the recession coming—or maybe they caused it?
Mr Clarke
We have had trade unions there sometimes, and there are plenty of social democrats. I do not think anybody as left wing as the hon. Gentleman has ever attended, but if I scratch my memory I will probably remember somebody. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman forecast with absolute precision the collapse of capitalism in 2007. In that respect, I agree that his foresight was rather better than that of most pundits. We continue to meet, in the hope that next time we will see it coming with slightly more clarity.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As many UKIP voters fear that the Bilderberg group is a plot to promote more unaccountable European government, can my right hon. and learned Friend give them any reassurance or suggest why they might be wrong in that thought?
Mr Clarke
Nowadays we get accused of plots to establish a Government of the world, to poison the local watercourses, and to plan an invasion of the United States of America. Ten years ago, I was told I was attending a plot to hand over Britain to Brussels and to subordinate us to a “United States of Europe”, and the next instalment of the plot will come later. I cite that example in order to point out that a fellow member of the steering committee was Mr Conrad Black, and in private, as in public, Mr Conrad Black was not in favour of handing anything over to Brussels and was not in any way furthering that cause. I regret to say that Mr Black is, as I recall, the only member who ever attended who has since had the misfortune to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, whereupon he withdrew from the Bilderberg meetings.
Seriously, however, I assure my right hon. Friend that the full range of opinion from left to right from across western Europe is pretty well represented at Bilderberg. That in itself shows that the idea that we are furthering any kind of agenda is absolute nonsense. If I were plotting to do anything, I would not assemble that particular group of people, because we would never agree on an objective.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that he declared his trusteeship of the body that funds the conference to his permanent secretary when he was appointed by the Prime Minister?
Mr Clarke
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I am looking that up, because I had forgotten. Actually, I am a member of the steering committee. When we were hosting at Watford, I discovered that I am, among other things, a trustee of the British steering group, so I am checking, with the aid of my constituency office, whether I ever put that in. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had completely forgotten that it was set up on that basis, long before the rules were established. The trustees have never met as trustees. All I actually do is sit as a member of a committee and play my part in helping with the organisation of a meeting, and that is all I have ever done.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We have had a bit of fun today—indeed, who would want to spend a weekend of irredeemable tedium discussing world economics with a bunch of establishment toffs? Surely the serious point is this, however: why on earth does the House of Commons think it is necessary to discuss what was said in a private meeting?
Mr Clarke
Perhaps my hon. Friend was not here when I started answering this question and said that this is the first time I have ever risen in the House of Commons to answer questions on behalf of a private organisation for which the British Government have absolutely no responsibility.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I know I cannot be described as a rising star, so should I not presume that my invitation was lost in the post? Can the Minister say whether or not, either formally or informally, he took the opportunity while at the conference to discuss his campaign to keep the UK within the European Union, and which members of the EU were there?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I do not think I am being too indiscreet when I say that the subject of the future of the European Union and Britain’s participation in it did come up from time to time over the weekend. People from many countries have quite a strong interest in that subject, so it was discussed, but under Chatham House rules, and I can assure him that no conclusions of any kind were reached.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend the only British citizen on the steering committee, and who does he think his replacement will be?
Mr Clarke
The other members at the moment are John Kerr and Marcus Agius, and I do not know who my successor will be. We are slightly overrepresented on the steering committee, which is probably a reflection of the quality of debate in this place and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
GCHQ
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the work of the Government Communications Headquarters—GCHQ—its legal framework and recent publicity about it. As Foreign Secretary, I am responsible for the work of GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service—MI6—under the overall authority of the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the work of the Security Service, MI5.
Over the past few days, there have been a series of media disclosures of classified US documents relating to the collection of intelligence by US agencies, and questions about the role of GCHQ. The US Administration have begun a review into the circumstances of these leaks in conjunction with the Justice Department and the US intelligence community. President Obama has been clear that US work in this area is fully overseen and authorised by Congress and relevant judicial bodies, and that his Administration are committed to respecting the civil liberties and privacy of their citizens.
The Government deplore the leaking of any classified information, wherever it occurs. Such leaks can make the work of maintaining the security of our own country and that of our allies more difficult, and by providing a partial and potentially misleading picture they give rise to public concerns. It has been the policy of successive British Governments not to comment on the detail of intelligence operations. The House will therefore understand that I will not be drawn into confirming or denying any aspect of leaked information. I will be as informative as possible, to give reassurance to the public and Parliament. We want the British people to have confidence in the work of our intelligence agencies, and in their adherence to the law and democratic values, but I also wish to be very clear that I will take great care in this statement and in answering questions to say nothing that gives any clue or comfort to terrorists, criminals and foreign intelligence services as they seek to do harm to this country and its people.
Three issues have arisen in recent days that I wish to address. First, I will describe the action that the Government are taking in response to recent events. Secondly, I will set out how our intelligence agencies work in accordance with UK law and subject to democratic oversight. Thirdly, I will describe how the law is upheld with respect to intelligence co-operation with the United States, and deal with specific questions that have been raised about the work of GCHQ.
First, in respect of the action we have taken, the Intelligence and Security Committee has already received some information from GCHQ and will receive a full report tomorrow. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, is travelling to the United States on a long-planned visit with the rest of the Committee. As he has said, the Committee will be free to decide what, if any, further action it should take in the light of that report. The Government and the agencies will co-operate fully with the Committee, and I pay tribute to its members and their predecessors from all parties.
Secondly, the ISC’s work is one part of the strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight that governs the use of secret intelligence in the United Kingdom, which successive Governments have worked to strengthen. At its heart are two Acts of Parliament: the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The Acts require GCHQ and the other agencies to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary. As Foreign Secretary, I receive hundreds of operational proposals from the SIS and GCHQ every year. The proposals are detailed: they set out the planned operation, the potential risks and the intended benefits of the intelligence. They include comprehensive legal advice describing the basis for the operation, and comments from senior Foreign Office officials and lawyers. To intercept the content of any individual’s communications in the UK requires a warrant signed personally by me, the Home Secretary, or by another Secretary of State. This is no casual process. Every decision is based on extensive legal and policy advice. Warrants are legally required to be necessary, proportionate and carefully targeted, and we judge them on that basis.
Considerations of privacy are also at the forefront of our minds, as I believe they will have been in the minds of our predecessors. We take great care to balance individual privacy with our duty to safeguard the public and the UK’s national security. These are often difficult and finely judged decisions, and we do not approve every proposal put before us by the agencies. All the authorisations that the Home Secretary and I give are subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner, both of whom must have held high judicial office and report directly to the Prime Minister. They review the way these decisions are made to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law. They have full access to all the information that they need to carry out their responsibilities, and their reports are publicly available. It is vital that we have that framework of democratic accountability and scrutiny.
I have nothing but praise for the professionalism, dedication and integrity of the men and women of GCHQ. I know from my work with them how seriously they take their obligations under UK and international law. Indeed, in his most recent report, the Interception of Communications Commissioner said:
“it is my belief…that GCHQ staff conduct themselves with the highest levels of integrity and legal compliance.”
This combination of needing a warrant from one of the most senior members of the Government, decided on the basis of detailed legal advice, and such decisions being reviewed by independent commissioners and implemented by agencies with strong legal and ethical frameworks, with the addition of parliamentary scrutiny by the ISC, whose powers are being increased, provides one of the strongest systems of checks and balances and democratic accountability for secret intelligence anywhere in the world.
Thirdly, I want to set out how UK law is upheld in respect of information received from the United States, and to address the specific questions about the role of GCHQ. Since the 1940s, GCHQ and its American equivalents—now the National Security Agency—have had a relationship that is unique in the world. This relationship has been and remains essential to the security of both nations, has stopped many terrorist and espionage plots against this country, and has saved many lives. The basic principles by which that co-operation operates have not changed over time. Indeed, I wish to emphasise to the House that although we have experienced an extremely busy period in intelligence and diplomacy in the past three years, the arrangements for oversight, and the general framework for exchanging information with the United States, are the same as under previous Governments. The growing and diffuse nature of threats from terrorists, criminals or espionage has only increased the importance of our intelligence relationship with the United States. That was particularly the case in the run-up to the Olympics. The House will not be surprised to hear that our activity to counter terrorism intensified and rose to a peak in the summer of last year.
It has been suggested that GCHQ uses our partnership with the United States to get around UK law, obtaining information that it cannot legally obtain in the United Kingdom. I wish to be absolutely clear that that accusation is baseless. Any data obtained by us from the United States involving UK nationals are subject to proper UK statutory controls and safeguards, including the relevant sections of the Intelligence Services Act, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
Our intelligence-sharing work with the United States is subject to ministerial and independent oversight, and to scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Our agencies practise and uphold UK law at all times, even when dealing with information from outside the United Kingdom. The combination of a robust legal framework, ministerial responsibility, scrutiny by the intelligence services commissioners, and parliamentary accountability through the Intelligence and Security Committee should give a high level of confidence that the system works as intended.
That does not mean that we do not have to work to strengthen public confidence whenever we can, while maintaining the secrecy necessary to intelligence work. We have strengthened the role of the ISC through the Justice and Security Act 2013, to include oversight of the agencies’ operations as well as their policy, administration and finances. We have introduced the National Security Council so that intelligence is weighed and assessed alongside all other sources of information available to the Government, including diplomatic reporting and the insights of other Government Departments, and all that information is judged carefully in deciding the Government’s overall strategy and objectives.
There is no doubt that secret intelligence, including the work of GCHQ, is vital to our country. It enables us to detect threats against our country ranging from nuclear proliferation to cyber attack. Our agencies work to prevent serious and organised crime, and to protect our economy against those trying to steal our intellectual property. They disrupt complex plots against our country, such as when individuals travel abroad to gain terrorist training and prepare attacks. They support the work of our armed forces overseas and help to protect the lives of our men and women in uniform, and they work to help other countries lawfully to build the capacity and willingness to investigate and disrupt terrorists in their countries, before threats reach us in the United Kingdom.
We should never forget that threats are launched at us secretly, new weapons systems and tactics are developed secretly, and countries or terrorist groups that plan attacks or operations against us do so in secrecy. So the methods we use to combat these threats must be secret, just as they must always be lawful. If the citizens of this country could see the time and care taken in making these decisions, the carefully targeted nature of all our interventions, and the strict controls in place to ensure that the law and our democratic values are upheld, and if they could witness, as I do, the integrity and professionalism of the men and women of our intelligence agencies, who are among our nation’s very finest public servants, I believe they would be reassured by how we go about this essential work.
The British people can be confident in the way our agencies work to keep them safe. Would-be terrorists, those seeking to spy against this country or those who are the centre of organised crime should be aware that this country has the capability and partnerships to protect its citizens against the full range of threats in the 21st century, and that we will always do so in accordance with our laws and values, but with constant resolve and determination.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this afternoon. The House will be aware that on Saturday the Opposition, along with other Members of this House, called for the Foreign Secretary to address Parliament today, and we welcome his decision to do so in recognition of the depth of public concern that has arisen in recent days.
I begin my remarks by echoing the words of the Foreign Secretary and put on record the support and admiration of the whole House for the important—indeed, vital—work that is done by our country’s intelligence and security services. Theirs is some of the most important but inevitably least recognised work undertaken to protect the security of our nation, and it is right that we take the opportunity to offer our thanks and praise for their efforts. Our intelligence agencies’ work would be made more difficult if levels of concern about the framework under which they operate were to compromise the active support of the public for their efforts. In the light of that, I shall quote back to the Foreign Secretary his words in a BBC interview yesterday:
“if you are a law abiding citizen of this country going about your business and your personal life, you have nothing to fear—nothing to fear about the British state or intelligence agencies listening to the contents of your phone calls or anything like that.”
This assertion, however, assumes that the state is either incapable of error or incapable of advertent or inadvertent wrongdoing.
Surely, on reflection, the Foreign Secretary will accept that law-abiding citizens of this country also want to know and be assured of the fact that the agencies of government are themselves law-abiding. Back in 2011, the Foreign Secretary seemed to recognise the importance of this point when in a speech on the role of the Security Services he said that
“the need for secrecy places additional importance on the Foreign Secretary’s accountability to Parliament for GCHQ and SIS. This is one of the indispensable foundations of public confidence, and one that I will personally strive to strengthen.”
Today presents him with a clear opportunity to deliver on that pledge, and I hope that in his answers to my specific questions he will be able to do so.
The Foreign Secretary is right to assume that lawyers, some law-makers and the members of the ISC may be very familiar with the framework of legality and accountability, but the general public, for understandable reasons, are not. In the light of that, will he take the opportunity of his response to remind the House of the steps we in Parliament have taken to preserve privacy, and set out whether all steps taken by our agencies are, to the best of his knowledge, compliant with those laws? It is in this spirit, not of condemnation but of concern, that I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary some questions about the recent allegations first revealed by The Guardian on Friday of last week about the existence and operation of the so-called Prism programme administered by the NSA.
Let me first make it clear that the Opposition support the principle of information sharing across international borders with allies. Indeed, the people who want to do harm to the UK work across international borders, and those people working to keep us safe have to be able to work with allies across international borders if they are to tackle these threats effectively. But that needs to be within that established framework of both law and accountability. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that full disclosure on this issue is not possible nor appropriate, so let me focus my questions not on the specific operational aspect of the allegations, but on the broader legal and policy frameworks that would apply in these circumstances.
Earlier this morning, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), gave his account of the legal framework that would govern British intelligence agencies’ use of intercept data. He said:
“If the British intelligence agencies are seeking to know the content of emails about people living in the UK then they actually have to get lawful authority. Normally that means ministerial authority. That applies equally whether they are going to do the intercept themselves or whether they are going to ask somebody else to do it on their behalf.”
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether that account of the current legal framework is both complete and accurate?
In his statement, the Foreign Secretary has just stated: “Any data obtained by us from the United States involving UK nationals are subject to proper UK statutory controls and safeguards, including the relevant sections of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.” Will he now set out the relevant sections of those Acts, and confirm whether this explanation means that any data obtained by us from the US, involving UK nationals, are authorised by ministerial warrants and overseen by the intercept commissioner, as set out by RIPA?
Specifically, what legal framework applies in the following two cases? First, when a request is made by the UK to an intelligence agency of an international ally for the interception of the content of private communications, will he confirm whether this process is governed by individual warrants signed by the relevant Secretary of State and approved by the intercept commissioner as set out in part I of RIPA? Secondly, will he address the specific issue of when a request is made by the UK to an intelligence agency of an international ally, not to seek intercept, but instead to search existing data held by that agency on the contents of private communications, and, in particular, the legal process that will be adopted in such an instance? In that circumstance, will he confirm whether this process is also governed by individual warrants signed by the relevant Secretary of State and approved by the intercept commissioner as set out in part I of RIPA?
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, with respect to intelligence sharing with allies, the UK Government operate on the basis of the assumption that information held by, for example, the US Government, has been obtained in accordance with the law of that country? If that is the case, what steps has he taken, or will take, to confirm that any processes currently in use by the NSA continue to adhere to this legal safeguard?
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Foreign Secretary has now exceeded his allotted time, so I feel sure that he is in his last sentence.
Mr Alexander
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
To conclude, all of us in this House have an interest in sustaining public confidence in the work of the intelligence agencies. Those agencies, each and every day, do outstanding work on behalf of and for the sake of us all. That is why Ministers and the ISC now have a heavy burden of responsibility to oversee and scrutinise their work, so as to reassure the public.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and pleased that he began his remarks by expressing the support and admiration across the House for the work of the intelligence agencies. Many former Ministers from the previous Government—indeed, there are some specific ones here today—know that well. He was right to say that the work of those agencies is among the most important and least recognised that goes into protecting this country, so there is strong common ground across the House on that.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we should be able, now and in future, to give people assurances about the law-abiding nature of the work of the agencies, which of course is a large part of the purpose of what I have just explained to the House. I am not saying that the agencies, anyone who works in them or, indeed, Ministers are incapable of error—that can happen in any organisation—but I am arguing that there is a strong system of checks and balances. A combination of ministerial oversight, independent scrutiny, parliamentary oversight, the legal framework and the strong ethical framework of the agencies themselves minimises the chance of errors happening in any sinister way.
Sometimes people can get the impression, when reading discussions in the media about this, that there is a danger of a “deep state” that is in some way out of control. There is not that danger in the United Kingdom. Of course everyone is capable of error, but the protection of this country’s citizens from such error is very strong indeed. I must stress that there will always be ways of improving procedures—many improvements have been made in recent years, under successive Administrations—and there are always new situations that arise in intelligence gathering that require additions to or the refinement of the legal basis of what we do and the practices and procedures by which we do that work. I do not argue at all that everything is definitely perfect, and certainly not for all time, with regard to whether in future there could be any improvements in procedures in some areas, because I am sure that there could be. The Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to look at that and make recommendations if it so wishes, and of course within the Government that is something that is constantly looked at and subject to change.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is no reason why the general public would be familiar with the framework I have set out for the House. I was the first Foreign Secretary to make a speech, in November 2011—it might have been widely unnoticed in the House—about the role of secret intelligence in foreign policy, in which I set out for the public what the guarantees are and what the legal framework is. This, in a way, is an opportunity to set that out clearly to the country.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that he supports information sharing with our allies. The position on the legal framework is exactly as I set out in my statement: any data obtained by us from the United States about UK nationals are subject to the full range of Acts, including section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the RIPA provisions, set out in sections 15 and 16, which regulate that information gathering must be necessary and proportionate and regulate how the agencies must handle information when they obtain it.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s further questions about how authority is given, I cannot give him, for reasons that I cannot explain in public, as detailed an answer as he would like. I would love to give him what could actually be a very helpful answer, but because circumstances and procedures vary according to the situation, I do not want to give a categorical answer—in a small respect circumstances might differ occasionally. But I can say that ministerial oversight and independent scrutiny is there, and there is scrutiny of the ISC in all these situations, so, again, the idea that operations are carried out without ministerial oversight, somehow getting around UK law, is mistaken. I am afraid that I cannot be more specific than that.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Nobody in this House, and certainly not me, would dispute the value of well-targeted intelligence. Central to this issue are the US FISA—Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—laws, which distinguish between American citizens, who receive rigorous protection of their privacy, and all other foreigners, including British citizens, who receive, in essence, no protection. When the Americans are concerned about assaults on their citizens, they pursue this with an aggression that would make Lord Palmerston proud, most obviously through the extradition arrangements, for example. Has the Foreign Secretary made any representations to the American authorities about the protection of innocent British citizens’ privacy under their FISA laws?
Mr Hague
We apply our own laws. The United States decides its own laws and applies its own laws in the United States. We do so in the United Kingdom as well. That is the central point that I am making about this. All the Acts that we have passed in this Parliament relating to the gathering of intelligence are applied to data supplied from other countries. While I cannot give my right hon. Friend a specific answer about specific discussions, of course we regularly discuss with the United States the framework for these things to make sure, as best we can, that our values and our legal frameworks are upheld and that the strong emphasis on the privacy of the citizen is always there. As he will have seen in the statements of President Obama, the United States is very, very tough about that as well. When the UK and US both work together, each with a strong legal framework, the combined effect is a very strong and protective one.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that many of our allies, leaving aside the United States, are astonished by the degree of control and supervision of our system of ministerial oversight, oversight by judicially qualified commissioners and oversight by the ISC, which surpasses that of most other western democracies?
Does Secretary of State also accept that those in the agencies face an impossible dilemma? When things are relatively calm, suspicions, fantasies and sometimes paranoia can take off about the so-called secret state, but the moment there is a serious threat or actual terrorist outrage, often the very same people and newspapers turn on a sixpence and demand to know not whether the safeguards were operated but why there has been a failure by the agencies to track, through intelligence of all kinds, the miscreants involved.
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; as a former Foreign Secretary he is very experienced in these matters. I argued in my statement that, as he knows very well, the system of checks and balances and scrutiny that we have is among the strongest in the world; it could be the strongest in the world. Yes, he is right that the agencies easily come in for criticism when anything goes wrong and yet have to ensure at all times that they are gathering all the information they ought to be obtaining. They undertake a task for which they are not thanked and recognised often enough. They have achieved a great deal in frustrating attacks on this country, including, in recent years, planned terrorist attacks on this country, some of which we cannot talk about as they are not known to the public. It is therefore difficult to give them the recognition that they deserve. That is the scale and the importance of this crucial work.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I declare a strong constituency interest.
Veterans of Bletchley Park, such as my own parents, were and are widely described as heroes for the secret victories that we can now talk about, they having kept their secrets for many decades. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that GCHQ, as Bletchley’s successor, does equally vital but equally secret work, and that hon. Members might have to exercise just a fraction of that kind of self-restraint in allowing some of the perfectly legitimate questions about Prism to be answered in private to elected members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which we have set up for precisely this purpose?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend has spoken well about GCHQ and the work of his constituents, which he and I both greatly admire. Of course, the Intelligence and Security Committee is able to look at any aspects, including secret and top secret ones, of this discussion. The ISC, for those outside the House who may not be aware of it, is a cross-party Committee of Members who are already very familiar with so many of the issues surrounding secret intelligence. That is the proper place for these issues to be gone into in detail. I am sure this House will show the necessary restraint in its questions and comments, and that they will be fitting for today’s discussion about secret intelligence.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has said and confirm from my own experience what the Foreign Secretary has said about the legal and ethical framework and the safeguards? I know that to be true, and it is from that background that I ask this simple question. Yes, we need to dampen down fear and reinforce the fact that we are engaging with international cyber-attack and the dangers of international global terrorism; but, in reassuring people about how we handle their data, could we take a closer look at how other agencies, including the NSA and our friends and colleagues in the United States, use material gathered from network and service providers and offer it, rather than having it sought from them, in a way that makes authorisation extremely difficult?
Mr Hague
Like the right hon. Member for Blackburn, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) speaks from his own experience of the highly professional work of the agencies. The point he raises reinforces the importance of our agencies applying and upholding the laws of the United Kingdom regarding the data they obtain from other intelligence agencies around the world. As I said earlier to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), there may well be occasions over the coming years when we will need to update and improve those procedures, to take account of changes in technology. I do not exclude that at all, but it re-emphasises the importance of applying our law in our country, which the agencies can be relied on to do.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
People will have great confidence in hearing what my right hon. Friend has said about requests for intercept and operations in this country having to be so very rigorous. Does he also agree that the highly complex nature of modern communications inevitably means that, from time to time, privacy may have to be breached in the interests of the security of our country and its people?
Mr Hague
Yes, of course: a would-be terrorist cannot rely on their privacy and nor can someone at the centre of organised crime. It is these decisions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I and, sometimes, other colleagues have to make. We take extra steps and extra care on privacy. The law explicitly requires us to make sure that our actions are necessary, proportionate and targeted, but we go beyond those requirements in assessing the impact on the privacy of individuals in order to try to make sure that it is only when absolutely necessary that we invade that privacy.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
One of the key motivations for the reform of the Intelligence and Security Committee was to help with transparency and to engage with the public and give confidence. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether any ISC report on Prism will be published, containing redactions that are as limited as possible?
Mr Hague
I cannot give an assurance that reports on these issues will be public because, as I argued in my statement, there is an important role for secret intelligence. Our deliberations about that must therefore be secret. The ISC makes a variety of reports, some of which are published and redacted, as the hon. Lady says. The ISC will have to consider the format of its report, but I cannot guarantee that its findings will be public.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent statement to the House in which the British people should have every confidence. Does he agree that, notwithstanding the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the protection of the British people relies hugely on co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States? Both countries face threats from China. In that regard, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has any comments to make to the House about the illuminating report by the Intelligence and Security Committee last week?
Mr Hague
I am largely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for his strong support for the Government’s position. He is right to underline the extreme importance to our national security of our close and unique co-operation with the United States. It has been my general approach, as he knows, not to publicly point fingers or fling accusations at other countries about intelligence activities. Despite his tempting invitation, I will not do so today.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
As a former chair of the ISC, I have nothing but admiration for the work of GCHQ. The Foreign Secretary agrees that the ISC should investigate the allegations. Will he encourage the ISC to report swiftly to the Prime Minister, as is its custom, and then, if it is possible within the constraints of national security, to report to the House of Commons?
Mr Hague
The ISC should of course report to the Prime Minister. I do not want to pre-empt any decision that the Committee or the Prime Minister may make about the nature of any reporting to the public or to Parliament. I reiterate the cautionary words that I issued a moment ago. I am sure that the Committee will want to undertake its work swiftly, but only as swiftly as proper consideration of all the issues allows. We all want it to consider such questions thoroughly. That is the most important requirement.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary. On the sharing of intelligence by GCHQ, will he clarify whether the United Kingdom provides location intelligence to the United States in relation to drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Mr Hague
As I explained in my statement, successive Governments have not commented on the details of how we use intelligence information. My statement was about the legal framework that governs such matters and the values that we uphold. I cannot and will not comment on what intelligence we share with other countries.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Given the rather different approaches to privacy and data protection in Europe and the United States, what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the potential for this controversy to impact on the successful outcome of the EU-America free trade deal, and what are the Government doing to prevent it from having such an impact?
Mr Hague
I have no evidence of any such impact. Over the coming days, the Government and our European partners will be putting great effort into ensuring that rapid progress is made on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I see no reason why the questions raised in the media over the past few days should have a significant impact on that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary was right to say that in democracies it is important that some things are kept secret. However, it is equally important that Members of this House are free to have discussions without fear of interception by the Government. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that no Member is having his phone tapped or his e-mails intercepted?
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Security Services have all the necessary tools to keep our citizens safe, even though at times that may mean the sacrifice of personal freedoms?
Mr Hague
They do have the tools. I said earlier that those tools need updating over time. I did not refer in my statement to the discussions on a communications data Bill, but there is a strong case for updating the tools we have at our disposal. Means of communication are changing more rapidly than at any time in the history of the world, which means that the range and nature of threats change. We must be careful to do that work, and the whole House should give fair consideration to such proposals.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has confirmed that the Government and the intelligence services have no interest in random snooping into the private affairs of British citizens, but can he confirm to the House that, when well-founded security risks are identified, sufficient powers and freedoms are in place to undertake the investigations that may be necessary, or is it his opinion that enhanced freedoms and powers are now required?
Mr Hague
In my experience, we are well-equipped to conduct necessary investigations, but I return to the answer I gave to the previous question. There will be a constant need to update what we are able to do, without being diverted from the basic principle of ensuring that our intelligence gathering is on what is necessary, and that it is proportionate, targeted and always legal. Our laws do not provide for indiscriminate trawling for information through the contents of people’s communications. We do not need to change those basic principles, but we sometimes need to change aspects of the legal framework and where we are able to get information from. That work must go on in the coming years.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Considering all the dangers for the individual concerned, why should we believe that the American whistleblower is telling a pack of lies? If a lot of what he is saying is true, then surely law-abiding citizens who are a million miles from any threat involved with terrorism should indeed be fearful.
Mr Hague
As you will have noticed, Mr Speaker, I have not commented on the individual concerned. I am not going to get into a running commentary on this or any other leak. It is not possible for any Government to do that while respecting the need to maintain the secrecy of our intelligence work. I do not want to get into that now, but I stress again the very strong legal framework in this country. I believe people can have confidence in that.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
All our constituents should be grateful for the work of the Security Services, and some will owe their lives to their professionalism. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that one of the biggest threats to our national security is stolen identities? Surely GCHQ has to be ever more innovative to stay one step in front.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. Part of the work of GCHQ is to make it easier for us to combat serious and organised crime. In many ways, the privacy of the citizens of this country benefits substantially from the work of our agencies, because of what they are doing to protect the country. There is a strong argument to be made about that, rather than that their privacy is invaded. So that is a growing threat, and in many cases it is up to the private sector, working with GCHQ, to ensure that we are well equipped to defeat it.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
As one who continues to campaign for the young US-British soldier Bradley Manning, and exchanges e-mails and telephone calls with his defence counsel, can I assume that I am free from any surveillance, either from the United States or Britain?
Dr Huppert
Many British people use the online tools affected by Prism and many British companies will have commercially sensitive data on there—many people in government as well. The Americans are partly protected, but what rules are there on the collection of British data by the NSA or the uses that those data can be put to after they have been collected?
Mr Hague
The House will understand that I cannot speculate about the content of any leak or what has been argued in newspapers over the past few days, but we do have our own clear legal framework—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Human Rights Act 1998, all of which apply to data obtained by this country through co-operation with the US, just as they apply to any data we obtain ourselves. I think that people can be confident about that.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Given that EU data protection laws currently offer no protection against backdoor US surveillance of this sort, will the Foreign Secretary commit to pushing for stronger measures in the current EU proposals, or does he agree with the Justice Secretary, who is reported to have said that plans to strengthen protections for UK citizens and businesses from such unwarranted spying are “mad”?
Mr Hague
I think that the hon. Lady might be quoting the Justice Secretary slightly out of context, in that he will have been referring to other aspects of the proposals. I cannot give her any guarantee that these controversies make it easier to agree proposals for EU directives, but I will go with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary on these matters.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Could the Guardian’s non-story be summed up as: foreign Government monitor international terrorists and share intelligence with their allies? Will the Foreign Secretary join me in paying tribute to our allies, who share intelligence so that British citizens remain safe, both here and abroad?
Mr Hague
I absolutely join in the tributes to our allies. We depend on the United States a great deal for our national security, particularly in intelligence matters, and they also depend on us. This is an important two-way relationship, greatly assisting the security of both nations, and reaffirms what an indispensible relationship this is for the UK.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
I think that 99% of the British public would agree that this is not about gathering information on terrorists. It is about the little fella—the fella who might be organising a demonstration against a rotten Government policy, or a trade unionist such as Len McCluskey or even Bob Crow organising a strike. I was involved in the 1984 miners’ strike, mind, and there was some funny intelligence work done then.
Mr Hague
I can only speak about the legal framework operating now on the basis of two Acts of Parliament, in 1994 and 2000, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the Home Secretary and I were signing off interception warrants on political grounds, we would be in a great deal of trouble with the intercept commissioner and the ISC. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured about that.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that our relationship with the US is a cornerstone of our national security infrastructure; that the exchange of material works both ways, aiding the US as well as the UK; that those who work on the paranoid assumption that this or some other programme is there to spy on UK and US citizens are wrong; and that a large proportion of the data collected is against third-party citizens in third-party countries?
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) said, and the fact that GCHQ has been involved in trade union disputes for a long time, can the Foreign Secretary give me an assurance? He will not explain precisely how this interception takes place on the advice of a Minister; but surely, if the Prime Minister of the day in 1984 said that the miners and the NUM were the “enemy within”, would that not give the green light to GCHQ to intervene in every single coalfield? Because that is what we believed.
Mr Hague
We are in a different century now—we are 13 years into the 21st century. The challenges are different and the focus of the intelligence agencies is different from decades in the past and very different, of course, from during the cold war. It is important for Opposition Members below the Gangway to start to move with the times.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Has not our national security relied for centuries on the effective intercept of communications? The Spanish armada was said to have been averted as much by the pen of Francis Walsingham as by the Royal Navy. Surely what has changed is the nature of those communications. The threat to the public comes not from the intelligence agencies, which have no interest at all in the communications of members of the public; but they will not be able to intercept communications if those data are not retained by providers.
Mr Hague
Since I refused to go back into the miners’ strike, I am reluctant to go into the Spanish armada, but the wider point that my right hon. Friend makes is of course absolutely correct. Two cross-party Committees in this House have looked at proposals for a communications data Bill, for instance, and said that changes are necessary, and he is adding to that point.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State spell out to the House the precise difference between the legal framework applicable to the obtaining of intercept data by our intelligence services and that which applies to the use by our intelligence services of information obtained by their counterparts overseas?
Mr Hague
The legal framework is the one I have set out. The Acts that I have referred to, passed by Parliament, apply to all the intelligence gathered by the agencies. The hon. Gentleman will know that, for instance, section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 confers particular powers and roles on GCHQ, so these things are governed by the same Acts of Parliament. Procedures differ, of course, in many different situations. It is because I cannot describe all those situations in public that I cannot go into exactly what that means for procedures in every case. I therefore cannot go as far in reassuring the hon. Gentleman or the shadow Foreign Secretary as they would like, but if they could see the full details of what happens, I think they would take an enormous measure of reassurance from it.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Given the comments of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and other former Cabinet Ministers on the Opposition Benches, can the House reasonably infer that there has been no change in policy with regard to GCHQ and information sharing from the last Government—in other words, that the system that prevails at present is identical to that pertained when Labour was in government?
Mr Hague
The challenges of gathering intelligence change over time, so I would not want to give the House the impression that all practices and techniques are exactly the same or used in the same way. I can say, as I said in my statement, that the general framework remains the same—the principles of our intelligence sharing with the United States and the general framework for it certainly remain the same. The values on which it is based also remain the same, as under successive Governments.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
We know that the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and all his right hon. Friends in the Conservative party Cabinet want the retention of large swathes of personal data, and he is prepared to compromise our civil liberties to obtain that, but does this episode not demonstrate what could go wrong if we had a home-grown snooper’s charter?
Mr Hague
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the draft Communications Data Bill, which I have already mentioned in earlier answers. Two parliamentary Committees have considered the draft Bill and concluded that there is a need for legislation in this area, and the Government are committed to bringing forward proposals on that in the near future.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
We are actually at cyber-war at the moment. Since 2000, the cyber-attacks on this country have multiplied some twentyfold. The Chinese held an exercise last week that they called a digital technology exercise at divisional level, involving men in uniform who are designed specifically to attack the west. Hacking can be far more deadly than a gun. May I encourage the Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues to ensure that GCHQ is as close to the National Security Agency as possible in the future?
Mr Hague
As I have said, GCHQ has a unique relationship with the National Security Agency. My hon. Friend is right to say that cyber-attack is an increasing threat in many different areas of government and of life in general. That is why the Government decided, in the strategic defence and security review three years ago, to invest an additional £650 million in our cyber-capabilities over a four-year period. The United Kingdom is one of the world leaders in cyber-defence and cyber-capabilities, and we are determined that we will remain in that position.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
For clarity, will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he was told how the NSA collects this information, and on what date he was made aware of the Prism project?
Mr Hague
I go back to what I have said about being unable to confirm or deny leaked information. I am not commenting at all on information that has appeared in the newspapers. There might be leaks in the future from who knows what agency, and I would take the same view in such circumstances. We cannot conduct ourselves in these matters by commenting on every leak that takes place. The Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to look at these questions, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman in public the answers to the questions that he is raising.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Because this type of secret operation involves not just a legal problem but a difficult balancing of security and liberty, we should do more to explain what we are doing. An American citizen would have the right to an answer to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) asked about location information being offered for American drone strikes. Unless we begin to explain more to the public, secret operations will not be sustainable in the long term. The public must understand and, through understanding, consent.
Mr Hague
I go a certain way with my hon. Friend on this. There is a need to explain to the public in this country more than we have done for decades about the role of secret intelligence, its purpose and what it achieves. However, I do not think that will mean that we are able to describe in detail how our co-operation with other countries works on operational matters, for many obvious reasons. It would make it more difficult for us to protect this country if other people knew the exact techniques that we used. Also, other countries would be less willing to share their intelligence with the UK if they thought that we were not good at keeping it to ourselves. But we certainly need to raise public awareness of the need for what we do, and I started to do that in my speech on this subject in 2011. Perhaps today’s statement will also have that effect.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Cathy Massiter case proved that, 50 years after the last war, intensive surveillance of peace activists, trade unionists and left-wing parties had failed to turn up a single spy, but it was discovered that in that same period, more than 20 members of the Secret Intelligence Service were spying for the Soviet Union. Since then, we have had untruths on weapons of mass destruction and a Government cover-up to this House on the handing over of prisoners to oppressive regimes to be tortured. Is the Foreign Secretary telling us today that the only people now under surveillance are the guilty? How does he manage that?
Mr Hague
I am telling the hon. Gentleman and the House about the many checks and balances and the strong legal framework. On all the controversies that he lists about the past—and they are controversies rather than necessarily facts—it would be fair to point out that there has been a constant process under successive Governments of improving how the intelligence agencies work. After the controversies over the use of intelligence in the Iraq war, for instance, we saw the Butler report, which has substantially changed the way intelligence is presented to Ministers and the way that Ministers decide. I referred in my statement to the creation of the National Security Council and to intelligence being given its due but proper weight alongside other information and considered in the round. The hon. Gentleman should take heart from the fact that such improvements take place.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
It is good to know that our legal framework is not lost on the Foreign Secretary. He tells us that there are no grounds for suggesting that GCHQ obtained information from the United States that it could not obtain legally in the UK. Is it also the case that there are standard procedures in place sufficient to prevent that from happening?
Mr Hague
What I have argued is that the idea of GCHQ setting out to circumvent UK law by co-operation with other countries is baseless. UK law is applied to the data it receives, even if it is received from the United States, because ministerial oversight and independent oversight is all there. Part of the purpose of that oversight is to ensure that the misuse of the powers and the role of GCHQ does not take place.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The term is always used that the intelligence services always operate within a “legal framework”. Is the Foreign Secretary certain that “legal framework” always means ethically and within the law, and that peaceful democratically elected political parties in the UK are not involved?
Mr Hague
Well, yes, it does mean those things. It means that the legal framework is properly applied and what the agencies do has to be targeted, necessary, proportionate and authorised. It also has to be for the purposes set out in the relevant Acts of Parliament in the interests of national security, the country’s economic well-being or the prevention of serious crime and the protection of the country from it. These are the purposes of our intelligence agencies—and they stick to them.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Is the Foreign Secretary absolutely confident that, if a member of staff working at GCHQ had real concerns about wrongdoing among colleagues, the channels exist for that member of staff to have their concerns heard without needing to go to the media?
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I am so sorry, Mr Speaker, but I was just getting up to leave the Chamber.
Mr Speaker
We are sorry the hon. Lady is taking her leave, but we will hear from her on other occasions. [Interruption.] She has nothing for which to apologise. I mistakenly thought she was trying to contribute. She should take her leave; we will give her a cheer [Hon. Members: “Hurray.]We will hear from her again soon. She is a very regular contributor.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement, for his personal grip and command over this issue and for the work that the security services do? I imagine that from the nature of the work they do and the people they are, our security services people are reticent about talking of their successes. At a time of heightened tension over international and domestic terrorism, will the Foreign Secretary encourage our security services wherever possible to put into the public domain the success stories in countering threats to our national security?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we should be able to celebrate the successes of our security services. Unfortunately, however, we shall have to continue to celebrate those successes in fairly general terms. As my hon. Friend will understand, if we proclaimed some of our most successful intelligence operations in public, it would be very difficult to repeat them. Unfortunately, we have to protect this country against the same type of threat again and again, and from terrorism in particular. I therefore cannot, at the moment, offer a more specific statement about what the security services have succeeded in doing, but my hon. Friend can take it from me that there is much that is not known in relation to the protection of this country from terrorism in particular, but also from organised crime, that the country would truly celebrate if it knew about it.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I join the Foreign Secretary in praising the professionalism and dedication of the staff of both the SIS and GCHQ. Edward Snowden, the CIA official who leaked the information, said that had he leaked it because he wanted to stand up against oppression and stand up for liberty. Is there not a perverse paradox that that gentleman made those claims not from Washington or London, but from the People’s Republic of China?
Mr Hague
Having earlier set myself the rule of not attacking the conduct of other nations, I am not going to break that rule now, but other people will be able to comment on this particular individual and his role. It is, of course, important for everyone who works for the agencies to remember that part of their responsibility is to uphold the laws of their country, and that in the case of the United States and the United Kingdom, those laws are designed to protect the lives and liberty of the citizens of those countries. That seems to have been too easily forgotten over the last few days.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
NATO suffered a suspected 2,500 cyber-attacks on its network last year. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there is a similar level of suspected cyber-attacks on GCHQ ?
Mr Hague
There are undoubtedly cyber-attacks against all western intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, but GCHQ is particularly well adapted to defend itself against such attacks, and to have some idea of where they are coming from and when they are coming. I will not go into any more detail than that, but people would be quite fortunate to mount a successful cyber-attack against GCHQ itself.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
As we have heard, the rigour, quality and sheer scale of American intelligence is second to none. Given the threats that the UK currently faces, may I urge the Foreign Secretary to continue his robust public defence of the UK-US intelligence relationship?
Mr Hague
I feel suitably earthed by my hon. Friend, and by many other Members. It is always worth reminding ourselves again of the indispensable nature of that relationship, although we cannot give many of the details about it. It is a fundamental part—a cornerstone, as one of our hon. Friends said earlier—of maintaining the security of this country.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I welcome the reassurances given by the Foreign Secretary. I merely seek clarification of one point. If the UK is intercepting e-mails of British citizens, it requires a warrant from the Secretary of State, but that vital check is not in place when communications are received under Prism. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Prism can be used quite legally to sidestep the level of safeguards that apply to UK-sourced intercept? How do we mitigate that risk?
Mr Hague
Again, I do not want anything that I say to be taken as a comment on information that has been leaked over the last few days, but the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to study the issues raised by it, including the issues raised by my hon. Friend. That is the proper forum. I have already stressed the way in which ministerial and independent oversight applies to our relations with other intelligence agencies, including those in the United States, and my hon. Friend should therefore not jump to any conclusions about the absence of such oversight and authority.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concerns raised by some Members of this House demonstrate the limitations of the current RIPA system, which has failed to keep up with modern technological trends, and that there is a need for new measures, such as the draft Communications Data Bill, as amended by a Joint Committee of the Lords and the Commons, to ensure that our legislation is up to date, has parliamentary oversight and covers all the concerns raised?
Better Defence Acquisition
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
The defence of UK national interests is a priority for this Government. To secure that defence, we must provide our armed forces with the equipment and capabilities they need to operate in a rapidly changing security environment. Without the right equipment, delivered on time, properly maintained and available for use, our armed forces cannot function effectively and our national interests are put at risk. Effective procurement and support of defence equipment is therefore not just desirable, but an essential part of maintaining flexible and effective armed forces.
For decades, there has been an acknowledgement that defence acquisition in this country can, and should, be done better. Despite numerous reviews and reorganisations, successive Governments have failed to embed the systemic changes necessary to achieve that objective. We owe it to the men and women of our armed forces, and to the long-suffering taxpayer, to do better.
Two separate independent studies carried out for the Ministry of Defence have suggested that the costs arising from inefficiency in the procurement process are between £1.3 billion and £2.2 billion per annum. Waste on that scale is unacceptable at any time; more so at a time of acute pressure on the public finances. I am determined to drive a step change in the way we do our defence procurement business.
In April, I announced to the House that we had launched the assessment phase for the Department's matériel strategy programme, considering two options for the future of the Defence Equipment and Support organisation: the first, a public sector benchmark, which we call “DE&S+”; and the second a Government-owned, contractor-operated entity, a “GoCo”.
Today, I am publishing a White Paper that sets out the matériel strategy proposals in more detail, and provides more information about our intention to create a new statutory framework to drive better value in single-source procurement contracts, protecting the taxpayer in this significant area of MOD business. We believe that a GoCo-operating model is the solution that is most likely effectively to embed and sustain the significant change that is required to reform defence acquisition, but the decision will be based on an objective value-for-money comparison between the GoCo and DE&S+ options. The assessment phase is designed to deliver specific, costed, contract-quality proposals from GoCo bidders and test them against the DE&S+ benchmark.
There has been considerable speculation in the media and elsewhere about the scope of a GoCo. At the most extreme, I have seen it suggested that the proposal is simply to hand over £15 billion a year of taxpayers' money to a private company and leave it to decide what kit to buy for our armed forces. Let me reassure the House that that is emphatically not the proposition. If GoCo is the selected option, the GoCo partner will manage DE&S on behalf of the Secretary of State. It will act as his agent. All contracts will continue to be entered into in the name of the Secretary of State. Strategic direction will be provided by a governance function that will remain within the MOD. The GoCo’s customers will be the front-line commands and the MOD itself. The DE&S work force will be transferred to the GoCo-operating company under standard TUPE arrangements and we will expect the GoCo partner to inject a small number of senior managers, and possibly some key technical staff.
Crucially, the GoCo is assumed to be able to recruit and reward its staff at market rates—a critical freedom in a business that is required to deal with the private commercial sector on a daily basis. The proposal set out in the White Paper is for a phased transfer of DE&S to a GoCo, with checks and break points to allow us to halt the process if it is not delivering the results we require. The legislation and the contract will include a transfer regime that will allow the Secretary of State to transfer the business to another contractor, or back to the MOD, in extremis. If, at the end of the assessment phase, a GoCo operating model is selected, we will need to be able to move quickly to conclude a contract with the successful bidder. The Government therefore intend to provide in the Defence Reform Bill the necessary authorities to let a GoCo contract in 2014, together with measures required to allow a GoCo to operate effectively.
There are finely balanced arguments about whether primary legislation is strictly required to allow the establishment of a GoCo. The Government have, however, decided that it is right that we should legislate in this instance because of the importance of DE&S+ to our armed forces and in order to ensure that Members of both Houses, many of whom take a keen interest in defence matters, have a proper opportunity to explore and debate the issues.
The White Paper sets out the proposed model for a GoCo, its key features and our expectations with regard to the control that the Department will continue to exercise and the freedoms that the GoCo will enjoy. Its purpose is to set in context the legislation that we are bringing forward in the Defence Reform Bill, including provisions to ensure that the Ministry of Defence police have the appropriate jurisdiction to be able to operate within the GoCo environment, to extend certain statutory immunities and exemptions enjoyed by the Crown—for example, in relation to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965—to the new body, and to allow the transfer of shares in the operating company and/or property, rights and liabilities in the operating company or contracting entity at the direction of the Secretary of State.
The White Paper also sets out reforms to how the MOD undertakes single-source procurement of defence equipment. Open competition is our preferred approach for getting value for money, but sometimes there is only a single provider of a capability we require, and the need to maintain critical national industrial capabilities or sovereign control of the intellectual property in equipment programmes sometimes requires us to place contracts with UK companies without a competitive process.
Single-source procurement accounts for about 45% of the total the MOD spends on defence equipment and support, or about £6 billion per year, and is likely to remain at those levels for the next decade or so. Without competition, suppliers can price and perform without being constrained by the disciplines of the marketplace. There is a clear risk to defence and the taxpayer, and ensuring that we get good value for money in single-source procurement is a key part of my programme to reform defence acquisition.
The MOD currently uses a framework for single-source procurement that has remained largely unchanged for the last 45 years, despite the far-reaching changes to the industrial landscape and to commercial procurement practices that have occurred in that time. Under this system, the profit contractors can earn is fixed, but there are few incentives for them to reduce costs. Such a system does not serve the best interests either of defence or of a competitive, export-focused defence industry.
In 2011, the MOD commissioned Lord Currie of Marylebone to undertake an independent review of our existing approach and to make recommendations. He recommended a new framework based on transparency of contractor cost data, with much stronger supplier efficiency incentives, underpinned by stronger governance arrangements. Based on his recommendations and extensive consultations with our major single-source suppliers, we have developed the new framework I am proposing, details of which are set out in the White Paper. At its heart is the principle that industry gets a fair profit in exchange for providing the MOD with the transparency and protections we need to assure value for money.
A statutory basis will ensure widespread coverage across our single-source suppliers and application of the regime throughout the single-source supply chain. The system will be policed by a stronger, independent, single source regulations office to monitor adherence and to ensure the regime is kept up to date. These changes will incentivise efficiency in operating costs and minimisation of overheads, supporting UK defence sector competitiveness both at home and in export markets.
The proposals set out in this White Paper will deliver the real reform our acquisition system needs to provide the support our front-line forces deserve, to maximise the benefit of our £160 billion 10-year defence equipment programme, and to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. Reform of defence procurement is one of the major challenges facing UK defence. Those on both sides of the House will want to see reforms that deal with overspends and overruns, and ensure that world-class equipment is delivered when and where our forces need it. For too long, the good intentions of successive Administrations have not delivered sufficient reform in defence procurement. However, just as some of the responsibility can be shared, our resolve to learn the right lessons and deliver far-reaching reform must also be collective. We therefore welcome much of today’s statement.
Future procurement systems must provide value for money within financial constraints. Better performance will come from greater professional project management, faster decision making, fuller accountability for outcomes and a more considered use of military expertise. Labour supports reforms—the Bernard Gray report, on which today’s White Paper is based, was commissioned by the previous Government. We have proposed a new budgetary discipline, whereby deferred decisions that increase cost are accounted for within a rolling 10-year cycle, and increased certainty for industry over sovereign and off-the-shelf capabilities.
Labour Members are open-minded about how that is achieved, but I wish to be clear that welcoming this process today is not the same thing as supporting a GoCo in principle. There needs to be rigorous examination of all the possible options and a robust comparison between the two options of a GoCo model and DE&S+. That comparison should rest on the principles of ensuring value for money within programmes; industry adhering to new targets on time and cost; maintaining parliamentary accountability; enhancing a culture of consequence for decision makers; and military involvement being based on tri-service working, not on single-service rivalry. So reform must extend across the Ministry of Defence. Too often, scope creep has led to systems exceeding identified need, and major decisions have been pushed to the right to save in the short term at the expense of longer-term budgetary bow wave. Today’s challenge for Ministers is not just to determine a management model, but to demonstrate that decades-long entrenched behaviours are being corrected.
Let me deal with the specifics of today’s announcement. On the assessment phase, will the Secretary of State pledge to publish the findings of the two value-for-money studies and allow for a consideration by this House prior to a final decision being taken in the legislation? It is essential that Parliament, industry and our armed forces have full confidence that strategic affordability is the determining factor in this process. On costs, will the Secretary of State say whether the new management team of either model would re-cost the baseline of the core equipment programme, or would the figures published earlier this year remain? Furthermore, in the light of the National Audit Office’s observation that the MOD’s assessment of risk is “not statistically viable”, would the new management be able to reform the current method of risk assessment? On staffing, the MOD has said that current reductions will not affect outputs. Would either management model be able to make decisions over staffing independently from the Secretary of State? Will he confirm that trade unions will be consulted throughout the assessment phase?
It is essential to maximise military expertise, so will the Secretary of State say whether he considers it preferable to change the current ratio of military to civilian numbers in procurement within the MOD? Specifically on the GoCo, will he pledge that senior officials currently working on this process within the MOD will not be able to work for the GoCo consortium without a prolonged period of purdah? Many in the country will have a concern about the extent of a private entity’s potential reach over public policy. So, under these plans would a GoCo model cover the whole equipment programme, including the nuclear deterrent? What is the time scale for the implementation of a GoCo? That will enable us to judge when efficiencies may begin to accrue.
One of the biggest uncertainties around GoCo has to do with the ownership of risk and whether contractors could generate private profit while financial risk remained in public hands. For example, can the Secretary of State say whether liability for the £468 million cost overrun noted in the National Audit Office’s “Major Projects Report 2012” would have rested with the taxpayer or the GoCo, had it been established?
On the single source regulations office, we welcome the proposal in principle and will examine it closely. It is essential to drive down cost where possible in single sourcing, as the Secretary of State said. Will he say a little more about who would appoint the members, and whether regulations would be subject to the one-in, one-out rule?
In conclusion, we will support what we hope is a genuine competition. We will scrutinise the processes carefully, because efficient and effective defence procurement is essential, not just for the Ministry of Defence bottom line, but for the remarkable men and women of our armed forces, whom we place in harm’s way to serve on the front line.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of this announcement. Of course I completely accept that the Opposition’s willingness to look at the issues with an open mind is not the same as an uncritical endorsement of the GoCo concept, and just in case I did not make this clear in my opening remarks, we have not yet accepted the GoCo concept as the chosen outcome; we are conducting an assessment. However, I think we agree across the House—Opposition Members who have, in office, experienced the challenge of trying to make the defence budget add up will certainly agree—on the need for change. The intentions are very clear.
The process that we are talking about was kicked off by the Gray report, published in 2009. I note that the then Secretary of State has strongly endorsed the GoCo model, which he feels is the way forward. We are examining the case for GoCo against the baseline of DE&S+. We have two separate teams, working with Chinese walls between them, that are equally resourced. One is trying to build the maximum fully-public-sector case that it can, taking advantage of all freedoms and flexibilities available. The other is working with potential GoCo bidders to look at the value that they can deliver. At the end of the process, we will make a comparison.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the cost drivers from past scope creep. One of the clear advantages of changing the way that DE&S works is creating a harder boundary between the customer and the company supplying the requirements, making it less easy for scope to creep without a proper change process and proper recognition of the costs involved. He asked me whether the baseline would be re-costed. We do not anticipate a re-costing of the programme baseline. If we go down the GoCo route, we will negotiate with GoCo bidders for an incentivised fee structure, based on the existing costed programme. He will know that an independent cost advisory service sits alongside DE&S, and will play a continuing role in independently assessing the costs of projects and the appropriate level of risk to be attached to them.
Unsurprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about staffing levels in a post-GoCo DE&S, if GoCo is the selected solution. The staffing transfer would be made under the TUPE regulations. We anticipate about 8,000 of DE&S’s projected 14,500 2015 staff numbers transferring to the new entity, with the remainder—in naval dockyards, logistics, communications, and information services—remaining in other parts of Government, or being outsourced.
There is no reason to suppose that the GoCo route is more likely to deliver further staffing reductions than any other route. Clearly, the new management team, whether it is a GoCo or DE&S+, will seek to run the business efficiently, and to use the freedoms and flexibilities available to it to deliver outputs as effectively as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the ratio of military to civilian personnel in DE&S. At present about 25% of the personnel in DE&S are military. We expect the military role, which will be performed by secondees in the future, to focus on providing specifically military advice to the DE&S organisation, rather than filling line management and project management roles, so I do not expect the military proportion of staff to increase, and it may decrease under a future model.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question, the motivation for which I entirely understand, about senior officials. Nobody wants to see such exercises becoming a gilded exit route for senior officials, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that the Chief of Defence Matériel, the most senior official in DE&S, will transfer to the MOD side—the customer side—of the equation and will be responsible for designing and managing the customer side. I cannot, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, give him an absolute assurance that other officials in the Department, should they choose to leave the Department, would not at some point in the future be able to join a GoCo, but of course there are rules and restrictions in place—a Cabinet Office regime which has been reinforced following revelations in The Sunday Times last year—and we will make sure that nobody is able to abuse this process.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the GoCo would cover the nuclear deterrent. It will certainly cover the procurement of Vanguard replacement submarines. The management of our nuclear warheads is carried out by the Atomic Weapons Establishment, itself already a GoCo. We have not yet finally decided whether the new GoCo, if there is one, will be responsible for managing the MOD’s relationship with AWE or whether that will be managed directly. That will be one of the issues dealt with in negotiation with potential GoCo bidders.
On timescale, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we expect to reach a decision in the summer of next year, with a view to the new arrangements, whether GoCo or DE&S, being stood up before the end of 2014.
Finally, I turn to the question of risk ownership. This is an important point which has been somewhat misunderstood by some commentators. Clearly, it would be very attractive to think that we could transfer the programme risk in the defence equipment programme—£160 billion of it—to somebody in the private sector, but the reality is that there is nobody who has a balance sheet big enough, probably anywhere in the world, and the taxpayer would not be prepared to accept the price for taking on that risk, so the risk ownership in the programme will remain with the Government and the taxpayer. What the private sector partner will be at risk for is his fee, which will be structured in such a way as to incentivise the delivery of the key performance indicators that will be agreed with the partner during the negotiation process. That will be designed to align the GoCo partner’s incentives with the interests and priorities of the Department. That is where a great deal of our time and energy is being invested at present.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with key allies, notably the United States and France, about this proposal and what has been their response?
Mr Hammond
I thank my right hon. Friend for a very important question. We have had discussions with key allies, notably the United States and France. The United States, contrary to some media reporting, is relaxed about this process. It recognises that there will be some technical issues that we need to resolve, but I am glad to be able to tell him that the Chief of Defence Matériel received this morning, by coincidence, a letter from his counterpart, the Under-Secretary for defence procurement, in the Pentagon confirming that the United States is confident that it will be possible to make these arrangements work. We have set up a joint working group to work through the issues that will need to be addressed before a decision is made.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
What powers will Defence Ministers and Select Committees have to intervene and examine contracts, negotiations and procurements if the GoCo goes ahead? What powers of oversight will Parliament retain?
Mr Hammond
As I said earlier, the procurement contracts will still be entered into in the name of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and Ministers will remain accountable to Parliament and to the Select Committee. The permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence will remain accountable to the Public Accounts Committee, and access to and scrutiny and oversight of those contracts will be exactly the same as they are now.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will the proposed GoCo have the power to negotiate independently of the Ministry of Defence to try to get a really good deal out of a foreign defence contractor in, for example, the United States?
Mr Hammond
If doing so was within the remit given it by the Secretary of State, it would have that power. I need to be very clear about this. The point of hiring a commercial partner is to deploy its commercial expertise. There is no point hiring it and then constraining it so tightly that we do not get any benefit from it. On the other hand, it will be very clear, and I am very clear, that it will always operate within the framework of strategic direction that has been given by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will retain a power to intervene and specifically direct it on a specific point within its management of a programme if necessary.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Will he clarify that should one go down the GoCo route he has no objection in principle to the winner of a GoCo contract, should that be the preferred outcome, being headquartered in the United States, Europe or further afield?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman and the House might be interested to know that of the 21 expressions of interest that we have received in response to the issue of the pre-qualification questionnaire, a third have been UK-headquartered companies, but it is likely that the winner of a competition for a GoCo will be a consortium and it is highly likely that some members of that consortium will be non-UK companies. In fact, to be frank, it is highly likely that it will include US-headquartered companies, but the entity with which we contract will be UK-registered and domiciled, and will pay its tax in the UK.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I congratulate the ministerial team on its progress on this important matter. DE&S covers Her Majesty’s Navy bases. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that his announcement today will not affect the proposal to transfer them to the Royal Navy?
Mr Hammond
I can assure my hon. Friend that the plan to transfer the Royal Navy dockyards out of DE&S, along with the plan to transfer the logistics and commodities supply service out of DE&S to an outsource contractor, will continue on track. That is why there is a gap between the projected 2015 total numbers of DE&S on a steady state basis, and the 8,000 that we are expecting to transfer under a TUPE transfer if we go down this route.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
How much does the Secretary of State think that the new arrangement will save each year? Will those savings be used to buy additional equipment for our armed forces, or simply returned to the Treasury, leaving our servicemen with less?
Mr Hammond
The latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is clearly one that I cannot answer on a unilateral basis, but I suspect that, in the way that generally happens, there is a potential win-win situation here—a win for the taxpayer in terms of lower public expenditure and a win for the armed forces in terms of greater capabilities being able to be purchased. I think I included these figures in my statement, but the independent estimates are that somewhere between £1.3 billion and £2.2 billion of frictional costs generated by inefficiencies in the procurement system are incurred every year. It would be a very rash man who suggested that we can squeeze out every last pound of those, but I would expect us to be able to achieve net gains after taking account of the cost of the arrangements—the GoCo fee and the cost of the governance function on the MOD side—in the hundreds of millions of pounds.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s thoughtful statement. Will he confirm not only that Aldermaston is a GoCo, but that in fact most of the American nuclear programme has historically been run by university-led GoCos? I urge him to look carefully at the issue of military project managers and at the experience from abroad. In land systems, in particular, we can end up with a project manager and an expensive military adviser, rather than one uniformed officer driving it forward. It is worth looking at the Swedish experience, for example, which is of a very effective and tight ship with mostly military project managers.
Mr Hammond
I hear my hon. Friend’s point but, to be blunt, I think that we have to be realistic about this and acknowledge that military personnel are not necessarily trained to be best equipped to deal with world-class industrial project managers employed on eye-wateringly large salaries by the defence contractors we have to negotiate with. It is to try to allow DE&S to engage with those multinational corporations and world-class project managers on a level playing field that we are considering these changes. There will be a role for the military in this organisation, but it will not generally be as lead project mangers.
On my hon. Friend’s other point, I am grateful to him for drawing the House’s attention to the fact that the majority of the US nuclear programme is in the hands of non-public sector organisations—federally funded research and development corporations—which look very much like GoCos.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The strategic defence and security review in October 2010 resulted in a four-year delay to the in-service date for the Vanguard class replacement submarines. It was by no means the first project that has been shifted to the right with increased costs, but it caused particular disappointment because it was done by an Administration who, when in opposition, criticised the former Administration for doing similar things. If a GoCo is in place when such decisions are considered in future, on submarines or anything else, will it be taken out of Ministers’ hands?
Mr Hammond
As I have already said, Ministers will retain the ability to provide strategic direction. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will take no lectures from the Opposition on shifting projects to the right at huge cost, because the previous Government shifted the carrier project two years to the right at a cost of £1.6 billion. What was actually done in 2010, in relation to the submarine enterprise, was a reconfiguration of the programme between the Astute class submarines and work on the Vanguard class replacement submarines, which resulted in a delay to the introduction into service of the Vanguard class, but within the overall constraint that we have in this country of needing to sustain a submarine yard at Barrow, and the minimum level at which we can sustain a submarine yard is building one submarine at a time. However we configure them—Vanguard class first or Astute class first—we have to provide that work flow if we are to keep that sovereign capability. That is the kind of single-source procurement that we are targeting in the announcement I made today on the single-source procurement rules.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I commend the Secretary of State for getting to grips with defence procurement, which is long overdue, but does he recognise that there is nervousness in some quarters about the complexity of the emerging process, which will involve the MOD, the armed forces, NATO, the private supplier, the GoCo and the independent cost advisory service? Can he give the House any reassurance that new inefficiencies will not creep into the system as a result of that complexity?
Mr Hammond
I will be very frank with the hon. Gentleman: one of the things I have learnt over the past three years is that new inefficiencies creep in all the time if one is not continually vigilant. That, incidentally, is why, however much one thinks one has squeezed out all the inefficiencies, when one goes back around the loop and looks again one finds more that were not noticed the last time or that have crept in since. He is absolutely right to say that it is a complex enterprise, but within the overall portfolio of defence transformation—we are carrying out many hugely complex projects simultaneously —it is just one of many, and I am confident that we can manage it.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the interests of national security and the safety of our armed forces, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude, as well as value for taxpayers’ money, will be at the heart of the changes in defence procurement? Will he also assure us that all essential defence equipment will be made available to our front-line forces in the defence of the nation?
Mr Hammond
I can of course give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are trying to do two things: to ensure that the £160 billion defence equipment and support programme is delivered effectively to our armed forces and that it is delivered efficiently and in a value-for-money way to the taxpayer. In the end, this allows us better, more reliably and more sustainably to support our armed forces while ensuring that this is done in an appropriate way during a period of public financial austerity.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I was a fan of Mr Bernard Gray’s report in 2009 when I was shadow defence procurement Minister, but I was a bit nervous about his proposals for a GoCo, so I welcome my right hon. Friend’s caution; he has taken the right attitude. Will he set out the mechanism by which he hopes to be able to maintain the crucial industrial capabilities that this nation needs, because that is an extremely important part of his statement? Will he also set out how the new proposals might avoid the mistakes of the £800 million cost overrun on the disastrous Nimrod programme?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows me and he knows that I am a cautious person. This is a big and complicated project, and we are approaching it carefully. We are weighing up the options and taking the appropriate length of time to make the decisions, and I am confident that they will deliver the result that we require. He asks about our national sovereign capabilities. We have set out our approach to the defence industry in the White Paper “National Security Through Technology”. We have also set out today, in this White Paper, the proposed changes to single-source pricing regulation and how we expect to drive greater efficiency into the single-source part of the defence industry that delivers about half our requirements. Only by making those in that sector focus on reducing costs, which they currently have very little incentive to do, will we make them not only efficient providers to us but efficient and competitive players in the international defence export market. That is in the interests of the industry, the UK’s armed forces and UK plc.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State referred to the freedom to recruit and reward staff with market rates as, I think, a “critical” freedom in the potential move to a GoCo. In that phased transfer, would any increased remuneration in bonus packages still come from the MOD baseline?
Mr Hammond
That depends. We would expect a GoCo contractor to inject a certain number of senior staff who would be part of its package and who would be remunerated through its incentivised fee. Within the overall DE&S work force, getting the right skills in the right places will be part of the task for the management contractor. In some cases, that will mean recruiting at market rates, because at the moment we are haemorrhaging talent. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), has just given me an example where we had nine applicants for 70 commercial posts that have recently been advertised. We have to address the haemorrhage of talent from DE&S by offering market rates if we are to support our armed forces as we need to.
Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will understand how pleased I am that he has announced the implementation of the major elements of the report that I commissioned from Lord Currie on single-source pricing regulations—a highly technical but really important subject. On DE&S, does he share my concern that there may be forces even in his own Department, and certainly elsewhere in Government, that may wish to frustrate the progress towards a GoCo? May I encourage him to reassure me that he will work enthusiastically and energetically, notwithstanding his caution, to overcome unreasonable, opportunistic or bureaucratic obstacles put in his way on the path to a GoCo?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and happy to acknowledge the crucial part that he has played in the process that has led us to this announcement. I can safely say that yes, there will always be forces that resist any change that I look to make. We have to carry the case by making the argument, building it during the assessment phase and then presenting the value-for money case for the Go-Co against the DE&S+ benchmark comparator. I am absolutely clear that we have to make that case: there is no pre-judgment that a GoCo is the route we will follow. We have to prove that it provides value for money, and do so to some of the institutionally most sceptical forces—no names, no pack drill—in Government.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State noticed the extraordinarily high number of former Ministers, civil servants, admirals and generals who awarded contracts to companies when in office and then ended up working for the self same companies in retirement? Would not it be a good idea to ban these senior people from working in companies to which they have awarded contracts, in order to ensure that contracts are awarded in office on the basis of the needs of the public purse and not on people’s hopes to gain a hacienda in Spain from their retirement earnings?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is being a little harsh: most if not all of the elected and appointed people with whom I have come into contact do their very best to deliver in the public interest. We have a rigorous set of rules in place to deal with the cross-boundary issues between the public and private sectors. We must never get into a situation where we prevent or discourage all transfer between the public and private sectors. That would be a disaster. We need that flow of lifeblood between the two, but we need it to be done properly: it has to be properly regulated and transparent.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, when The Sunday Times published revelations last year about people who had gone from senior military roles into defence industries, I asked the same question as he has and the advice I received was that it would not be lawful to issue an unlimited ban preventing people from taking up one career once they had left another.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
For decades, much of the defence budget has been spent in the interests of defence contractors: by constraining the range of suppliers, the seller gets to set the terms of trade. How will these reforms ensure more choice and competition in defence procurement?
Mr Hammond
I am sorry to say that where there is a single supplier or a national security reason for our having to procure in the UK, we cannot magic up a competitive marketplace. What we can do in such circumstances is control the pricing of those contracts. At the moment, under the current regime, profit is clearly controlled but costs are not, and there is no incentive for contractors to control and manage their costs. What we are proposing is a regime where, as now, profit is controlled but where there are clear financial incentives for contractors to control their costs and get them down. By working in this way—by aligning the interests of defence with those of the contractors—we will drive out cost and increase the amount of deliverable military capability to our armed forces.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
What implications will this announcement have on complex weapons systems and in particular on establishments such as Defence Munitions Beith in my own constituency, which houses and services such weapons systems?
Mr Hammond
In terms of our procurement of weapons systems and of contractor support for weapons systems, the DE&S will work as the agent of the Secretary of State. I am not sure that I can put my finger on the precise function of the establishment mentioned by the hon. Lady, but we have a separate programme to outsource some of the defence logistics and commodity procurement activities, which I mentioned earlier. None of theses plans will be changed by whether DE&S is run in future as a GoCo or as a fully public sector DE&S+ model.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Several thousands of my constituents are employed at BAE Systems in Warton, which is involved in advanced manufacturing of military aircraft. What benefits are they likely to see as a result of today’s announcement?
Mr Hammond
They will see benefits at two levels and a healthier BAES as a result of this announcement. First, large defence contractors, perhaps counter-intuitively, do not relish the lack of a capable interlocutor in their trading partners. They would welcome our beefing up our capability and having higher-skilled, better-paid project managers on our side of the table, because that would drive genuine efficiencies into the process. At that level, we know that the companies will welcome this announcement. Secondly, on single-source procurement, I am confident that over time by incentivising cost-efficiency we will increase the exportability of British defence products, which are an incredibly important part of our high-tech manufacturing industries and help us to sustain jobs at the very top of the curve.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
These are early days and final decisions are yet to be made, but what indication can the Secretary of State give about the impact of this announcement on jobs at MOD Abbey Wood? Will he ensure that suitable provisions are in place for the employees who may be affected?
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend knows, the TUPE transfer of an enterprise does not imply any reduction in job numbers at the outset. It is true that a private sector partner taking on a work force of this nature will, over time, look to reconfigure the shape of the work force to make the business as efficient as possible. However, it will have to do that within the constraints of the TUPE regulations, normal employment law and the arrangements that are in place for negotiation with the trade unions.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the White Paper, which will be of great interest to the Public Administration Committee because it is conducting an inquiry into procurement across Government, including defence procurement. I remain to be convinced that a GoCo is the right idea. If, as he says, the objective is to be able to recruit and reward staff at market rates, why can we not legislate to do that in the Ministry of Defence, instead of contracting it out? After all, is not the acquisition of defence matériel and equipment a core function of the Ministry of Defence? We must have those skills in-house, because we cannot expect to manage them in some arm’s length contractor.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend says that he remains to be convinced; I am glad to confirm that I remain to be convinced. It is exactly the point of the assessment phase to convince us collectively that this is the right way to go. This proposal is about being able to employ staff at market rates, but that is only a small part of the total challenge. There are many other cultural and behavioural changes that need to be delivered to make it work. He is right that defence procurement is a core function. That is why we will maintain a competent customer function in the MOD, led by the Chief of Defence Matériel and supported by an external private sector consultant to build the intelligent customer function, to ensure that we are in a robust position to manage the GoCo contractor, if that is the route that we choose, not just now but through future evolutions of the GoCo and future appointments of GoCo contractors.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the grip that he has on his Department’s budget. Clearly, the first priority of defence procurement is value for money for the taxpayer, but does the procurement system also take into account the export potential of UK-based companies when making its assessments?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Export potential is an important consideration and one of the Department’s stated priorities. As I have said, I believe that what we are doing, particularly with regard to the single-source procurement regulations, will drive export competitiveness into defence contractors. If a GoCo is appointed, one of its required tasks will be the support of UK defence exports, which is a UKTI lead.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
What implications, if any, will these long overdue reforms have for small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency that are already employed in the defence procurement supply chain?
Mr Hammond
We have an active policy of encouraging the engagement of SMEs in the defence supply chain and it includes many thousands of SMEs. The single-source pricing regulations will apply throughout the supply chain, but will have a price threshold. We expect almost all SMEs not to be directly affected because their level of transactions with the MOD will fall below the price threshold. The threshold is yet to be determined, but it is likely to be about £5 million.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the excellent Secretary of State for coming to the House and making this statement. One problem that I have seen with defence procurement is not the way in which equipment has been procured, but the decision by the Ministry of Defence at the beginning of the process to have something more than the standard package. There was the nonsense with the Chinook aircraft, which were bought but never flew because the Department wanted to add to them. Will there be more emphasis on buying standard packages?
Mr Hammond
That depends on what we are buying. Clearly, there are things that we can buy off the shelf or from competitive international providers. We recently ordered the new fleet of MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—refuelling tankers from a South Korean shipyard. That decision did not go down well with everybody, but it was sensible procurement. At the same time, we have to maintain important capabilities that are essential to our national sovereignty here in the UK. In those cases, we have to support the indigenous industry. One purpose of the changes is to make transparent the costs that are driven into a project by the specification of bespoke requirements and to force the customers to recognise those costs.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the statement, but will the Secretary of State say more about the timescale over which he expects the reforms to deliver tangible savings to the taxpayer?
Mr Hammond
As I said to the shadow Secretary of State, if we went down this route, we would expect to award a contract next year and for it to be effective by the last quarter of 2014. We would then expect there to be a two-stage process towards the full GoCo-isation—if I may use that term—of DE&S. We would expect savings and efficiencies to be generated from the very beginning, and from the second year of operation we would expect there to be cashable benefits.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Were he to save the full £1.3 billion to £2.2 billion of waste that he has identified, he would be able to buy an extra one or two Type 45 destroyers a year and to start to rebuild the Royal Navy back to its proper size. Will he confirm that this is the biggest waste black hole in the MOD budget and that no other hole in the budget has a bigger annual cost?
Mr Hammond
It is certainly our assessment that the frictional costs of inefficiencies within defence procurement are the biggest single challenge that we face and our biggest single opportunity. I was at Portsmouth the week before last and talked to the commander of the dockyard. He told me that once the Queen Elizabeth carriers are berthed there, he will be making provision for some 200,000 tonnes of fighting ships to be tied up in the harbour. That will be largest tonnage that he or his predecessors have had to make provision for since the 1960s.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I understood from my right hon. Friend’s thoughtful statement that the organisational merits underpinning the GoCo would be cultural change and skills enhancements to deliver efficiencies. Will he tell the House in more detail what missing skills he hopes to attract? Will he also reassure us by saying what steps he will take in the incentives scheme for the management company of the GoCo to avoid the perverse incentives that led to so many financial messes in public-private contracting under the last Government?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right in setting out the changes that are required. One he did not mention, but which is important, is creating a hard boundary between the customer and the provider organisation. At the moment, responsibilities across that boundary are not as clear cut as they should be, and that allows specification scope to drift on occasions. Let me give him a couple of examples. We currently spend in DE&S £400 million a year on external technical support because we cannot hire the people we need. Being unable to hire somebody at £50,000 a year means that we are paying a contractor £1,000 a day to do the work. We expect the GoCo contractor, if we go down that route, to make substantial early savings by hiring key technical capabilities into the organisation, rather than by bringing them in as technical contractors. He is absolutely right about perverse incentives. Our big challenge now in the assessment phase is to negotiate a set of key performance indicators and incentive payment structures that align a GoCo contractor with the priorities of the Ministry of Defence.
Points of Order
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter that is of concern to the whole House. On Friday, an e-mail was sent to all MPs by the chief executive officer of Enterprise Inns, Mr Ted Tuppen. He opposes plans, announced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, to introduce the statutory code of practice. In the e-mail, he included something entirely false: he claimed that living accommodation is free to its lessees when in reality, as he knows, a tribunal ruled last year that his company has been invoicing separate amounts for residential accommodation for 20 years in the proportion of 90% commercial, 10% residential. Mr Tuppen has history: in 2008-09, he misled the Business and Enterprise Committee. How do we deal with false and misleading information that is sent to all MPs in an attempt to block legislation?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have certainly got the message. It is not a point of order, but it is on the record so that everybody can be aware of it. Everybody received the e-mail. As somebody who was a member of the Select Committee at that time, I am well aware of the particular individual. Ultimately, it is not a point for the Chair, but at least others can pick up on it.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) to have received advance notice of the Defence Secretary’s statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is up to the Government, and the hon. Member for Moray represents his party. If the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) were to do the audit trail, he will find that that is where it has come from.
Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In three years, the Government have made significant strides in cutting crime and reforming the police. Since 2010, crime has fallen by more than 10%. This is in no small measure down to the professionalism and dedication of police officers and police staff working day in, day out to keep our neighbourhoods safe. The reduction in crime has been achieved against the backdrop of a difficult financial climate for the police, as for other public services. We have taken the decisions necessary to restore this country’s long-term economic well-being. We have been able to mitigate the impact of diminished resources because we have allowed officers to focus on their core task of cutting crime. We have thrown off the straitjacket of national targets and freed up the front line from pointless form-filling and needless bureaucracy. Through the introduction of police and crime commissioners, we have revolutionised the accountability of police forces, and they are now far more responsive to local needs and priorities.
In the last Session, we legislated to set up the National Crime Agency which will, from the autumn, lead the fight against serious, organised and complex crime. The College of Policing is already firmly established and is leading the way in ensuring that the police operate to the highest professional standards. We are giving the Independent Police Complaints Commission the capacity it needs to investigate all serious allegations of misconduct. We cannot, however, afford to ease up on our reform programme. We cannot rest while the crime survey shows that there were 8.9 million crimes against adults last year. We cannot rest while businesses were the victims of more than 9 million crimes, or rest when the police recorded approximately 2.3 million incidents of antisocial behaviour, with many more going unreported.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I, and the Home Affairs Committee, support what the right hon. Lady is doing on the new landscape of policing. She listed a number of the organisations and described how they would fit into the new landscape. Has she made a decision on whether counter-terrorism is to remain with the Metropolitan police, or will it be placed with the new National Crime Agency?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his early remarks, and for the work of the Home Affairs Committee in its consideration of the Bill. We value its work. The answer to his question is no. It is still a matter for decision. I was clear, at an early stage, that it would not be right to make a decision on where counter-terrorism should sit before the Olympics or before the National Crime Agency was properly up and running. The legislation has now passed and we are working towards the formal and final launch of the NCA later this year.
The Bill marks the next stage of our reform programme to deal with the challenges we face.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend moves on, will she take this opportunity to congratulate the retiring chief constable of Bedfordshire, Alfred Hitchcock, who manages one of the smallest forces in the country? Crime rates are down, detection rates are up and our budget has been reduced in line with Government expectations. As he rightly said:
“instead of an 82-page business plan we have a card that explains what we do and why.”
Mrs May
I am grateful—[Interruption.] I suspect there might be one or two more sedentary interventions; it was an interesting moment when I was told that Alfred Hitchcock was in my office at the Home Office waiting to see me. I congratulate retiring Chief Constable Alf Hitchcock on the work he has done in Bedfordshire. I congratulate all police staff who work in Bedfordshire on the impact of their work in ensuring that crime has gone down. We now see a much clearer focus for members of the public on what the police are doing and how they are delivering for my hon. Friend’s constituents and others.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I cannot top Alfred Hitchcock, but will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating another eminent campaigner who has welcomed many aspects of the Bill that relate to dog law reform—Mr Dave Joyce of the Communication Workers Union? However, does she share his frustration that it has taken three years since the consultation closed in May 2010? In that time, 9,000 of his postal worker colleagues have been attacked by dogs. When will we see the measures in the Bill implemented?
Mrs May
I note the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I also note the efforts of the CWU on this matter. Sadly, in recent years we have seen a number of serious injuries from dogs, not just to postal workers but to other individuals. That is why I am pleased that the Bill contains measures on dangerous dogs. The first stage is for the Bill to be supported in its progress through this House and the other place.
Parts 1 to 5 will ensure that the police, local authorities and others have a comprehensive set of fast, flexible and responsive powers to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour. We should not forget that much of what is labelled antisocial behaviour is in fact crime. Even low-level public order offences or criminal damage can be frightening and upsetting for victims, and can blight the appearance of a neighbourhood. If left unchecked, the cumulative impact of even a small number of repeat instances can have devastating consequences.
I would be the first to accept that legislation by and of itself is not the answer to antisocial behaviour. What is needed is for the police, councils, landlords and other agencies to work effectively together to address local problems before they get out of hand. In many cases, informal, non-statutory remedies can be used to nip a problem in the bud. There is clearly a need, however, for more formal powers. They need to be fit for purpose, quick and easy to use, effective at changing behaviours and capable of addressing the full spectrum of problems that can afflict communities. That does not describe the powers available under Labour’s legislation.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain that this is the first opportunity the House has had seriously to consider revising the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was good legislation but has required some revision? For what reason have her Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs drawn back from the full consolidation of the legislation, as possibly initially considered?
Mrs May
Many comments are made about the dangerous dogs legislation and its impact. It is right that we have looked simply at the area where we feel that more legislation is required. This is already a lengthy Bill covering several issues. Rather than trying to consolidate the existing legislation in this Bill, the important issue is filling in the gaps by addressing the powers that still need to be available to people.
The previous antisocial behaviour legislation provided a veritable alphabet soup of powers: the ASBI—antisocial behaviour injunction; the DBO—drinking banning order; the ISO—individual support orders; the DPPO—designated public places order; and of course the ASBO and many more. I am sure that each of the nine major pieces of antisocial behaviour law passed by the previous Administration was enacted with the best of intentions, but that piecemeal approach, with each new Bill responding to the latest manifestation of antisocial behaviour, has left practitioners with 19 separate powers. The result has been not effectiveness but confusion about which of those powers should and could be used in any particular case.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I think that the Home Secretary has started to make this point already, but does she agree that what victims of antisocial behaviour want is not a complicated smorgasbord of options open to agencies, but a quick and effective remedy that can make real changes in their local area, which is exactly what the Bill will give us?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I will come on to explain the various new powers in the Bill, the whole point of which is to provide a remedy that is effective, easier and quicker, enabling us to remedy the problems of antisocial behaviour from which too many of our constituents suffer.
The Bill sweeps away the existing powers and replaces them with a streamlined, flexible framework: just six powers that will equip practitioners with the tools they need to keep their communities safe. The criminal behaviour order and the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance will stop antisocial behaviour by individuals and address the underlying causes of their actions. The dispersal power will enable the police to move on groups or individuals causing problems at particular locations. The community protection notice, the public spaces protection order and the new closure power will deal with environmental problems or disorderly conduct at particular localities or premises.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The right hon. Lady is indeed indulging me with her generosity. How will she seek to balance the public spaces protection order against the legitimate interest of users of public spaces and rights of way, including the Ramblers Association, which, for understandable reasons, is concerned that it could lead to the blocking off of areas that people have sought access to, legitimately, for many years?
Mrs May
I do not see that being a problem as a result either of the public spaces protection order when dealing with environmental problems in public spaces or of the collection of orders when dealing with people who behave inappropriately in public spaces. This is about ensuring that public spaces are available to people; that they feel able to use those public spaces; and that antisocial behaviour or environmental problems do not prevent it.
Part 5 will strengthen the powers of landlords to evict individuals who blight the lives of their neighbours. These provisions have had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee—as I said earlier, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and his colleagues for their thorough examination of the draft Bill. The evidence they heard reinforces our view that the existing powers are often slow, difficult to deploy and in need of rationalisation. There are those in the Opposition who seek to characterise the provisions in the Bill as a weakening of the powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. Perhaps that is from a sense of parental loyalty to the ASBO, but it is certainly not the result of credible analysis of the reforms we propose.
On examination, it can be seen that in recent years there has been a significant decline in the use of the ASBO. That is essentially because it can take months to secure an order and because, once obtained, over half of all orders are breached. For some, the ASBO became a badge of honour rather than an instrument for changing behaviour, which does not suggest it was an unalloyed success. In contrast, the criminal behaviour order and the new injunction may contain, as well as restrictions, positive requirements to address offending behaviour. As a purely civil order, a part 1 injunction may be granted by a court on the basis of evidence judged to the civil standard of proof, thereby significantly speeding up and simplifying the application process.
Moreover, in the event that either the order or the injunction is breached, both will attract tough penalties—up to and including a custodial sentence. Far from weakening the current powers, we are replacing them with powers that will be speedier to obtain, have a wider reach and, crucially, be more effective in addressing the underlying problems.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Home Secretary is right that ASBOs did not have the desired effect, but I am concerned about clause 17 on naming and shaming children and young people involved in such behaviour. Will she confirm that the Government’s intention is that young people should be named—in breach of the normal principles—only where absolutely necessary and that it will not become a routine step?
Mrs May
We think it is right that the power should be available, but of course we would expect it to be used proportionately. We would expect the courts to adopt such an approach.
Part 6 provides for the community remedy and community trigger, which will put victims at the heart of the response to low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. The community remedy will give victims a powerful voice in determining the appropriate punishment to be attached to an out-of-court disposal. The community trigger will ensure an effective power to compel local agencies to review their response to repeated instances of antisocial behaviour. The public have a right to expect an appropriate and proportionate response to each reported incident.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the areas where the community trigger was piloted there were 44,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour, but that the trigger was successfully activated only 13 times? Does she regard that as a success for the pilots?
Mrs May
The whole point about our approach is that we expect the police and other relevant agencies to act when an instance of antisocial behaviour is reported to them. As I am sure hon. Members across the House will have experienced, all too often several instances will be reported without any action appearing to be taken. The community trigger will ensure that a community can get a response. I would hope and expect that the community trigger was not necessary in many instances, because the police and other agencies had reacted to the first report, rather than waiting for several.
Yvette Cooper
If the Home Secretary is right that the trigger will guarantee a more rapid response, why does the Bill say it will happen only when there have been at least three complaints, which means that there could be five, 10 or as many as the local police and crime commissioner and council decide?
Mrs May
The reason is simple: the Government believe in local discretion in some areas. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition over the ability of local areas and police and crime commissioners to be involved in determining what is right for their circumstances and local area. As the right hon. Lady says, we have put a figure in the Bill to indicate when we think a trigger would be appropriate, but it would then be down to the local area to determine. For some time, the Opposition have been saying that the fact that there have not been many instances of community triggers is somehow a failure. Actually, we want antisocial behaviour dealt with on the first report, rather than people waiting and feeling that they have to use the community trigger.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that in some instances severe antisocial behaviour leads almost to a fear of reporting incidents, and will she therefore welcome the idea that councillors, MPs and third parties may implement the trigger under those circumstances?
Mrs May
I understand the point my hon. Friend is making. The point about the community trigger is that it is not just about the individual on the receiving end of antisocial behaviour. It is called the community trigger precisely because others in the community may be able to exercise it, as opposed to the individual who has been subjected to such behaviour.
Where local agencies respond effectively, few victims would need to resort to using the trigger, so it was not surprising that the recent pilots showed relatively few people taking advantage of it. When agencies fail to act, it should be possible for persistent antisocial behaviour to be dealt with and for a response to be required from the relevant agencies. That is real empowerment for victims and contrasts with the Labour party’s proposal of a 24-hour guarantee, which in practice may amount to no more than an e-mail acknowledging a complaint. The arrival of an e-mail telling someone that their complaint has been logged is of little comfort, and still less use to anyone suffering from a failure to do anything about the antisocial behaviour that is blighting their lives.
For many, owning a dog will be a source of companionship and, in the case of working dogs, valued support and assistance. However, where owners do not take responsibility for their dogs—by failing to clear up after them or to ensure they are properly trained and socialised—those dogs can become a menace, spoiling local amenities and putting people at risk of harm. The Bill tackles irresponsible dog owners in two ways. First, it strengthens the provisions in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, to which hon. Members have referred. In particular, we are extending the offence of having a dog that is dangerously out of control in a public place to cover all places. That will mean that the police can take action when a person is attacked by a dog in the home. The Bill also provides that an attack on an assistance dog is an aggravated offence under the 1991 Act.
Secondly, through the new flexible powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, the police and local authorities will be able to take preventive measures to tackle specific local issues. My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), as well as other hon. Members, have argued for a bespoke “dog control notice”, but such an approach would once again lead us down the road of having a plethora of narrowly focused, inflexible powers to deal with particular problems. Although the provisions in parts 1 to 4 of the Bill do not provide for dog control notices in name, they provide for them in substance. For example, it would be open to the police or local council to issue a community protection notice against the owner of an aggressive dog. Such a notice could include a requirement to attend training classes, and keep the dog muzzled and on a lead in a public place. Alternatively, a public spaces protection order could prohibit all dogs from a particular locality, such as a children’s play area. Given the ability to use such powers to target specific dog-related issues, I hope the House will accept that there is simply no need for a separate dog control notice.
Miss McIntosh
When we were in opposition there was a clear understanding that antisocial behaviour orders were not up to the job, as my right hon. Friend has said. So that the House can have a clear understanding, can she explain the difference between dog control notices, which seem to operate so effectively in Scotland, and the notices that form part of this Bill?
Mrs May
What I am trying to explain to the House is that the new orders and powers we are introducing in this legislation will make it possible to take the sort of effective action that can be taken under a dog control notice, albeit without having to introduce something that is specifically called a dog control notice, with limits around that. The flexibility will be there because we are introducing wider powers, but they can be used to address the specific issue of dangerous dogs and their behaviour.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for kindly giving way. I share the sentiment expressed by many Members, including the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that the proposals in the Bill are woefully inadequate. On prevention, can the Home Secretary share with the House why the police do not support the proposals in the Bill?
Mrs May
I do not believe that the proposal to extend the offence of having a dog that is dangerously out of control from public spaces to all places, so that it covers private places as well, or that ensuring that it is possible under the new flexible powers for preventive action to be taken—I have given some examples—is, as the hon. Lady describes, “woefully inadequate”. What we are doing in this Bill is setting out a set of clear, flexible arrangements that can be used to ensure the sort of control of dogs that, I am sure, not just she, but other Members of this House wish to see.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way yet again. My question is about resourcing for such orders. If the control of dogs is simply subsumed into a raft of antisocial behaviour issues, how will she ensure that it has the priority it needs, with 210,000 or more attacks taking place each year?
Mrs May
I realise that the hon. Lady had a very sad case in her constituency in relation to dogs acting in a private place, and there have sadly been a number of other such cases. The Government have responded by introducing this new power, but dealing with the issue will come down to decisions that will be taken at a local level. Decisions will be taken by the police, local authorities and the agencies working together when the problem of a dangerous dog has been identified. The point about these powers is that they are sufficiently flexible to enable people to take a decision about what will work and what action needs to be taken in a particular circumstance. The fact that we have not attached the words “dog control” to the powers in the Bill does not mean that they will not be there. I believe they will be.
Part 8 targets the middlemen responsible for supplying illegal firearms to street gangs and organised crime groups. Thankfully, firearms offences are relatively rare, but the police still recorded more than 5,000 of them in 2012. We need to target those who, through their callous disregard for the lives of others, hire out guns as if they were just another tool. The Bill will accordingly introduce a new offence of possession of a firearm for sale or transfer. That offence, together with the existing offences dealing with illegal importation, exportation and manufacture, will be subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has addressed this issue in the past. Under the arrangements we are introducing in the Bill, those who supply illegal weapons will be dealt with. Morally, they are every bit as culpable as those who pull the trigger, and they should therefore face the same penalties.
Part 9 deals with one of the manifestations of modern-day slavery: forced marriage. This country is a world leader in tackling this horrendous practice, including through the exemplary work of the forced marriage unit and a number of charities working in this field. The introduction of the civil forced marriage protection order has afforded some protection to victims and potential victims, but people who seek to consign their victims to a life of miserable servitude should face the full rigour of the criminal law. The new offences of forced marriage and of breach of a protection order will act as a deterrent and ensure that those found guilty of such practices face fitting punishment.
Alok Sharma
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly important for the wider public—and, indeed, everyone in this House—to understand that there is a clear difference between an arranged marriage, where there is consent on the part of both parties, and a forced marriage, which is wrong on every level? It is absolutely right that the Bill includes proposals to deal with that.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. All of us who talk about this issue should be clear about the difference and careful in the language we use. As he says, there is a real difference between an arranged marriage, where there has been consent, and a forced marriage, where there has not.
Part 10 contains a number of important policing reforms. First, it transfers to the College of Policing key statutory functions that are commensurate with, and appropriate to, its role in setting standards in policing. It will fall to the college to determine such matters as the qualifications for the appointment and promotion of police officers, and to issue codes of practice. In the longer term, we are continuing to explore how best to enshrine the college’s independence in law. This is properly a matter for debate in the context of the Bill, and I have no doubt it will be the subject of further discussion in Committee.
Keith Vaz
I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a second time. Is she as concerned as I am that the cost of a certificate in knowledge of policing will be £1,000? Does she think that will have an impact on her desire, and that of the whole House, to increase diversity in policing?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman has cited a figure concerning the work being done by the College of Policing, but it is for the college to determine what requirements it will put in place for individuals regarding their initial ability to operate as a police officer, and the development they need to undertake as they progress through the ranks and acquire the necessary skills. It will be for the college to look carefully at the balance that will need to be struck to ensure that people can undertake that training and not be put off doing so. I believe that the College of Policing represents an important development in the policing landscape. As well as setting standards for training, development and skills, it will be a body in which best practice can be shared between police forces. That will have an impact on the ability of the police to fight crime.
On police reform, this part of the Bill will further strengthen the capability of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I have already mentioned that we will build up the commission’s capacity by transferring resources from forces’ professional standards departments, but we also need to ensure that the IPCC has the appropriate remit and powers to operate effectively. Critically, the Bill will ensure that the IPCC has oversight of complaints made against those who are contracted to provide front-line services on behalf of the police.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I very much welcome the extension of the IPCC’s powers to include private contractors. That will become increasingly important, but will that increase in powers include an ability to interview such contractors under caution?
Mrs May
I will need to come back to my hon. Friend on that point. I do not think that we go into quite that issue in the Bill. The Bill will give the IPCC the powers, but there will obviously be subsidiary ways of operating in relation to this. I will look into the point for her. That is me standing here at the Front Bench and being honest!
This part of the Bill will also require forces, police and crime commissioners and others to respond promptly and publicly to IPCC recommendations. Also, as recommended by Tom Winsor, we shall replace the existing cumbersome and ineffective police negotiating machinery. The new police remuneration review body will help to ensure that we can deliver pay and conditions that are fair to police officers and to the taxpayer.
We are also building on the role of police and crime commissioners as local victims’ champions by conferring on them new powers to commission victims’ services. PCCs are best placed to determine the needs of victims in their communities, and they should be empowered to provide the appropriate support. Finally in this part of the Bill, we will continue the work that we started in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to ensure that counter-terrorism powers protect the public, but that they do so in a fair and proportionate manner. As David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, has reaffirmed, the port and border security powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 are
“an essential tool in the protection of the inhabitants of this country from terrorism”.
Reducing the maximum period of detention from nine to six hours and providing for persons detained at ports to have access to legal advice will ensure that these powers can continue to be exercised proportionately.
We have long needed to make changes to the Extradition Act 2003 in order to make it operate in a fairer and more efficient fashion. Part 11 of the Bill introduces a number of such changes. They are in line with recommendations made in Sir Scott Baker’s independent review of our extradition arrangements and build on the introduction of a forum bar to extradition, which we enacted in the last Session. Among other things, the Bill addresses the current unfairness that can arise from the strict operation of the time limits for serving an appeal against extradition.
The Baker review also confirmed that some of the concerns that have been expressed, including by a number of my hon. Friends, about the proportionality of the European arrest warrant were well founded. As the House will know, this is one of the pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures that we are examining to determine whether it is in the best interests of the British people to continue to be a party to the current arrangements. I hope to make a statement to the House soon about the conclusions of that review and the 2014 decision.
Yvette Cooper
Will the Home Secretary confirm that about 900 suspected foreign criminals were deported under the European arrest warrant last year? Does she not think that quite a good thing?
Mrs May
It is important that we have the powers that we need to deal with criminality. I am on record as saying that we need to see the deportation and extradition of foreign criminals, but it is also right for the Government —and, in due course, this House—to look at whether the current arrangements are appropriate. Concerns have been raised, not only by Members of Parliament but by Sir Scott Baker, about a number of issues relating to the European arrest warrant, and it is absolutely right that the Government should look at them.
Finally, I want to draw the House’s attention to a couple of the provisions in part 12 of the Bill. One way in which we can free up resources is by increasing the number of police-led prosecutions. Having to pass low-level offences to the Crown Prosecution Service wastes police time. The police already deal with more than 500,000 cases a year in which people plead guilty. Under the provisions in this part, up to a further 50,000 prosecutions for low-level shoplifting offences will be able to be handled by the police, empowering front-line officers and bringing swifter justice for retailers.
In this part of the Bill, we have also clarified the test for determining eligibility for compensation when someone has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. The absence of a clear statutory definition of what amounts to a miscarriage of justice for these purposes has led to repeated legal challenges and shifting case law. As well as providing greater certainty, the new statutory test will ensure that compensation is paid only to those who are clearly innocent.
Since the day I was appointed Home Secretary, I have had one simple priority for the police: to cut crime. The Bill will help to ensure that the police, working in partnership with others and focusing on the rights of victims and communities, can continue to do precisely that. I commend the Bill to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
We have another parliamentary Session and another Home Office Christmas tree Bill. Last year’s Bill had a bit of crime, a bit of judicial reform, a bit of extradition and a bit of drugs. This year’s has a bit on police standards, a bit on guns and a bit on dogs, but in none of those areas does it go far enough. The Christmas tree decorations cannot hide the fact that the Bill is weak on tackling antisocial behaviour, at a time when the Office for National Statistics shows concern among the public that antisocial behaviour is going up.
There are areas of the Bill that we will support, as well as areas in which we want the Government to go further. We called for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to cover private companies, and we are glad that those provisions are in the Bill. We support the measures relating to the College of Policing, too, although we believe that the Government should go further on police standards. We agree with the Home Affairs Select Committee that new firearms offences are needed for possession of firearms with intent to supply, and we are glad that they are in the Bill.
We agree that forced marriage should never be tolerated. It is a terrible violation and can destroy people’s lives. The law should be strengthened to build on the work done to stop forced marriage, although the Government need to work with experts to get the detail right and also to ensure that cuts to refuges or to legal aid do not undermine the support that victims need in practice.
The central claim for the Bill, as we can see from its title, is that it will tackle antisocial behaviour, and here there are many false promises. Three years ago, the Home Secretary said that she was determined to take action on antisocial behaviour, yet the figures from the Office for National Statistics show that eight out of 10 people say antisocial behaviour is going up, that nearly half say it is going up a lot, and that only one in 10 say it is going down in their area.
So what have the Government done to help? They have cut the community safety funding by nearly two thirds, even though those are the funds that help communities to pay for extra police community support officers, for youth activities, for action against gangs, for extra street lighting and for CCTV. This is the crime prevention investment that helps to save money and police time later on, yet the Government have cut it severely. They have cut it not just by 20% in line with police cuts, or even by 23% in line with the Home Office budget, but by over 60%.
This is all happening at a time when the Government are cutting 15,000 police officers, including more than 7,000 from the most visible units of all. The Home Secretary claimed earlier, in Home Office questions, that a higher proportion of police officers were now on the front line. However, a slightly higher proportion of a much lower number still means fewer police officers, and the proportion who are visible has gone down from 12.3% to 11.8%. The Government are not just cutting police numbers; they are making things harder for them, too.
Alok Sharma
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, but I really wish she would not keep undermining the police force, which is doing a fantastic job. In the Thames valley, we have had crime down and detection rates up year after year. Why can she not just acknowledge that we have police forces that are doing a great job in some difficult circumstances?
Yvette Cooper
Police officers certainly are working extremely hard in very difficult circumstances. Many of them are finding themselves stretched in very different directions. Chief constables are also working immensely hard to keep their area safe and to reduce crime. However, we need to recognise that at the same time as 15,000 police officers are being cut from the force, we are seeing 30,000 fewer crimes being solved and a big increase in the use of community resolutions for serious and violent crimes. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I find that to be a matter of serious concern. It is important to get justice for victims, and that is being put at risk by the Government’s approach.
Dr Huppert
It is always very tempting to offer to spend more money to fix all sorts of problems. Is the right hon. Lady making a commitment that the Labour party would spend a huge amount more money on the police, and where would that cash come from?
Yvette Cooper
We have said very clearly that we would have reduced the policing budget by around 12% rather than 20% over the course of the current spending review. That would not have led to the reduction of 15,000 police officers over the course of this Parliament. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that he promised to increase the number of police officers by 3,000—it was in his party’s manifesto. That is what he called for, and he has done the absolute opposite. Government Members have not only reduced police officers on the street; they are making it more difficult for them to fight crime.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
On that point, when I talk to police officers in Stoke-on-Trent, who are doing a fine job in extremely difficult circumstances because of all the cuts, and not just to their positions—[Interruption.] I wish the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) would stop chuntering while I am trying to ask a question. Police officers already find themselves in difficult circumstances, yet they also tell me that the toolkit of the various powers available to them is being reduced at the same time. How can that help?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Looked at across the board—whether it be what is happening with DNA or CCTV—Government Members are making it harder for the police to do their job.
After the London riots, CCTV helped to secure huge numbers of convictions. We all know from our constituencies of communities and estates that have worked hard to get CCTV and how it has helped to provide security in those areas, cutting down on antisocial behaviour and abuse. Yet the freedom of information requests put in by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) have shown that one in five councils is now cutting CCTV under a Home Secretary who is wrapping CCTV in a whole load of new red tape. There are already safeguards for residents’ privacy, but the Home Secretary wants a whole load of extra checks, rules and administration just to make sure. The impact assessment produced by the Home Office has found that these new regulations will cost the police and councils £14 million to comply with—and it could be as much as £30 million at a time when resources are so stretched. The Home Secretary, who has already wasted £100 million on the November police and crime commissioner elections now wants to waste up to £30 million making it harder, not easier, to get CCTV. The Home Secretary welcomed extra CCTV in her own constituency three years ago; she should stop making it harder for everyone else to get it.
Luciana Berger
Does my right hon. Friend share my pride in the fact that City Watch in Liverpool does such a formidable job with its extensive CCTV network, which is visited by people from not only other cities across the UK, but from across Europe because it is so advanced? It has managed to prosecute people successfully for the crimes that they have committed. Would it not be a shame if other cities and places across the UK could not benefit in the same way as the people of Liverpool have, making ours one of the safest cities in the country?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We have seen the impact in a whole series of areas—as I said, during the London riots, for example. In fact, at the time of the riots, the Prime Minister said of CCTV:
“We are making technology work for us…And as I said yesterday, no phoney human rights concerns about publishing photographs will get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice.”
It would seem, however, that the Home Secretary is tying herself up in exactly those so-called “phoney human rights concerns” that she has pledged to abolish.
This Bill will not make it easier to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are indeed making changes to powers: antisocial behaviour injunctions will be replaced with crime prevention injunctions; public space orders will be replaced with public space protection orders; acceptable behaviour agreements will be replaced with acceptable behaviour contracts; premises closure notices will be replaced by closure notices; and noise abatement notices will be replaced by community protection notices. No set of powers will be perfect, and everyone wants to make sure that the system is as swift and easy to use as possible. The trouble is that the Bill will not achieve that. There is a lot of changing of names and a lot of tinkering at the margins. Some changes may help and make it simpler; others may make it harder while agencies work out how the new processes are supposed to work.
Housing associations, for example, have warned that it will take five years to develop the case law for the new powers to work. The Government’s own figures admit that it will require at least 150,000 hours of police training to use these powers, even though many of them are remarkably similar to the old powers they replaced. The fact is that communities, councils, housing associations, the police and the courts need a wide range of tools to deal with very different problems. The risk for the Home Secretary is that, by trying to squeeze a wide range of problems into a narrow number of powers, she may make it harder to achieve that.
On the one hand, many organisations have written to The Times today to say that they fear this will mean too heavy-handed treatment for the lowest level of antisocial behaviour or nuisance, while on the other hand police officers have raised with me their concern that the powers will not be strong enough to deal with the worst problems. The one-size-fits-all approach has risks.
We need early intervention. We do not want to see young people unnecessarily criminalised or dragged through the courts for low-level problems when it can be sorted out on the spot. We do want to know that persistent, aggressive antisocial behaviour that can terrorise neighbours or residents will be dealt with properly, including by criminal sanctions where needed. Yes, we should have community resolutions and remedies for antisocial behaviour, but they must not be abused.
We know that community resolutions are now being used for serious and violent crimes, including for domestic violence. Last year, community resolutions were used for 33,000 serious and violent crimes, including in 2,500 domestic violence cases, where the Association of Chief Police Officers was clear that they should not be used.
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Lady is talking about the views of the police, so let me quote what ACPO said:
“In broad terms the proposals contained within the draft bill are practical, positive, reasonable and balanced.”
What is there not to like?
Yvette Cooper
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that ACPO, like chief constables across the country, will make the best of the approach put to them, but many practitioners across the country have raised the concern that, with changing case law, it will take some time to be able to use the powers as effectively as the previous powers were used.
The Bill does nothing to make sure that community remedies and resolutions are focused on low-level crime. It does nothing to ensure that proper restorative justice, putting victims at the heart of the process, will be pursued or guaranteed. Instead, it risks creating loopholes to let offenders off because overstretched councils and police have not had the resources to sort the problem out.
Robert Flello
Does it not send a worrying message to the families of the, on average, two women who die every single week as a result of domestic homicide when 2,500 cases of domestic violence will be treated in this way? Does that not somehow suggest that their loved ones do not count? What sort of message does that send?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Community resolutions and the purpose of the restorative justice approach, which can be valuable in dealing with antisocial behaviour, are about getting offenders to say sorry to the victims and make it up to them. Yet that is exactly what we do not want in domestic violence cases. We do not want a police-sanctioned process of the perpetrator somehow apologising and making it up to the victim, who will then be expected to accept and go along with the apology, as if that makes it all right. Community resolutions should not be used for domestic violence cases. It is still a serious matter of concern that they continue to be used, despite ACPO’s guidance to the contrary. This is an area where the Home Office needs to step in and make sure that stronger guidance is sent out to chief constables and police forces across the country to make it very clear that community resolutions should not be used for domestic violence.
There are many cases in which ASBOs are not appropriate, but it must also be said that in some of the most serious examples of repeated abuse, they have made a significant difference. For example, an aggressive thug who had repeatedly intimidated residents and shopkeepers in a town centre, had repeatedly ignored warnings from the police and the courts, and had breached his ASBO was taken to the criminal courts and given a custodial sentence, but under the new system he would only be served with an injunction. The council would have to pursue expensive civil action to enforce the injunction, and there would be no criminal offence.
Nor will the community trigger solve the problem. The Home Secretary has made the grand promise that
“The trigger will give victims and communities the right to demand that agencies who had ignored a problem must take action.”
However, the trigger is not strong enough to help. For a start—as I pointed out to the Home Secretary earlier—although the Bill specifies that there must have been “at least three…complaints”, the number could be far higher. Police and crime commissioners could decide on five, 10 or 20. The Home Secretary said that it would be a matter for local discretion, but that local discretion already exists. If it were simply a matter for local discretion, she would allow people to choose to set up community triggers, and she would not be legislating. Either she thinks that this is a matter for local discretion and it is up to those people to decide, or she thinks that there should be minimum standards, but something as weak and wishy-washy as “at least three…complaints” is not really a minimum standard at all. This is a con. Even if the magic threshold is passed, what are residents entitled to? A review. How reassuring.
In the five areas that have piloted the community trigger, where there have been 44,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour, the trigger has been successfully activated 13 times—in response to not just less than 1% of complaints, not just less than 0.1%, but 0.03%. This measure will not have a big impact on the antisocial behaviour problems that persist in communities throughout the country.
When the Home Secretary made her speech on antisocial behaviour three years ago, she said:
“The solution to your community’s problems will not come from officials sitting in the Home Office working on the latest national action plan.”
That is certainly true. If the Bill is the nearest that the Home Office gets to its latest national action plan, it will make it harder, not easier, to solve community problems.
There are two respects in which the Bill has missed the opportunity to deal with some serious problems, and I urge Ministers to look at those again. The first is the problem of dangerous dogs, a subject on which a series of interventions were made on the Home Secretary’s speech. We support the measures that will extend the law to private property, but that is not enough. As the Home Secretary will know, the number of attacks has been rising, and there have been tragic fatal attacks. In the last two years, we have seen killings such as those of 18-month-old Zumer Ahmed and 71-year-old Gloria Knowles, who was mauled by dogs. Last week I met the family of 14-year-old Jade Anderson, who was tragically killed in an attack by dangerous dogs. I pay tribute to Jade’s family, who are campaigning for the strengthening of the law.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, a number of charities, and the families of victims killed in dangerous dog attacks want dog control notices to be introduced. I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said, but the problem is that experts have not been convinced by her argument that wider powers can be used, and that it will not take long to build up case law and make it easy for those powers to be applied. Of course dog control notices will not stop every attack, but they could make it easier for earlier preventive action to be taken. They are working in Scotland, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider the issue again during the Bill’s passage.
I hope that the Home Secretary will think again about firearms as well. As she will know, last year Susan McGoldrick, her sister Alison Turnbull and her niece Tanya were murdered by Susan’s partner, Michael Atherton, with a shotgun that he was licensed to own. Michael Atherton had a history of violence and abuse towards Susan McGoldrick, and he should never have been allowed to own a gun. Alison’s son, Bobby Tumbull, is campaigning for a change in the law.
The Home Office has rightly strengthened the guidance for gun applications, but it does not go far enough. It relies on interviews with family members who may still be living in fear of abuse. Why should anyone with a history of domestic violence be allowed to own a gun? Why should that guidance not be underpinned by legislation? We cannot legislate in Parliament to prevent every tragedy or every terrible crime, but we can seek to learn lessons when tragedies happen. We can listen to victims and their families, and we can work with them to make things safer in future.
We will not vote against the Bill’s Second Reading, but we think that it needs to be stronger. People want stronger action against antisocial behaviour, rather than the watering down of powers. They want more protection for victims, not just delayed reviews and loopholes for offenders if police resources are tight. They want more action against domestic violence, and more action against dangerous dogs. That requires more action from the Home Office, and more action from the Home Secretary. They need to do more to support communities, and they should do so in this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I suggest that Back Benchers speak for about 12 minutes? I do not intend to enforce that limit, but I am sure that we can manage between us.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, and congratulate the Home Secretary on her introduction of it.
Let me begin by making a comment about the issue of forced marriage, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). My constituency contains a large Kashmiri Muslim community, and I believe that we should not tolerate forced marriages. It is important to separate that issue from the issue of arranged marriages, a process in which people should be supported.
Today, as Members will know, the Home Affairs Committee published a report on the sexual exploitation of children, including street grooming. The Committee’s Chairman, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), said, in what I consider to have been very carefully chosen words,
“Children only have one chance at childhood, once that childhood is stolen by the horrific crime of sexual exploitation, it cannot be returned. Protection of these vulnerable children must be our first priority.”
I am extremely grateful for that timely report, because it puts into context an issue that I believe the Bill can begin to address.
In March this year, Shazad Rehman and Bilal Hussain were imprisoned for a total of 36 years for drugging and raping schoolgirls whom they had picked up on the streets of Keighley. The two men committed some of their hideous offences, unchallenged, in local hotels. More recently, in May, seven men were found guilty at the Old Bailey of 43 charges relating to six victims aged between 11 and 15. The men plied their victims with drink and class A drugs, took them to guesthouses and bed-and-breakfast establishments, and—again, unchallenged —raped and tortured those children.
Nicola Blackwood
As my hon. Friend will know, during the grooming inquiry the Home Affairs Committee has heard some harrowing evidence of incidents such as those that he has described. In Oxford, we have found it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that such horrific crimes can happen in our own community. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for every area in the United Kingdom to accept that it is not immune from child sexual exploitation, and to ensure that it protects vulnerable children and prosecutes any criminals who seek to target those young children?
Kris Hopkins
I entirely agree. I know from my hon. Friend’s work on the Committee, and from the terrible issues that she has had to face in her constituency, that she understands the situation that confronts many communities.
The investigation to which I referred, and the Keighley conviction, mirrored investigations in Rochdale, Derby and Telford, in that hotels and bed-and-breakfast establishments enabled the crime to be committed.
Since the briefing given to me by police officers in Keighley, Detective Chief Inspector Darren Minton from the Bradford safeguarding unit has contacted the police forces of North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, the Met police, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Thames Valley. All have, or have had, numerous or significant numbers of child sexual exploitation cases in which hotels, bed and breakfasts and guest houses have been used.
With the support of my local police officers, who are on the front line trying to tackle these criminals and attempting to protect these children, I am asking the Home Office to consider introducing in the Bill, first, a new police power to require specific hotels or B and Bs to collect the details of identity and proof of relationship of any persons under the age of 18 who book into the accommodation. Secondly, that information should be immediately passed on to the police. The premises would be identified by past intelligence or conviction, or present intelligence or investigation. Authorisation would be given by a county court judge in chambers. It would not be a blanket request—it would be about specific accommodation based on knowledge.
Nicola Blackwood
My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way again. I strongly endorse his proposals. He will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee report found that there was one particular problem which meant that victims fell through the cracks: the failure to share data. The proposal to ensure, wherever we can, that data are shared effectively so that victims do not fall through the cracks should be considered and implemented as soon as possible.
Kris Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I have asked my local police officers whether there are any laws or measures in place that could be used to do what I have proposed. They do not believe that there are such powers in place. However, I am willing to be—
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. Certainly I am happy for the Home Office to take away his proposal and consider it seriously. We will come back to him on the matter, but he has made an important point about the relevance of those places to what is happening in terms of child sexual exploitation. We are happy to look at his proposal.
Kris Hopkins
To that end, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to working with the Home Office on the issue.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) in this important debate. I thank him for his kind comments about the Home Affairs Committee’s report on child grooming, which was published this morning. I pay tribute to all members of the Committee, who have worked so hard on the report, especially the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who originally suggested that the Committee conduct the inquiry and who has been so assiduous in helping us to determine which witnesses should give evidence and in preparing the final report. It would not have been as powerful or important had it not been for what she has done.
I, too, am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. He is right that this is one of the areas we have looked at. At the moment, the anecdotal evidence and the evidence of people who see with their own eyes that there is a problem are not sufficient to catch the terrible perpetrators of these horrific crimes. If we had legislation, that would help the situation enormously.
I am glad that there is agreement between the Front-Bench teams that there will be no vote on this measure. I agree that it is an important measure, but I also agree with the shadow Home Secretary that there are ways we can improve the Bill. It is important when we have such Bills that we use the Committee stage to do that. That will help to make it an even stronger and more powerful Bill.
I am glad that the Select Committee had the opportunity to scrutinise the draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill in a number of sessions. That happened not only because that was the decision of the Select Committee but because of the case of Fiona Pilkington, who committed suicide in October 2007 with her daughter after suffering years of abuse from local youths. The Independent Police Complaints Commission found in May 2011 that she had contacted the police 33 times in seven years. They failed to act accordingly and, as a result, she committed suicide with her daughter. I am glad that the new Leicester chief constable has changed things. Simon Cole has made this one of his priorities and we have accepted his assurance that that kind of situation will never happen again. Obviously, if we pass the Bill, that assurance will be even stronger.
Sadly, however, even though we had the case of Fiona Pilkington, four years later we had the inquest into the death of Dr Suzanne Dow, a lecturer in French at Nottingham university, who killed herself in 2011 after suffering antisocial behaviour from the crack house next door to her. The council ignored her pleas for over a year.
In January, the Select Committee recommended that there should be a national backstop of three complaints to set off the community trigger. We believe that that would guard against people such as Fiona Pilkington slipping through the net. Of course the Home Secretary is right: we also have to have a degree of local accountability. That has been one of the great features of her term as Home Secretary: she sets guidelines and a vision, and then she leaves it very much up to local people to complete the vision. She has done that with police and crime commissioners, to which I will come later. However, we believe strongly that, unless we have a national backstop, a figure that everyone could sign up to, there is a risk that locally people could make their own decisions, and we would end up with the trigger not being as great in Devon and Cornwall as it was in Somerset, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. That is why we felt that the trigger was important. I hope that, as it scrutinises the Bill, the Committee will look seriously at the Select Committee’s proposals. I am convinced that they will strengthen the Bill. That was the unanimous view of the Select Committee.
We should also, in looking at the Bill, express our concern about the cuts to youth services. It is right that we should be wary of young people who are involved in antisocial behaviour, but it is also important that we should not stigmatise them. A letter in The Times today was signed by practically everybody who is anybody in the voluntary sector that deals with these issues. It said that an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance could be used differently in different hands.
The annoyance and nuisance I feel would be different from that felt by someone else. I am 57 years of age this year—[Interruption.] Yes, it is true—just checking whether the House was still awake. The annoyance I feel in my office in Norman Shaw North may be different from that felt by younger Government Members with offices in Norman Shaw North who have just been elected. They may find the nuisance and annoyance not as great as I would because of my age. The same could be said for my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who has an office next to mine. His threshold may be different even from mine. We should look at the matter because the thresholds are different. It is important to read what those who signed the letter say. At the end they say:
“The coalition and opposition should listen to the call by the cross-party Home Affairs Committee to ‘end the arms race’ against Anti-social Behaviour by setting reasonable limits on the behaviour covered by the new powers.”
I have not quoted that just because they praise the Committee, but because we must look at this. On 7 January this year at 4 o’clock my constituent Rajesh Devaliya was ambushed by four young people in St Mark’s in Leicester, where he lives with his elderly father. The police said the young perpetrators of this crime had nothing else to do. The police were not condoning the crime, of course; they were talking about the cuts to local services in St Mark’s
I warmly welcome what the Home Secretary is proposing in clauses 100 and 101. Clause 100 introduces the new offence of possessing prohibited firearms with intent to supply, and clause 101 increases the penalty for unlawful importation of prohibited firearms from 10 years to life. That is the right thing to do, of course. It was recommended by the Committee, and we are happy to support it, as it will serve to bring to book those who are supplying as well as those who are using.
However, we looked at firearms two-and-a-half years ago, and we are concerned that two-and-a-half years on from our report the Home Secretary has not taken the opportunity this Bill presents to bring together the 34 separate pieces of legislation covering UK gun law. President Obama, in his bid to try to control firearms in the United States, is looking closely at what our country is doing as we have a better record than the United States of America, but it is important that we look at codifying and bringing all this legislation together.
On 17 May the Select Committee recommended criminalising forced marriage. We take the point that it is quite different from arranged marriage. However, I must tell the Home Secretary that I am worried about the allegations database that she set up, which we will look at very closely in our next report. I have many constituents who complain that they are being abused by their spouses and have been tricked into getting married. They make their complaint to the Home Office and nothing happens. They are not informed because of the bizarre belief that they are third parties. I do not believe that someone who goes off to a foreign country and marries somebody there, and then brings them to this country so that they are only here because they brought them in, and who then complains that their spouse has abused the system and tricked them, is a third party. Of course they need to know whether the Home Office has removed them. We have had 28,000 allegations since the Prime Minister’s famous speech in London two years ago, when he asked people to report these issues, and 500 arrests have been made, but still the Home Office cannot tell us how many people have been removed.
I have three final points, and I shall begin with the College of Policing. I know that the Home Secretary is not interested in legacy stuff, because I am sure she will be in post for a long time, but when her legacy is written up, the creation of the College of Policing—which I hope will be called the “Royal College of Policing”, as that will give an impetus and dignity to those we train as police officers—will be seen as an important feature of her new landscape for policing. However, she ought to have ensured that the chair of the college appointed the members of the board or had a part to play in that, rather than appointing all the members of the board and then appointing the chair. I know she had problems filling that post but they have been resolved, and she has now appointed an excellent chair. In order to give the chair greater importance, the chair could perhaps be allowed to work with board members to co-opt additional people on to the board, which is not doing very well in terms of diversity.
I attended the Emily Wilding Davison centenary celebrations with the Home Secretary and you, Mr Speaker, and I heard what the Home Secretary said about diversity. In fact, I think I may even have got one of the T-shirts that were on offer. Diversity is not an apparent feature of the College of Policing board, however. Moreover, I find it extraordinary that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who represents so many police officers, does not sit on the board, whereas the Association of Chief Police Officers does. I have nothing against that organisation sitting on the board, but the commissioner should, too.
The Home Secretary still has not told us who will hold the integrity register for chief constables. She rightly announced that chief constables ought to have a register of gifts they receive and jobs they do, but after all these months she has still not told us where that register is going to sit. In her new landscape, she has so many new organisations to choose from, and one of them—perhaps the College of Policing, perhaps Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—needs to hold the register in order to give it credibility. Although the Home Secretary did not like the idea of a register for police and crime commissioners, the Select Committee published one. PCCs were very upset, but the fact is we just published what they put on their websites or what they told us to put in. If we have registers for MPs, peers and chief constables, we should have one for PCCs. We must not leave that until the next election.
The Home Secretary seemed a little puzzled about the cost of the certificate of knowledge in policing, or perhaps she was saying that is up to the College of Policing. We should, however, look carefully at the cost of a certificate, which is £1,000.
On the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Home Secretary has done everything we could have asked her to do in respect of our last report on that organisation. She did not quite deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), however.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning the IPCC, because it enables me, if he will indulge me in this, to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). I have checked, and in cases of suspected criminality the extension of the IPCC oversight of private sector contractors will allow them to be interviewed under caution. I am grateful for the opportunity to put that on the record.
Keith Vaz
I am delighted that the Home Secretary has got that on the record, and I know that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon will also be very pleased.
The Committee said that the IPCC was woefully under-equipped and hamstrung by a lack of powers and resources. The Home Secretary has not given it all the powers we would have wanted, but she has certainly given it a lot of them. She does need to deal with the issue or resources, however. People tend to refer conduct issues to the IPCC. It is dealing with thousands of cases as a result of Hillsborough. It has an excellent new chair in Dame Anne Owers, and it has shown a real commitment to do good work in this area, but it cannot do that work unless it has the necessary resources to finish the job. We thank the Home Secretary for giving these powers, but we also say, “Let’s have the resources to go with them.”
Finally, on extradition, we again have what the Select Committee recommended in our report on the subject. The forum bar has been enacted, and this will take it further. We need to stop having cases such as those involving Gary McKinnon and Richard O’Dwyer, which I know took up a huge amount of the Home Secretary’s time and the time of this House. I still think it should be up to the Home Secretary to make that decision, rather than give it to judges, because I think there are other considerations to take into account. I do not think that she or her successor if Labour wins the next election, the current shadow Home Secretary, are very keen to have the power to stop people’s extradition, but she is the Home Secretary and she should be making these decisions, not a judge. That question is for another day, however.
In the end, we have a Bill that enacts a lot of what the Select Committee has recommended over the years. I think we need to improve parts of it, as the shadow Home Secretary has said, but I am glad we are not pressing the House to a Division on this important measure this evening.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I suspect that the Home Secretary has recently become used to me standing here criticising things she has done and highlighting where we have disagreed; I am delighted that today will not be another of those days. I am able to support much of what is in the Bill, and it is a great pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and to agree with him that it is excellent that it does not appear that there will be a Division on Second Reading, and that we can therefore proceed.
There are good things in the Bill, such as the changes to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, bringing in private providers, which the Liberal Democrats have wanted for some time; stronger control sanctions against forced marriage; controls on firearms; the introduction of the College of Policing, which will be important for evidence-based policing; controls on dangerous dogs; and particularly protections for guide dogs, which I shall talk about later.
At the core of the Bill, however, are the antisocial behaviour provisions. It is particularly welcome that the Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee. I thank the Home Secretary for taking on board some of the suggestions that it made, although she did not take on board all of them. The principles are surely absolutely right. The simplification of the toolkit used to remedy antisocial behaviour, which can blight lives, even at a relatively low level, is welcome. It will produce a quicker and more coherent response, empowering police, local authorities and other agencies, so that they can deal with the problems far more effectively and efficiently. This issue is serious: there were 2.3 million reports of antisocial behaviour in 2012, although I suspect the vast majority of such incidents are never actually reported. We need a simple scheme to deal with that.
I am also pleased to see the direction of travel and the move away from the automatic criminalisation of breaches, which in many cases gave ASBOs a poor reputation. We are moving a lot further and I am pleased also to see the introduction of positive requirements to try to help people out of the problem—we have argued for that for a long time and it has cross-party support. The Home Affairs Committee highlighted that the positive requirements
“can help to achieve an outcome that satisfies victims and helps to mend the ways of perpetrators without exposing them to the criminal justice system.”
That has to be what we all want. It was the aim of the acceptable behaviour contracts, and it is the right direction in which to be travelling. It also fits in well with the Government’s general approach to the criminal justice system, with a focus on rehabilitation. Rather than focusing on how we punish people, there is a focus on how we can prevent problems from happening in the first place. I am very pleased about all that. I could talk at great length about how excellent some of the provisions are, but the Home Secretary has done that, as have others.
Further improvements could still be made in a couple of areas, and there are particular concerns about how the system will deal with young people. In looking at antisocial behaviour the focus has always ended up on young people; it is many people’s first encounter with the criminal justice system. Some 40% of ASBOs were issued to 10 to 17-year-olds, who comprise only 13% of the population, and a very large proportion of those people have mental health problems and learning difficulties, which is a serious concern.
That situation was acknowledged in the antisocial behaviour White Paper, which stated:
“There are strong links between anti-social or criminal behaviour and certain health needs.”
However, the Bill does not yet contain enough to strengthen early intervention or ensure that a full health and social assessment is made to go with any of the orders that are available. I accept that that is not all about legislation; I hope that in Committee, or through comments from the Home Secretary, progress will be made to strengthen the arrangements, because we want to help people with mental health problems or learning difficulties, rather than putting them through an inappropriate route.
As I mentioned when I intervened on the Home Secretary, I remain concerned about the naming and shaming of young people. Clause 17 would disapply section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which restricts reports on proceedings in which young people are concerned, in respect of injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance and criminal behaviour orders. That goes against the presumption of anonymity for children in criminal proceedings and is likely to hinder their successful rehabilitation, particularly in this age where people can say things online that can stay with people for ever. We want a chance for a young person who made an error at 14 to be able to have that removed very quickly. Article 40 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child clearly requires that a child accused of, or recognised as having infringed the law, must
“have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings.”
Both the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Committee have expressed grave concerns about the privacy of children subject to ASBOs, and I am concerned about what may happen.
I know the Government’s intention, as they have been clear in their response to the Home Affairs Committee and I am grateful for that. The intention is not simply a blanket naming and shaming of young people, and I am pleased to be reassured about that. However, I want the right clarification to be given to judges. The Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) made the point well when he gave evidence to us, but there may well be some special cases where it is simply unreasonable to prevent a child from being able to do something if we cannot tell anybody that we have prevented them from doing it. I accept that there are such cases, but they should be seen as the exception. I want to develop the point implied by the Home Secretary that judges should use such an approach rarely and sparingly, where there is a good case for doing so. We want a
“short, focused nudge for young people to set them on the right track, not a millstone that will weigh around their necks for years to come.”
We have to ensure that the right guidance is in place, so that the provisions are used only when they have to be. Fitting in with the positive requirements will help with some of that.
Many of the organisations we spoke to welcomed the general direction towards positive requirements but were concerned about the extra monitoring and the burdens of that. The Chair of the Select Committee was right to express concerns about the funding available. This is the best direction in which to go, but we need clarity on the funding. The Local Government Association, of which I have the great honour to be vice-president, has said:
“Clarity is needed from the Home Office on the cost of imposing ‘positive requirements’”
If they are not available, that could lead to breaches and to the whole system falling into the sort of disrepute that we saw with ASBOs. That is particularly so for children, where parental support may not be sufficient in many cases.
On one issue there has been an arms race, with every Government trying to change the antisocial regime, lowering the standard of proof and widening the definitions. The Home Affairs Committee unanimously concluded;
“This arms race must end.”
The current definition of antisocial behaviour is behaviour that
“caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”.
Clause 1 requires only that the conduct appears to be “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, as the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out. I share the concerns of the Association of Chief Police Officers that that lower threshold could unnecessarily stigmatise and criminalise young people in particular. It is a broad definition. I dare say that I have occasionally done things that are “capable” of annoying other people in this Chamber; I am sure we all have. [Interruption.] I am delighted to have the support of the Chair of the Select Committee. I would hope that the definition is not intended to cover such things; there has to be some sort of stronger level involved. I am pleased to see the move away from criminalisation, although some criminal sanctions will still be available, but I remain concerned about that definition.
The safeguards in the Bill about criminalisation go a bit further. A court has to consider an injunction to be “just and convenient”, but there is nothing about proportionality or the need to demonstrate necessity. The Committee concluded:
“For the IPNA, the threshold of ‘conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance’ is far too broad and could be applied even if there were no actual nuisance or annoyance whatsoever. A proportionality test and a requirement that either ‘intent or recklessness’ be demonstrated should be attached to the IPNA, as well as the requirement ‘that such an injunction is necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by the respondent’.”
That was agreed unanimously by the Committee, and I hope that the Home Secretary will examine the case for that more carefully and consider whether we could have some clarity. None of us wants these provisions to be used to deal with trivial behaviour. I have known constituents who do not like the fact that young people sit on a bench, but I hope that we would not want to introduce controls to deal with that if those young people are doing nothing else.
I also have a few concerns about the provisions at the beginning of part 5, which would give landlords the power to evict a tenant when the tenant or a member of their household had been convicted of a serious offence nearby or of various other provisions. No flexibility is given for the judge to decide on that; it is an obligatory process. My concern is about the effects on the rest of a family when one of its members, be it a child or an adult, does something that we all agree is unacceptable. In particular, children may be made homeless as a result of the actions of other people that they could not control. Such concerns have been expressed by the Children’s Commissioner, and I hope that the Home Secretary will consider clarifying the arrangements, by changing where the grounds would be listed, to ensure that judges at least have the discretion to say, “In this case, it does not seem appropriate.” The LGA has highlighted that these powers could
“result in displacement of the problem rather than solution”—
none of us would want to leave children homeless. I hope that the Government will examine that.
To conclude, I wish to talk about the issues relating to dangerous dogs. I want to emphasise how good it is that we are making progress, particularly on the serious issue of guide dogs. There were about 240 dog attacks on guide dogs between March 2011 to February 2013, which is about 10 a month. Last year, I met some of my visually impaired constituents and found out what it was like to have a guide dog: I was blindfolded and had to follow a dog around Cambridge. I spoke to my constituents about some of their cases. The big problem is that guide dogs are trained not to fight back or defend themselves; they are trained not to run away, but to get their owner away safely. My constituents told me about some brutal cases where the dog had been savaged in awful ways—their guts were hanging out, and so on—but had still tried to lead its owner away. Such attacks were also devastating for the owner, because it takes a long time to get used to a dog and they cannot simply be replaced; the emotional cost is huge, too. Five of the dogs attacked had to be withdrawn, costing the Guide Dogs charity £170,000—money that it simply does not have. I am really pleased that the first clause in part 7 makes it clear that attacks on guide dogs will be considered aggravated attacks, but we need to go much further.
There are other bits of the Bill that I could talk about at great length, but some of them have already been touched on, and I am sure that they will be considered in Committee. This is a good Bill, but it could be tweaked slightly further to make it an excellent Bill. I am sure that that will be looked at in Committee.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I visited Glastonbury post office, which has been doing some fairly visionary work on what happens to post office staff when they are making deliveries. The stuff made two points. First, being attacked by a dog in the communal area of a block of flats is not covered by the Bill. Secondly, there may be no remedy for those who are bitten while putting a letter or packet through a letterbox; if someone trespasses with their fingers, effectively, they may not be covered. I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that the Secretary of State might take this opportunity to remedy that drafting problem and make sure that the issue is sorted out.
Dr Huppert
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment; I am sure that the Home Secretary heard it. What my hon. Friend says seems sensible; we want to protect postal workers when they are posting leaflets. I have not checked the wording of the Bill, but if it is a problem, I hope that that can be addressed. The same would apply to those of us delivering leaflets. I have yet to be bitten by a dog, but I know that it happens to many of us too often. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at those suggestions to see whether we can sharpen up the provisions and make it an excellent Bill that we can be proud of for many years to come.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I should like to associate myself with his concluding remarks about guide dogs, and to commend the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association for the spirited campaign it has led on the subject.
It is a great pleasure to speak on a subject of obvious concern to everybody in the country. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, who spoke earlier, I have been in the House since 1997, and I can genuinely say that antisocial behaviour has been at the centre of my casework, both in terms of concerns that people have raised, and of the relief and respite that has been brought about. This is a continuing process; no Government have a monopoly on virtue or effectiveness. However, I want to emphasise that the Labour Government made significant strides in combating antisocial behaviour, and in putting victims at the heart of the justice system; I recall the surprise at that in more conservative legal circles in the early days of that Administration. Mercifully, we have moved on since then.
The controls put in place for statutory partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been enormously important to us in Blackpool, where partnerships between the police, local authorities and others to tackle crime and disorder have worked extremely successfully. I want to make a point that is specific to my constituents and to the town: like many seaside and coastal towns, and many inland towns with a high degree of transience, in Blackpool issues associated with houses in multiple occupation and the problems faced by a minority of rogue landlords and rogue tenants have been very much to the fore. As the House of Commons research paper makes clear, antisocial behaviour injunctions have been valued by social landlords; they have been used successfully against tenants in attempts to tackle vandalism, violence, noise, harassment, and threatening and un-neighbourly behaviour.
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, none of this can be done without resources. That is why it was very important that more than 12,000 extra police, and more than 16,000 police community support officers, were introduced under the Labour Government, including in Lancashire, which has particularly benefited from the beefed-up powers that were provided.
What are the issues that any antisocial behaviour Bill should at least touch on and try to address for my constituents in Blackpool? First, there is the question of disorder, particularly in the centre of the town. As many people know, we have millions of visitors every year. Most of them are a delight, but a small proportion are not. The same is true of residents. Problems such as alcohol, petty crime, drugs and general threatening behaviour have always loomed large. Secondly, the issue of houses in multiple occupation is really important. I praise the work done over a long period by the public protection department of Blackpool council, ably headed by Tim Coglan, all who have worked with him, and the cabinet member with responsibility for housing, Councillor Gillian Campbell.
I should like to quote from a couple of letters that I received recently that underline some of our problems. A hotelier—it should be borne in mind that there are some 600 hotels and guesthouses in my constituency—said:
“I run a hotel with my partner situated…in South Shore. We unfortunately have a HMO adjoining us…and one opposite…Both properties have drug and alcohol problems and are situated with ourselves in the ‘Holiday Zone’.
We persistently suffer ‘users’ calling up at the flats for drugs, the police are constantly parking outside our hotel to visit our neighbours. The flat adjoining our hotel on the first floor have dogs, who are rarely taken out of the flat.”
The good news in this story is that Blackpool council, together with other organisations, is working on this. I quote the letter I received from the council:
“Officers of the Housing Enforcement Team have been tackling issues...one of the problem tenants has already been evicted and the managing agents…are in the process of re-housing the tenants with the dogs.”
Another letter from another part of the town mentions the importance of alley gates, which have been a particularly effective way of dealing with antisocial behaviour in Blackpool.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On HMOs and antisocial behaviour, including in alleyways, are there not already powers available to councils? The issue is whether councils are using the powers they already have, rather than whether new powers are required under the Bill.
Mr Marsden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree with him on the powers, which are already there. What is important is enforcement by councils, and the resources that are available to them. Sadly, Blackpool council’s ability to do the stuff it would like to on alley gates has been severely hindered over the past couple of years by substantial cuts in funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Police and community support officers are crucial, particularly now, when we have problems not just with houses in multiple occupation, but with houses that are bought at low prices when owner-occupiers move out, and landlords rent them out to problem families. I have many examples of that. I pay tribute to the activities undertaken in our town by the police and the community together. I am thinking of a group, ably chaired by Mr Dave Blacker, who are concerned about their PCSOs. Issues of funding and what might be available from Government have come to the fore.
Other really important issues are vandalism—Stanley park and other parts of the town have been badly affected by it recently—metal theft, the protection of war memorials and dumping. Those are all issues on which PCSOs can make an important contribution. That is why we need to look critically at what the Government are doing in the Bill. The crime prevention injunction—the proposed replacement for an antisocial behaviour order—is significantly weaker. A breach of the new injunction is not a criminal offence and will not result in a criminal record. Other proposed measures against antisocial behaviour also appear weak. The Government’s proposed community trigger has seemed weak in the areas in which it has been trialled, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear earlier. As her colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) said, breach of ASBOs was a criminal offence; breach of injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance is not. Nor does the Bill guarantee a response from the police or the council. It guarantees a review. In my region, the north-west, police in Manchester recorded nearly 26,000 cases of antisocial behaviour in 2012-13, but the trigger was activated a mere four times.
When it comes to tackling antisocial behaviour, the elephant in the room is the way the Government have cut the police budget. Police community support officers, who are so often at the forefront in tackling day-to-day antisocial behaviour, have been hit particularly hard. That has led to Lancashire losing 9% of our front-line officers in the first two years of this Tory-led Government, and 500 police officers.
I shall touch briefly on knife crime, which has been a key issue in Blackpool. The Government have, to be fair, introduced a new crime of “threatening with article with blade” in public or on school premises, but the Prime Minister told MPs in recent months that the Justice Secretary was reviewing the powers available to the courts to deal with knife possession, and the Lord Chancellor has said he is revisiting the whole topic of knife crime. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary rightly said, this is a Christmas tree Bill. It is unfortunate that the outcome of those reviews has not informed the detail of the Bill.
The topic of firearms has been touched on. I entirely associate myself with the comments that have been made about the dangers presented by people with a history of domestic violence. We know that only too well in Blackpool from the Justice for Jane campaign, which concerned the case of a young woman who was tragically murdered by her partner, who had a history of domestic threatening and violence. Such ticking time bombs need monitoring, and the Government should be monitoring some of them far more carefully and providing the legislation that would make that possible.
Lastly, I return to the subject of dangerous dogs. I have not been convinced by what the Home Secretary said. Many other organisations—not just the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross and the Select Committee—feel that the proposals, rather like my 15-year-old Jack Russell-Chihuahua cross, are somewhat toothless. Dangerous dogs are a real problem and they need a special and specific remedy. I know that only too well from my former colleague in the House, Joan Humble, who almost lost the tip of her finger when canvassing in Blackpool in 2012. These Government measures, as has been said, are simply too weak. Instead of these piecemeal proposals, the introduction of dog control notices would be wide ranging and enforceable in the sorts of areas that have been discussed.
Robert Flello
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech immensely. Does he agree that there is a need for a much wider look at issues such as dog breeding? A raft of related issues needs to be addressed properly. Does he agree that taking all the dog-related measures out of this Christmas tree Bill and consolidating them in a single piece of legislation would be a better way forward?
Mr Marsden
I hear what my hon. Friend says. In an ideal world he would be correct, but unfortunately we heard from the Home Secretary this evening her extreme reluctance to admit that anything other than the general and mixed powers presented in the Bill would do the business. I hope that in Committee and on Report, some of the issues can be addressed far more forcefully than they were by the Home Secretary this evening. In particular, the public spaces protection orders are too sweeping and vague in many respects to deal with what is proposed. The Battersea Dogs and Cats Home briefing makes these points far more eloquently than I can. It also makes the point that dogs that pose no danger to public safety should remain with an owner of good character while an application to the court for an exemption takes place.
About 5,000 postal workers every year are attacked by dogs. Seventeen people, including children, have been killed in dog attacks since 2005, including one in Blackpool in 2009. I welcome, as do Members in all parts of the House, the Government’s proposal to extend prosecution and to extend responsibility to private property, but given what has been said in the House this evening I wish the Government would take the opportunity to think more carefully and substantially about the broader range of dog control measures I have mentioned. They might also consider what many people see as a good—or should I say poor?—example of what happens when we legislate in haste: the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
I mentioned my dog earlier. Sadly, her partner died earlier this year. She was a Staffie-Collie cross, and I am sure she would have agreed, as I do, with what the Communication Workers Union said: that we should be legislating for deed and not for breed. I hope the Government will take the opportunity to remedy that, if not in the Bill, then at some point.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am delighted to contribute to this Second Reading debate, primarily because, as a number of speakers have highlighted, antisocial behaviour blights the lives of our communities and our constituencies. One of the things that strikes me when dealing with constituency matters relating to antisocial behaviour is that it prevents blameless and innocent victims—citizens—from feeling safe not just in their own homes and their own streets, but in their own communities, which is why I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill and wholeheartedly endorse the Government’s approach to supporting victims and preventing antisocial behaviour.
For many years under the previous Government a vast number of measures were introduced, some of which were well-meaning, but were profoundly ineffective in tackling some of the problems that we have heard about today. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, mentioned the death of Fiona Pilkington a few years back, which shocked the nation. The horrific story and her plight demonstrated how bad antisocial behaviour could become and the distress that it cause to victims. That tragic case highlighted the fact that the authorities let this family down and failed to do enough to bring an end to the torment that the family suffered.
Despite all the legislation and the introduction of ASBOs, as we heard at the time and as we heard again from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the inquest into those deaths found that the calls to the police and to associated bodies were not joined up and were not prioritised, and that there were problems in gathering and processing information. That was among the most serious cases, with severe consequences for the victims. Importantly, it highlighted the wider issues of the approach taken to antisocial behaviour and the case for wider reform, which the Bill addresses.
The Home Secretary mentioned the community trigger. Although I am pleased to say that my constituency is generally considered a safe place to live, there are certain areas in the town and in the surrounding villages which, unsurprisingly, have been blighted by antisocial behaviour. These occurrences are serious and should be treated as such because they are distressing for those of my constituents who are affected. Equally distressing is the sense among those communities of the paralysis of the authorities, which seem either reluctant or powerless to act, or are bogged down in bureaucracy and therefore unable to seek prompt resolution. At the end of the day, our constituents want to know that something is being done and action is being taken.
I want to highlight some recent cases in my constituency. Families using the park in Maldon road in Witham have been alarmed by groups of young men using the children’s play space inappropriately. It is summer and parents cannot let their children play because men are drinking and behaving in an abusive, intimidating and frightening way in the park. One constituent was so shocked by what happened that she reported to me that the men had been calling over to girls, had tried to involve them in conversation, and had offered them alcohol. We have had recent cases of inappropriate behaviour involving alcohol and persuasion by men in the wrong way. What was worrying for my constituent was the response by the police. They were pretty ineffective, remarking that because these individuals were foreign, they did not understand that it was inappropriate behaviour, and that they were in the park as there was no designated area for them to drink in. That is simply not appropriate. Rather than taking action and making the area safe, the authorities were reluctant to act. Many of us here are parents, and I was disgusted by these events. I am pursuing the case with the local authority and the police because I have been left in no doubt that action should be taken.
Another constituent let me know of a further incident where at 10 pm one evening they called the police as noise from these young men in the park was causing her and her family significant disturbance. They called again at 11 pm as they were being kept awake, but it was not until 1 am that the police arrived on the scene. There are many other such incidents not just in my constituency but throughout the country. At least 2.3 million similar incidents are reported to the police each year. The introduction of the community trigger will help communities that feel let down by the authorities to compel those authorities to take their concerns seriously and to act. I would go further as a Member of Parliament and work with the local authority and other community groups to encourage them to have their voices heard, and the community trigger has an important role to play in that.
My approach to crime and criminal justice matters is to put the victim first. I have been particularly outspoken in the past about the disproportionality in the criminal justice system when victims unfairly have to fight to have their voices heard. For too long the justice system has been skewed in favour of offenders, focusing on help and support for them while neglecting those who are most affected by their crimes. Conservative Ministers deserve credit for refocusing attention on victims, and the Bill goes some way to addressing past deficiencies in the justice system. Victims want action taken promptly to protect them from antisocial behaviour, and they also want to be involved in decisions taken about how the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts deal with criminals. I therefore welcome the duty to consult victims that clauses 95 and 96 place on prosecutors who are minded to offer an offender a conditional caution or a youth conditional caution. The requirement to attach to the conditions reasonable requests made by the victim is a positive step forward. It is disappointing that this has not happened already and there is much more that we can do, but this is a welcome step forward.
The community remedy is also a welcome way to involve victims in the restorative justice process, so that it works for them. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister that no victim will be compelled to go through the restorative justice approach if they do not wish to. Victims can be retraumatised and have to go through a great deal of hurt as a result of that process.
Robert Flello
On restorative justice, the hon. Lady will know from the all-party victims and witnesses of crime group that we co-chair that restorative justice can mean different things to different people. Does she agree that perhaps in this Bill, but certainly somewhere, there should be a clear definition of restorative justice?
Priti Patel
There is no doubt that restorative justice can mean a range of different things, and there should be a much wider discussion about this. Parliament is best placed to consider this and we should make the victims groups that we work with part of this discussion.
I would welcome an assurance that where a crime has been committed and there is sufficient evidence to take the matter to court, police and prosecutors will proceed with a prosecution if that is what the victim wants. I raise this because many victims are satisfied and have closure once an offender has been brought to court and convicted, rather than have informal action taken against them.
Strong action is also needed on retail crime. Businesses, their owners and those who work in them can be subjected to quite horrific incidents of antisocial behaviour. I say that as someone who has grown up in a family business and seen at first hand how intimidating individuals and groups can be when they target a high street or independent shop and behave in an obscene way. Shopkeepers work long hours and are often under considerable stress and pressure. They need to be supported, and the community trigger will be a useful tool for them.
I urge the Government to look again at clause 133 on low value shoplifting. Owners of small shops in particular will be concerned about what they will see as a downgrading in the treatment of thefts of a value of below £200. Requiring that these be dealt with by magistrates courts and encouraging the use of fixed penalty notices and restorative justice methods can detract from the serious nature of the offence. As well as the stress and pressure, there is also the matter of the cost to the business. More often than not shopkeepers install CCTV and spend a lot of time dealing with the police and providing evidence. Small shopkeepers who may have invested considerably in security measures are already disillusioned with the police responses to crime, and theft has a serious impact on their profit margins. Shop thefts account for about 83% of crime against the retail sector, and the Home Office has estimated that there were approximately 4.1 million incidents of shoplifting in 2012 alone.
Most of the perpetrators will be serial and repeat offenders, so when they are caught, victims and businesses should expect some of these offenders to face the full force of the law, otherwise they will just carry on offending. Less than half of the fixed penalty notices issued for shop theft in 2011 have been paid in full by offenders. Average thefts are valued at £88 and the majority of these thefts are of goods valued up to £25. Introducing the £200 threshold into law will mean that it is possible for almost all of those caught shoplifting to be dealt with outside of court. What kind of message does that send out to hardworking shopkeepers and people who invest in their local economy and generate jobs and growth in their own family?
Just as the Government are giving victims a greater say in how to deal with antisocial behaviour, so we should be empowering shopkeepers and businesses on our high streets, in our town centres and on parades of shops in our estates so that they can get the full support and protection they need from the police and councils to have a say in how offenders are treated. I hope that the Government will look again at that clause.
Finally, I would like the Minister to consider using the Bill to help businesses and individuals affected by Travellers staying on their land without permission, which is a form of antisocial behaviour. There have been a number of incidents in my constituency over recent bank holiday weekends—surprise, surprise—that have highlighted the need to put stronger measures in place. Last month a number of vehicles arrived on the Eastways industrial estate in Witham. Although the police eventually moved them on within two days, they caused immense disruption to local businesses operating on the site. They left behind litter and gas bottles and caused a lot of damage and vandalism to the site. There were also reports of aggressive attitudes shown towards business managers and nuisance behaviour. Those businesses are creating jobs and growth locally. They should not be subjected to such awful behaviour and delays. It took two days to have them removed. Businesses lost thousands of pounds and incurred thousands of pounds in damages, and supplies and deliveries were delayed.
I hope that the Minister can look at ways to use the Bill to strengthen the voice of businesses and communities to prevent such incidents from occurring not only in my constituency, but up and down the country, and to take a firm and reasonable stance to individuals who behave in such a way.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, particularly as it touches on an issue that is incredibly close to my heart. Before coming to that point, I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have addressed, or will address, some of the wider measures the Bill is concerned with. Although I welcome some of those measures, I have a number of concerns about the Government’s plans for tackling antisocial behaviour. In particular, I am worried that the Bill will make it harder, not easier, for communities to deal with and combat antisocial behaviour effectively.
We discovered only this weekend that red tape introduced in the Bill will cost police and local councils at least £14 million to get CCTV. As I mentioned in an intervention on the Home Secretary—the point is worth sharing in more detail—Liverpool’s City Watch team has used state-of-the-art CCTV both as a deterrent and to identify and convict those who commit crimes and antisocial behaviour offences. It is a very advanced system and it has been highly effective. As a result, Liverpool is now one of the safest cities in the country, according to the UK Statistics Authority. We often have delegations—not only from across the country but from across Europe—who visit the facility and meet the operators, who are highly trained and technical, to see what they are doing and how it might be replicated elsewhere. Given that success, I echo the sentiment I expressed before: it would be such a shame if other local authorities that need CCTV or want to advance their systems were unable to follow that good example. I have every confidence that Opposition Front Benchers will address those concerns in Committee.
I will focus the rest of my remarks on the measures in the Bill for tackling dangerous dogs, which are covered in part 7. Perhaps it is fate, design or just pure coincidence that it is 22 years to the day since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 received its Second Reading in this House. That was a very long time ago, and it has become clear since, particularly over the past 10 years, that the legislation has not been up to the job. The issue was first raised with me in my constituency just before I was elected three years ago, after the tragic death of John Paul Massey, who was just four years old, in the run-up to the general election. His death really affected the whole community—some members of my community are still very much affected. I have worked closely with his mother, Angela, to raise these issues with the Government. It happened on 30 November 2009. Angela has been incredibly stoic and brave in campaigning on the issue so that no other family has to go through what her family have gone through. Angela came with John Paul Massey’s father and representatives of many other organisations about a year ago to deliver a letter to the Prime Minister highlighting their concerns about the legislation as it stands. I have been compelled by Angela’s incredible bravery to take up her case and ensure that no one else suffers as she has.
Julie Hilling
I want to add my tribute to the family of John Paul Massey, because they have also been supporting the family of Jade Lomas-Anderson as they have been going through the same thing.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that those words will have been heard by Angela and that they will be very welcome and kindly received.
This really is an issue that transcends party politics. I have worked with many Members on both sides of the House who have campaigned on the issue. It does not discriminate between urban and rural areas; it affects all our constituencies. Many people have been campaigning on the issue for far longer than I have; I was elected only three years ago. It was actually the first thing I spoke about in the House. Many people outside the House have worked tirelessly on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned Dave Joyce, of the Communication Workers Union, who works so hard to raise the issue with Members on both sides of the House on behalf of his members, the postal workers who deliver our mail everyday. Claire Robinson of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals works incredibly hard on the issue. Organisations including the Dogs Trust, the National Dog Warden Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home have worked collectively to raise the profile of the issue with the Government and to see some urgent action.
The previous Government initiated a comprehensive consultation on what could be done to promote responsible dog ownership and combat dog attacks on people and other animals. It is regrettable that it has taken three years for the Government to respond to that consultation, which concluded in June 2010, and bring forward the measures we are discussing today.
Robert Flello
On that point, one thing that really concerns me is that not only has it taken that time to get to this stage with the draft legislation, but in that time we have seen measures relating to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 introduced specifically to exclude dog attacks.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has been working hard with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as have I, as a member of USDAW, to raise the profile of that issue. It is highly regrettable that the Government have chosen to exclude people who have been attacked by dogs from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I hope that they will reconsider that.
I wish to welcome some of the measures the Government are bringing forward. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) mentioned, the fact that the Government now recognise that attacks on assistance dogs should be acknowledged as a very specific crime is to be welcomed. Many organisations, including the guide dogs trust and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, have been working tirelessly on behalf of the visually impaired community to highlight the fact that at least 10 assistance dogs are attacked every month. Most people do not know that a guide dog costs around £50,000 over its lifetime, and that is all charitable money because no support is received from the Government. If a guide dog is attacked, the repercussions and implications for the person the dog is there to support are far reaching, so I welcome the fact that the Government are addressing that in the Bill.
The law is also being extended to cover attacks that take place on private property. We know that the vast majority of attacks happen in someone’s home, in a front or back garden, so it is right that that loophole is being closed. We have heard from other Members specifically about the attacks on postal workers. About 5,000 postal workers are attacked every year, and they will most certainly be thankful for this measure. I had not been aware that since 2011 4,100 working days have been lost at Royal Mail owing to injuries incurred through dog attacks on our postmen and women, and that has cost Royal Mail approximately £400,000. It is not only postal workers who have been attacked on private property; so have our emergency services, social workers, telecomm operators and health visitors, many of whom put themselves at risk every day when they enter the homes of the public. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to do something to address this.
I also welcome the Government’s plans on compulsory microchipping by 2016. There is in our country a significant and growing problem with stray dogs. I meet many owners who are separated from their pets, and having a microchip helps them to be reunited. However, much more needs to be done if the horrific attacks are to be stamped out. Officials have estimated that more than 200,000 people are bitten or attacked by a dog in England every year. That is an absolutely staggering figure. Because I am involved in a campaign to raise the profile of this issue, I receive an e-mail at least once a week from someone somewhere in the country who has been affected by a dog attack. I should like to mention just one that has been reported today in the Liverpool Echo.
Theo Reynolds is three years old, and his life changed for ever just a few weeks ago after he suffered a vicious attack while out walking with his dad down a Liverpool street. The dog went for him and bit off his toe. Doctors attempted to reattach it but were unfortunately unsuccessful. Every year, our NHS spends more than £3.5 million treating injuries sustained in dog attacks such as the one that Theo suffered. What is most harrowing is that the victims of these attacks are so often children, who go on to suffer not just the physical consequences but the long-term psychological and emotional effects. I have spoken to many parents whose children are now unable to go out or enter a park or a playground because of the impact that a dog attack has had on their life.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for her speech. I have met a father whose young child was playing on a lovely day in a park and found an animal running in circles round the playground time and again, completely out of control. That child had their ear ripped off. Beyond the legislation, there is an onus on the owners to take responsibility for their dogs.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He tells a story that I have heard too many times. When we talk about dog attacks, we have to talk about responsible dog ownership. Lots of people say that they feel they may not have the skills or the expertise best to look after their pet, and that is one of the things that the Government should seriously consider. The example that my hon. Friend gave and the examples that have been cited by others illustrate why we need to give a range of powers to the police, local authorities and our fantastic dog wardens, who will prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. I am seriously concerned that the Bill as it stands is far too weak. I share the analysis of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which said that these plans are woefully inadequate. Where is the support for owners to provide them with the education they need best to look after their pet? Where is there anything in this Bill that will properly prevent dog attacks, specifically, from happening in the first place?
I hope that the Home Secretary will listen again to the many calls to include dog control notices in the Bill, because the wider, non-dog-specific community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders and crime prevention injunctions that it will introduce do not cut it and will take far too long to implement. A dog control notice would enforce muzzling a dog and keeping it on a lead wherever it is in a place to which the public have access, and the owner and their dog having to attend and complete a training course if that is felt to be necessary. It would ensure on-the-spot action before the behaviour of the dog or the owner escalates. It would be a more immediate measure than the lengthy, bureaucratic processes that the Bill will introduce, which will take far too long and I fear will be implemented after something very serious has happened. This approach has already been used in Scotland and has been endorsed by the EFRA Committee. Many people, including those at the Dogs Trust, believe it is an effective means of ensuring responsible dog ownership. We desperately need early intervention and prevention, and they are what are lacking.
When our predecessors debated these issues 22 years ago, one name that featured prominently was that of 11-year-old Kelly Lynch, who was tragically mauled to death by two Rottweilers in 1989. Sadly, two decades on, there have been far too many more cases of families who have lost loved ones to similar attacks. Just two weeks ago another name was added to that list—that of Clifford Clarke, a 79-year-old man who was set upon and mauled to death in his garden while cooking a barbecue. Overall, according to research by the Communication Workers Union, 16 people have been killed in dangerous dog attacks since 2005. Sadly, the action that we are debating today will come too late for them and their relatives. I have come to know some of those families, and I know that other hon. Members have too. Those I have met have expressed just two wishes: that they could have their loved ones back and that no family should have to suffer a loss such as theirs.
As we consider that plea, it is only right that the names of the people who have lost their lives are recorded: Liam Eames, aged one; Cadey-Lee Deacon, aged five months; Ellie Lawrenson, aged five; Archie-Lee Hirst, aged one; James Redhill, aged 78; Stephen Hudspeth, aged 33; Jaden Mack, aged three months; Andrew Walker, aged 21; John Paul Massey, aged four; Zumer Ahmed, aged 18 months; Barbara Williams, aged 52; Leslie Trotman, aged 83; Gloria Knowles, aged 71; Harry Harper, aged eight days; Jade Lomas-Anderson, aged 14; and Clifford Clarke, aged 79. I hope that the Government will remember those people when this Bill is going through Parliament and consider what more can be done to prevent any other name from being added to that list.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful if I inform Members that eight Members in the Chamber have indicated that they want to speak. May I ask each speaker to take no more than 10 minutes, which includes interventions, because that will share out the time between those still wishing to speak?
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) spoke very powerfully about emotive and clearly tragic cases. I am sure that all Members of the House join her in paying tribute to the families of those victims. She is right that the dangerous dogs legislation introduced by a previous Government did not achieve the desired outcomes; I think that most of us would accept that.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, therefore, I would like to pay tribute to a piece of legislation introduced by Labour. The role of police community support officers in tackling antisocial behaviour has been much maligned over the years, and my party opposed the measure at the time, yet when I look at the work of Aivaras Krochalev and others PCSOs in my constituency who have done so much work, particularly with parts of the community where English is not the first language, it is clear that many of them have helped in freeing up officer time and delivering value for money on the front line rather than sitting behind desks at headquarters.
That is why I welcome the Home Secretary’s measures in the Bill to strengthen some of the powers available to PCSOs. For example, it is illogical for a PCSO to be able to disperse a group from an area but unable to direct an individual to leave it. The Bill is right to give senior officers discretion to tackle that. It is also illogical for PCSOs to be able to fill out forms in those instances but not to issue them. The streamlining of some of the powers that apply to PCSOs will free up police officer time for doing the things that warrant officers should be doing.
Following that logic, I want to press the Minister to consider extending PCSO powers to take on other responsibilities. For example, a PCSO is able to seize drugs, but not search for them. They can search for alcohol and tobacco, and if they happen to find drugs during the course of those searches they can confiscate them, but if they can smell cannabis they are not allowed search for it; they have to divert the time of a warranted officer instead. The feedback I receive from senior officers is that that is not an effective use of police time.
Minor issues can also be annoying to officers. For example, a PCSO can issue a fixed penalty notice for cycling on a towpath—we do not have many towpaths in my constituency, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) finds that to be a useful option—but they cannot issue one for cycling without lights. There are a number of other similar areas; I cite those two examples simply to illustrate my argument. If we follow the Bill’s logic and its welcome measures on, for example, dispersal, we will see that PCSOs could take on more powers in tackling antisocial behaviour and that that would free up police officer time.
Another issue that the Bill does not tackle is that of potential cross-departmental work to enforce antisocial behaviour measures. Last year, there were an estimated 15,000 foreign vehicles on our roads. Once such vehicles are here for more than six months, they have to undergo an MOT and be insured and registered. It is illogical to assume that every single foreign vehicle on our roads has complied with that requirement, yet last year there was not a single prosecution of an unregistered foreign vehicle. Part of the frustration felt by Cambridgeshire police and others is that there seems to be intransigence on the part of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. It uses automatic registration recognition for stolen vehicles, but not in relation to the licensing of foreign vehicles. That has a knock-on effect in community tension; some people feel that they have to insure and register their car while others do not. Clearly, discussions need to be held between the Home Office and the Department for Transport. I would be grateful if the Minister wrote to me to confirm that he will take on that cross-departmental work. From some of the cases that I see at my constituency surgery, the issue is causing considerable annoyance.
Another area where significant time is being wasted and where cross-departmental work is suboptimal is that of licensing. It may surprise the House to hear that an area such as Wisbech in my constituency has more licensed premises in the centre than a student area such as Cambridge. Indeed, we are using existing powers on the accumulated number of licensed premises in order to try to effect change. It is clear that when the police make representations, significant time is spent on compiling long reports that are then often ignored by local councils. It would be beneficial for further work to be undertaken by the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government in order to look at police representations and whether the time spent on cases involving licensing and antisocial behaviour in communities is used as effectively as possible.
The Bill’s measures will be welcome only if they are enforced. In our rush to legislate, one of the traps that we fall into in this place is that we suspect that just introducing a Bill on antisocial behaviour will effect the change that we seek. It is clear that some of the existing measures to tackle antisocial behaviour are not being enforced. For example, an illegal rave took place in my constituency on new year’s eve. It may surprise the House to learn that the police were at the scene but—understandably, because of the numbers of people present—took the view that it was not safe for them to intervene at that point. However, even though the police were on site when the illegality took place, and even though the business owner took countless photos and the Home Secretary, no less, expressed her horror and shock and desire for enforcement when I spoke to her about the case, I discovered last week, without the police having the courtesy to tell me, that after six months they had simply dropped the investigation.
It is difficult for the community to understand exactly what evidence the police need to tackle the crime given that they were there as it happened. I welcome the Bill’s antisocial behaviour measures, but I would be grateful if the Minister took up that issue up with the chief constable of Cambridgeshire and addressed why, in a case that involved more than £50,000-worth of damage on new year’s eve and that caused concern to other business owners, no enforcement action has been taken.
I am conscious of your diktat on time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so with a minute remaining let me finish on a positive note. Under the wonderful leadership of Inspector Sissons in Wisbech, we have launched Operation Pheasant, which has so far raided 80 houses of multiple occupation and has a number of live inquiries. It demonstrates what can be achieved when effective enforcement action is taken. That would not have happened without the active support of the Home Secretary, which, along with the Bill’s measures, will do much to tackle other cases of antisocial behaviour in the months and years ahead.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the powerful speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay).
The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), described the Bill as a Christmas tree Bill. In keeping with the theme of Christmas, let me start on a positive note and address one of the Bill’s good features—clause 134 on the new protection arrangements for persons at risk. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 states that specific groups of people, such as witnesses and jurors, are protected if their safety is at risk from criminal conduct. The Bill extends that further to anyone whose safety may be at risk from another person’s possible or actual criminal conduct, meaning family members and others who will have close contact with that person. That is an extremely valuable addition.
I am rather more concerned about other aspects of the Bill. The Home Secretary dismissed ASBOs a little too readily. She spoke of how they became a “badge of honour” to some people. I suspect that in three years’ time, we may be sitting here deliberating how CBOs and CPIs have become badges of honour in certain quarters. To me, that is not the point. The point is that ASBOs worked successfully in many areas. It was only the breach of them that was a criminal offence. That made them very powerful. They were not and should not have been the only tool.
With the criminal behaviour order and the crime prevention injunction, I am concerned that the police and local authorities must pay to pursue civil proceedings against the person. I worry that in these straitened times the incentives may not be there to go ahead with the orders and injunctions in circumstances where the police or local authorities would otherwise have been required to do so.
There are long and large debates to be had about CCTV, but we are living on planet Zog if we do not recognise its importance in detecting crime around the country. If CCTV is not used by the police and local authorities, we will see the proliferation of its use privately, which is surely not something that we want. I am concerned that under the Bill it be more costly and difficult for the police and local authorities to have CCTV.
Thirdly, the shadow Home Secretary was right when she spoke about community resolution, restorative justice and domestic violence. Although there are many instances of community resolution and restorative justice being very powerful, we do not want the danger of a situation in which victims of domestic violence are coerced into a settlement being put in place, because time and again that is not what happens. I urge the Government to consider that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) spoke of a register for police and crime commissioners. That is a very good idea, especially if it means that my police and crime commissioner registers the fact that he is a Liberal Democrat, which he seemed to forget to put on the ballot paper.
More seriously, the point that the shadow Home Secretary made about firearms was absolutely right. Although the proposals in the Bill are welcome, the Home Secretary needs to do more to stop people with a history of domestic violence owning a gun. I hope that the Government consider carefully who should have a gun licence. I say that as somebody who comes from a rural constituency and who met two game shooters on Friday night and got on to this subject. Responsible gun ownership in rural areas is totally different from firearms crime. We must have zero tolerance of it and the law must be much stricter about the possibility of people with a history of domestic violence owning a gun.
Finally, I turn to the horrific subject of forced marriage. The new criminal offences in the Bill are welcome. As someone who thankfully has not encountered this issue through my casework and has only read about it, I fear that one of the great problems is that we are dealing with non-equal relationships and vulnerability. The work of community groups, support networks and third-sector groups is crucial. I worry about how justice is to be obtained. Somebody who has been put in what must be one of the most horrific situations will hardly just pick up the phone, dial 999 and say, “I’m sorry, I have a problem. I’m in a forced marriage.” Justice in this area will not come cheap. I fear the effect of the cuts to women’s refuges, legal aid and especially legal aid practitioners of particular ethnic and cultural backgrounds in whom people are more likely to confide.
Will the staff who deal with those issues be back or front-office staff? At first, one thinks that they would have to be front-office staff. However, I asked that very question of the Home Office. I asked
“whether operators who respond to 999 emergency calls and 101 non-emergency calls to the police are classified as front-line or back-office.”
I was told by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice:
“As such, some of the activities involved in call handling and control room functions are considered to be ‘front-line’”
but that
“Some call handling and control room functions are considered in HMIC’s report as public facing ‘middle office’ roles.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 72W.]
If we are not talking specifically about front-line police, I worry that the police who deal with people who are reporting forced marriages may be extremely vulnerable to cuts.
This is a Christmas tree of a Bill; a Christmas tree of suggestions. I hope, especially on the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence, that the Minister will respond.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). I recognise some of the points she raised, and her point about police commissioners and the so-called “independence tag” is one to which I am rather sympathetic.
This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate thus far. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for her comments on dangerous dogs. As chairman of the Pet Advisory Committee, a group of companion animal welfare charities, I am sympathetic to the points she raised. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who spoke powerfully on the issue of forced marriage.
It is welcome that the Opposition will not be voting against the Bill on Second Reading. I have listened to their overall concerns, but it is good to take advice and support from one’s own police force. Kent police have supported the Bill’s broad approach, saying that the streamlined and simplified toolkit approach to antisocial behaviour is to be welcomed, particularly as it provides a system that would enhance enforcement and make information sharing among partners easier, so I feel it would be wrong of me to disagree with my own police force.
I would like to concentrate on parts 1 to 5, in the light of comments on bullying made by the Home Secretary. She said:
“The Bill aims to diminish the extent to which honest and hard-working people are preyed on by criminals and by bullies who show no regard for the basic rules of civilised living.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 168.]
I am a signatory to the BeatBullying campaign to introduce Ayden’s law. The campaign was established by the families of 10 children who took their lives as a result of bullying, the BeatBullying charity and The Sun newspaper’s justice campaigner, Shy Keenan, who lost her son Ayden to bullying. One aspect of the campaign is to try to get justice for victims through legislation. There are other aspects, such as community protection to provide support for victims and families, making sure there is an interventionist approach to working with the perpetrators, providing support to local schools and communities to tackle bullying, and a compulsory support programme aimed at parents who persistently bully and intimidate others.
There is a concern, which I understand, about whether Ayden’s law would too quickly criminalise our youngsters. However, a compromise measure could be introduced through some of the clauses already in the Bill. It is too easy to say that bullying should be dealt with at school, or that it is the responsibility of parents. Evidence shows that the worst, most insidious cases of bullying take place not just at school, but on local transport, social media, via text messages and in areas beyond the school gate.
We know that 44% of suicides committed by young people in the UK are connected to bullying; that one in three of our children are victims of cyber-bullying; that one in 13 experience persistent and intentional cyber-bullying; that one in 20 have resorted to self-harm; that 3% have reported a suicide attempt because of bullying; and that 42% of children in secondary school have been bullied. I have become interested in this issue because, as the House knows, I am still heavily involved in girls’ football, and I speak regularly to teenage girls about their concerns—issues that they might not raise with their parents, peers or school teachers—and one of those is bullying in school. Sometimes they feel they cannot speak to anybody about it or that, if they do, nothing will be done, so we should use the Bill to strengthen the measures in place to tackle bullying.
I know that many are concerned about criminalising youngsters by introducing a new offence, but perhaps we should look at other countries’ experiences. Unsurprisingly, Sweden led the way by introducing legislation on bullying. It did not go as far as making it a criminal offence, but it made it illegal for a school not to act. Recently, South Africa and New Zealand have introduced anti-bullying legislation, as too have 49 states in America. It is unsurprising that Sweden has led the way, because it has a world-renowned bullying expert whose research found that those who have been bullies are 60% more likely to commit a crime by the age of 24. Tackling this at a young age, then, could prevent people from entering the criminal justice system later in life.
I said we could use the Bill to come up with a compromise. By that, I meant that the injunctions in the Bill could be used to impose positive requirements, as well as prohibitions, on youngsters who are bullying, thereby providing an opportunity for professionals to intercede and provide support, such as courses—provided by the likes of BeatBullying and others—and family intervention, which is all part of the campaign around Ayden’s law. As the injunctions do not result in a criminal record, they give us an opportunity to state in the Bill that bullying could have legal consequences while still providing the opportunity for the bully to change their behaviour.
That would be a good compromise for those wary of criminalising youngsters: people would have the opportunity to change their behaviour, but if they failed to do so, they could and should then enter the criminal justice system at a later stage. I recognise the issues associated with the definition of bullying, but those could be worked through, particularly as we know that youngsters are now being subjected to constant abuse, often over social media. This is a real opportunity, then, and I would like to work with the Minister to take the matter forward and potentially introduce amendments making it clear that, as the Home Secretary said a few months ago in her opening remarks about the Bill, bullying is unacceptable in a civilised society.
I want to make two further points. I am chair of the all-party group on alcohol misuse, and, as the Minister will be aware, many of the representations sent to MPs in advance of the Bill mentioned the cost of alcohol misuse to our front-line services, particularly the time the police spend dealing with people misusing alcohol on our streets and in our town centres at weekends—and, indeed, in domestic violence situations, as the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said. The Bill is an opportunity, then, to strengthen the measures and give the police the tools they need to tackle the issue. I recognise that the Home Office is looking through the alcohol strategy consultation and will, I hope, come forward with some proposals, but this Bill is potentially another opportunity for it to do so.
The final issue I want to raise might sound a bit silly compared with the other two, but it is something I feel passionately about. This Bill could have addressed the issue of bogus charity bags, which is a growing crime that we face in society. This is not just about the cost of a bag of clothes; it is about giving people confidence that the clothes they put outside their houses for charity are being delivered to charity, and that they are not being taken advantage of by those intent on criminal behaviour. Kent police has worked hard to deal with the issue, partly because I have badgered it into submission. Kent police is keen to ensure that the county becomes bogus bag-free and is using all the agencies, partly because it recognises that organised crime can lie behind bogus charity bags, which quite often mask other criminal activities. The money raised goes into much more serious crimes. The police in my area feel that if they can nip that in the bud at an early stage, it will save them a lot more time and grief in the long run.
That is some food for thought for the Minister. I hope he will consider adding other issues to the Bill. Bullying is a key part of that, but we also need a statement of intent on alcohol misuse, and I would like much tougher action taken on bogus charity bag collectors.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
As you and the House will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituent 14-year-old Jade Lomas Anderson was savaged to death by four dogs on 26 March this year. She was staying overnight at her friend’s house as a special treat for having such a glowing end-of-term report. We do not yet know what happened—indeed, we may never know, because Jade was the only person present—but what we do know is the current legislation is inadequate to deal with the aftermath of an attack on private property, or to prevent one from happening in the first place.
Jade’s mum and dad, Shirley and Michael Anderson, came to London last week to meet Lord de Mauley, a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary to urge them to take action to tackle dangerous dogs. I am sure the House will join me in commending Jade’s parents for their bravery in campaigning to change the law at this most difficult time. As they say, Jade was a kind girl who would do anything to help other people, and she would want them to try to prevent any other families from suffering in the way they are suffering. As Michael says, with 210,000 attacks each year, more than 6,000 people admitted to hospital, often with life-changing injuries, 12 postal workers attacked each day and 16 people killed since 2005, dog attacks are reaching epidemic proportions.
Indeed, there have been three more attacks in Atherton in just the last week. The first one was not reported to the police. The second involved Michael’s cousin, who has bruises and scratches from a Staffordshire bull terrier jumping up at her in an aggressive way when she was walking her dog in a park. She was lucky: her boyfriend was there to drive the dog away. The third incident happened when two young men were attacked in the street by another unaccompanied Staffie. Those attacks, like the other 400 or so that took place last week, will not hit the national news and might not even make their way into the local newspapers, but they illustrate the need to take holistic, robust action to protect people and other animals.
The proposal to extend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover attacks on private property is welcome, but there are fears that the Government’s proposal that dangerous dogs be dealt with under community protection notices will be inadequate. Indeed, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is still calling for dog control notices to be introduced. Such notices would give the authorities the power to intervene if concern is raised about a dog. They would be able to instruct the owner to take a range of actions, which could include keeping the dog muzzled, keeping it on a lead, keeping it away from children or having it castrated. The owner and the dog could be made to undertake training. I believe—although not everyone agrees with me—that we should be able to order the owner to reduce the number of dogs in a household if that home is not suitable for the number and size of dogs present.
As others have said, dog control notices are supported by a wide range of organisations, including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Veterinary Association, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and the Communication Workers Union. They have already been introduced in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and they should be introduced across the rest of the United Kingdom. Their existence would provide a swift, flexible and proportionate way of dealing with irresponsible dog owners. They would act as an early-warning system, enabling action to be taken to promote responsible ownership rather than just prosecuting owners after a tragedy has taken place.
I know from the answers given by Lord de Mauley and the Home Secretary that the Government believe that the measures in the Bill will have an equivalent effect, but I disagree. The most important measures that we need are early intervention mechanisms—preventive measures that can be put in place before an attack takes place. Simply to subsume the issue of dangerous dogs into the whole issue of antisocial behaviour will not give it the priority it needs.
This is not simply a matter of dealing with a dangerously out-of-control dog; it is about taking action before that dog attacks. It is about looking at the warning signs, such as excessive barking or attacking other animals, and putting preventive measures in place. I cannot see how the Government’s proposals will trigger the appropriate professional response to such signs, allowing action to be taken to protect the community and improve the welfare of the dog. Michael Anderson believes that there should be a dedicated organisation in each local authority area to deal with the issue of dogs, and that such a dedicated team would be able to address the issues of community safety and dog welfare. The Government’s proposals fall far short of meeting Michael’s ambitions.
I welcome the proposal to microchip all dogs, but many of my constituents do not believe that that goes far enough. They believe we should reintroduce effective dog licences that would require owners to make a decision about how many dogs they can own and care for. Microchipping would go part-way towards achieving that, but why not go the whole hog? If we do not, what penalties will there be for not microchipping a dog, or for not registering a change of ownership or place of residence if a dog is sold or given away when the owner moves home?
I am pleased that the Bill will extend to assistance dogs, but I am disappointed that it will not extend to all protected animals. I have already told the House about the distress and expense caused to the ex-mayor of Blackrod when she lost two of her cats in a dog attack, and about the ex-mayor of Westhoughton, whose dog was attacked when he was walking it on a lead. Let me also tell the House about a farmer who has signed my petition on dangerous dogs. She heard a disturbance in one of her fields and went out to discover a dog attacking her cattle. The dog started to come towards her, when its owner came out from behind some bushes and called it off. She was deeply traumatised, faced a large vet’s bill and was unable to sleep for a week. We know that some owners deliberately use other animals to make their dogs more vicious, but we also know that attacks on protected animals can be a warning sign of a dog becoming dangerously out of control. I hope the Government will amend the Bill to include attacks on protected animals.
We also need to educate people about dogs, about the suitability of different breeds for their environment, about how they behave around children and about how much space and exercise they need. We need to educate people not to leave any dog alone with young children, no matter how small or placid it might normally be. We need to educate children about dealing with dogs, about treating all dogs with respect and about understanding their body language. We also need to educate children and owners about the care and training of their pets.
We also need to deal with the issue of breeding dogs. Dog charities and local authorities are reporting an increase in the number of abandoned dogs, yet ordinary people can breed five litters of puppies a year without needing a licence. The Bill does not touch on that issue, but it does get rid of dog control orders, which give local authorities specific powers relating to dog fouling, keeping dogs on a lead or putting them on a lead when told to do so, excluding dogs from particular areas and limiting the number of dogs allowed in certain areas. I am told that the proposed legislation will allow for some of those powers, but I come back to my earlier point that subsuming dog legislation into a Bill that covers antisocial behaviour, crime and policing will not give the issue the priority it needs. As the Communication Workers Union has stated, the Government have missed the opportunity to consolidate all the necessary dog control and welfare legislation into a specific dog control Bill.
Many people have said that the real issue is not dangerous dogs but irresponsible owners. The Government should take this opportunity to be tough on dangerous dogs and tough on the causes of dangerous dogs. The tragedy of Jade Lomas Anderson and all the other victims is a testament to what happens when we do not take an holistic approach to dog ownership and dangerous dogs. I urge the Government at least to amend the Bill to include more specific clauses, and to take lessons from the past and to introduce a dog control and welfare Bill.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I congratulate her and pay tribute to her for the work she has done following the tragedy of her constituent, Jade Anderson. I was delighted to meet briefly Jade’s parents, Michael and Shirley, and I hope that this evening will bring some solace to them, as they see how widespread is the interest in the issue of irresponsible dog owners and dangerous dogs.
Our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has produced two reports that are relevant to this debate: the 7th report on “Dog Control and Welfare” and the Government response thereto; and, perhaps still more relevant, our 1st report on the “Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill”. I say in passing, if I may, that it is a matter of regret to the Select Committee and to those who submitted either oral or written evidence to our pre-legislative scrutiny that the Government published the Bill, particularly clauses 98 and 99, before we were able to publish our pre-legislative scrutiny. Normally, Select Committees meet at any time, including in the recess, but the one time when we are prohibited from meeting is during Prorogation. I pay tribute to those who sit with me, serving on the Committee, particularly those who helped us draft the reports and the witnesses who were able to respect a very tight timetable. Unfortunately, we were unable to draft the report before Prorogation, so our views were not taken into account when clauses 98 and 99 were published. That is obviously, as I say, a matter of regret.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome the extension of the Bill to include attacks on private property, which I think will address the issues raised by the hon. Members for Bolton West and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) who had two of the most tragic cases. It is important to rehearse here that since 2007 nine people have died as a result of dog attacks, of whom seven were children. The annual cost to the NHS of treating such injuries is around £3 million. During my first ever election campaign, I was bitten in a rather sensitive area at the top of my thigh by a dog of immense good taste. It went unreported because the dog was owned by a Conservative supporter, and I was not going to take the matter any further. Some eight attacks on assistance dogs and hundreds of livestock attacks happen each month. As we know, a number of communications and other workers are similarly attacked.
We said in our previous report in February that the Government’s belated proposals for improvement were woefully inadequate. The Bill’s proposals are welcome, but we say that they are limited in scope and fall short of providing a comprehensive and effective regime for tackling the increasing problem of out-of-control dogs. Strong measures to prevent attacks are conspicuously absent. I shall talk in a moment about the dog control notices.
What the hon. Member for Bolton West said earlier about the issue of resources must not go uncovered this evening. The administration of dog control notices in Scotland is immensely resource intensive; it is labour intensive, and I think that the Government should do some work on this issue in Committee before the Bill returns to the House on Report. Other areas that are resource intensive include dog control notices, the issue of stray dogs and dog welfare.
We welcome the extension of the provisions to deal with attacks on private property, which was the one loophole that we thought should be covered. We welcome, too, the extension to cover attacks on assistance dogs. We must recognise this evening, however, that the Government have wasted an opportunity to bring forward wider measures, giving a full and comprehensive review of all the laws applying in one consolidated piece of legislation.
The hon. Member for Bolton West regretted that the legislation would not cover attacks on all protected animals, and I would refer to livestock in that context. Many Members will have received representations from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which opposes breed-specific legislation and does not believe that clause 99 will offer the necessary solutions. It is also concerned about the replacement of dog control notices with public spaces protection orders.
I hope that the Minister will give a little more substance to what was said by the Home Secretary. She listed the six powers provided by the Bill, including the public protection order, the community protection order and the dispersal power, but I remain to be convinced that any sort of order will be specific enough. The evidence given to the Committee was very persuasive, suggesting that dog control notices are working effectively in Scotland, and I think that it behoves the Government to explain to the House why they have rejected them. Control notices are very specific, relating to specific dogs in specific areas, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West and others that their retention might prevent future tragedies. If a dog appears to be out of control, we need to be able to bear down on its irresponsible owner. A dog will only behave as it has been taught to behave.
I disagree with the hon. Lady on just one issue. When dog licences existed, only 50% of owners bothered to purchase them. I fear that responsible owners will microchip their dogs but irresponsible owners will not, and that there will continue to be a drain on charities for that simple reason.
The Communication Workers Union considers part 7 to be a missed opportunity, believing that many of its workers need stronger protection. I urge the Minister to be honest with the House—I am sure that he will be nothing other than honest; that was a bad word to use. I urge him to be fulsome in explaining to the House in more detail why the Government have rejected dog control notices. As I have said, we have been persuaded that they are working well in part of the United Kingdom.
While we accept most of the Bill’s provisions, we reserve our right, as a Select Committee, to table amendments on Report if, having conducted pre-legislative scrutiny, we remain dissatisfied. The draft Bill is welcome as far as it goes in extending provision to attacks made by dangerous dogs anywhere, but we have expressed our reservations about the extent of the “householder case”, and I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that in his response. We would also welcome clarification of both the definition of an “assistance dog” and the new provisions relating to “fit and proper” dog owners.
We are disappointed that the Government have not taken account of the benefits to the public of meeting the expectations that the hon. Lady said had been raised, and the benefits to law enforcers of consolidating the myriad legislative measures on dog control and breeding. There have been many newspaper reports of attacks by dogs on other animals—not just other dogs but, in particular, horses—which are a real problem in the countryside. While we appreciate DEFRA’s concern about the need to retain remedies in both statute and common law, we are not convinced that consolidation would lead to a diminution of the range of legal options available. I believe that the bulk of the evidence given to the Committee demonstrated that a single unified Act would provide a clear and holistic set of measures for those who are given the task of enforcing dog legislation.
The Minister has his work cut out for him, and we shall monitor him very closely indeed.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
As always, it is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am tempted to use youth parlance and say, “What they said in their report” and then sit down, but it is worth recording that, although some of these measures are welcome, they are broadly described in the EFRA Committee report as woefully inadequate and belated. That sums up where many of the organisations that have campaigned long and hard for dog control measures feel we have got to. They welcome the Bill being introduced but they feel that it is not there yet.
It has also been a great privilege to hear some of the contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I would like to mention in particular the contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who spoke with real insight and passion on behalf of the people in their constituencies who have tragically lost family members. There are so many such instances.
May I briefly turn to a separate issue? It relates to chapter 2, clauses 55 to 68. Although I have no pecuniary interest and no financial remittance whatever, I declare that I am the chairman of Glamorgan Area Ramblers and a vice-president of Ramblers Cymru. There are some concerns. The approach is well intended and builds on what has been done to restrict gate access to paths. The issue is getting the balance right. People have had a legitimate right to use those paths and public areas over many years and they should be heard, too. There is some concern, based on the track record of similar measures, that sometimes local communities have felt bypassed in that process. We must ensure that, in tackling antisocial behaviour—it is often an issue with some of these dark, narrow alleys as sometimes the entrances and egresses are used for criminal behaviour—there is proper community consultation, including with those who may say, “Let us get to the causes of the problem, rather than deal with the symptoms and simply gate off the path.”
On dog law reform and the Bill’s measures to tackle irresponsible owners, it has taken three years. My appeal to the Government, as a former Minister who took great pains to work on a cross-party basis to improve Bills, is that we should please take the opportunity to get the legislation right. I refer in particular to the issue of dog control notices. I have not yet heard—it is for the Government to provide this—compelling reasons why dog control notices are not appropriate. They are backed by many of the 30 organisations, including the police, the Royal College of Nursing, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which still maintain that a purposeful, direct and discrete measure is needed in the Bill specifically to deal with dog control. There are at least two reasons for that. The first is to do with early intervention and getting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West said, to the root of the problem before an attack takes place. That should happen when an animal displays certain behavioural traits, when a social worker, postal worker or member of the family has said, “There are real issues with this animal—something should be done.” Something could also be done early on with the owner of the animal. I am waiting to hear a strong argument from the Minister as to why the Government have taken that position on dog control notices. The Secretary of State did nothing to dispel my concerns and those of many others.
Already there have been two fatalities this year. There have been 17 fatalities since 2005. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree mentioned many of those tragic cases. There are nearly 250,000 attacks every year. Every local authority faces hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs to kennel the dogs. The Metropolitan police and West Midlands police face millions of pounds of costs every year. Thousands of work days are lost—not only for postal workers but home workers. That has financial costs, too.
We support the Government’s move to extend to private property the ability to prosecute. Let us get the balance right in terms of trespassers, but that move is welcome. It is right to encompass assistance dogs within the proposals and we support any measure to do that. In so doing, however, I hope we debate in Committee the aspects that the Chair of the EFRA Committee touched on relating to equines, bovines, cattle and sheep in the fields. Following a freedom of information request, some fantastic analysis was done by the Farmers Guardian. Many others have campaigned on the issue. They have identified a rise in the number of attacks on farmyard stock: from 691 in 2011 to 739 in 2012. Individual owners must take responsibility. My family is involved in upland sheep farming, and we have had to take direct action when dogs have been attacking sheep on the hills. There must also be some comeback on owners who leave their dogs out to run wild in the fields or let them off the leash. I hope that such a measure will feature, and measures on attacks on protected animals ought to be considered, too.
Good briefings on dog control notices have been produced by Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Communication Workers Union and many other organisations. They criticise the Bill because they see the four different measures proposed in it as adding considerable administration and bureaucracy—I wait to be disabused of that notion by the Minister in his closing remarks, or perhaps in Committee—as opposed to being flexible, light-touch measures that can facilitate early intervention before an attack takes place. Crime prevention injunctions and criminal behaviour orders, for example, both require court hearings if requirements are imposed, and there must be someone responsible for supervising compliance with the requirements, evidence must be given to the court, and if the person is under 18, the applicant must consult the local youth offending team.
When a social worker goes into a house and they have been told by an RSPCA officer, “The last time we were in there, we had a bit of a problem with the dog, so watch out,” and the dog displays the same behaviour or the owner riles the dog or is clearly mistreating the dog, that is when those steps should be taken, and quickly, without having to go through a lengthy bureaucratic procedure. What we need are bespoke dog control notices, instead of a generic approach. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is very firm on that, as are many outside organisations. The Minister will have to work very hard in Committee if he wants to persuade us otherwise.
DCNs can work. There is a parallel, and it is not only provided by Scotland. There are provisions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for what are called IS87s issued by the RSPCA, and we should look at their compliance rate. These are very flexible and easy to use. Last year 10,728 IS87s were issued, and the level of compliance was 93%. They do work, therefore; they offer a much lighter touch and are much more effective. If we look back to previous years, we see that the compliance rates were 97%, 94%, 96% and 97%. I therefore say to the Minister that there is an alternative way forward, based on the DCN approach, which we can already see works under a slightly different mechanism.
The Minister must think very hard about how to proceed, and I ask him to go forward with an open mind. We have heard the arguments about why we should not go forward, and they have not persuaded the organisations I have mentioned, including the police. If there is an issue of resources and the Government are worried that the moment they say, “Dog control notice,” there will be a carry-on of resources down to local authorities, charitable bodies and so forth, let us put that up front and talk about how it can be overcome. However, we should not simply package this in with the wider generic package of measures that may or may not be effective, when the police and others are looking to deal with the myriad problems to do with antisocial behaviour and community safety. Our worry is that dog control and dealing with irresponsible owners will again not be the top priority, as has so often been the case in the past.
I urge the Minister to keep an open mind; I urge him to listen to the Committee and to be open to changing his mind as the Bill progresses. That is all I ask. That is what makes for a good, listening Government and Executive, and he has heard from both sides of the House tonight that that is what we are looking for.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who made an incredibly powerful speech. I know the Opposition Front-Bench team have kindly indicated that it does not intend to press the House to a Division, so part of my task tonight is, perhaps, not to detain us all for too long.
I will speak principally about those parts of this Bill, which I support, that address the question of forced marriage. Before I do so, however, I want my hon. Friend the Minister to know that I have listened very carefully to many of the contributions to this debate, and he has a problem. He has a real problem with the measures that are supposed to deal with the difficulties caused by dogs. We have heard incredibly powerful contributions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) in particular, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). She made it clear to the Minister—I hope he is listening—that he needs to tell the House why the Government do not think that the measures that have almost universal support on both sides of the House, other than from the Front Benchers, and that are in place north of the border should not be included in the Bill. I understand the desire not to have a smorgasbord of measures dealing with antisocial behaviour, but we are talking about a specific problem, to which a specific solution exists in Scotland and which, from the contributions I have heard this afternoon, is effective. He will need to make it clear to the House, although not necessarily tonight as we are not going to divide, but certainly in Committee, and subsequently, precisely why the Government are not in favour of introducing those measures.
As I have said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, this is a wide-ranging Bill that deals with a large number of things. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) referred to the problem of illegal raves in his constituency. I have to tell the House that my constituency is not too distant from Cambridgeshire, despite what we feel may be frequently thought in the corridors of Whitehall, and it has the same problem. I was speaking only last week to some of my local farmers who have encountered it. Anybody who has seen the aftermath of one of these illegal raves knows that we need to have in place the measures necessary to deal with that problem. In addition to dealing with the questions about dogs that have been put to him by other hon. Members, one thing that I want to hear from the Minister when he winds up the debate is that the measures in the Bill will deal effectively with the problem of illegal raves.
As I said at the outset, the principal issue to which I wish to address my comments is that of forced marriage because I know that the forced marriage provisions in the Bill have support from those on both sides of the House. However, it is important to record precisely the problem with which the Bill needs to grapple and for the Minister to make it clear to the House that it will do that. I say that conscious, of course, that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) made an extremely powerful speech, touching on the measures in part 9 of the Bill, which it would be difficult to follow.
Let me begin by identifying what the problem is, because this issue is hidden from the vast majority of Members of this House and our constituents. Every year, thousands of people—principally the young and, therefore, vulnerable—are affected by it. We are talking about more than 1,000, based on the statistics we have from the forced marriage unit, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for supporting it when it was set up in 2005. We know from the research that has been conducted and from anecdotal evidence that the 1,000-plus people who contact the unit every year are simply the tip of the iceberg. We do not know quite how many young men and women are affected, but they deserve the protection of the law and they have not had it south of the border in the way that Scotland has enacted it.
It is therefore right that we welcome the measures in part 9 of the Bill, which address, for the first time, the criminal nature of forcing people to contract a marriage where one, or both, of them does not wish to do so. This intervention that the law requires to be made comes not just in the context of young and vulnerable adults; in the vast majority of cases they are being forced into the situation not only by the people they love, but by the people who are supposed to be looking after them, caring for them and ensuring that their transition from childhood to adulthood proceeds smoothly and in a way that makes them useful, valuable and happy members of our society.
As I say, the measures in the Bill are to be welcomed. The difficulty with the existing law, for which the previous Administration are to be criticised, is that the system to protect those who find themselves confronted with this problem contained in the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 was simply to have in place civil law measures, which, in effect, led to an order or series of orders against those who might force people into marriage.
The first problem with that—a point that the previous Government failed to listen to—was that it sent out completely the wrong message. Forcing someone into marriage is not only not desirable; given the context in which it occurs, it ought to be a crime. Although some responses to the Government’s consultation indicated that there might be some downsides to criminalising such behaviour, we ought to be absolutely clear that this is not acceptable behaviour in our society, and if it is not acceptable behaviour in our society, it ought to be a crime in England and Wales, as it is in Scotland. Of course, other criminal offences may be committed during the course of forcing someone to contract a marriage, but they may not be, or they may be so serious that there is a reluctance on the part of the vulnerable person affected to instigate a complaint or a prosecution.
The second problem with having only a civil law system of dealing with forced marriage is that it led to a lack of awareness on the part of professionals, certainly in 2011 when the Select Committee on Home Affairs reported on what precisely could be done, as a matter of law, when a young person found themselves in this position. The follow-on point is that once a forced marriage protection order of some description had been obtained, as far as many professionals were concerned that was the end of the problem, but of course it is not necessarily the end of the problem; it is important to see that the order and its provisions are enforced.
The third problem was that in the absence of criminality, there was a lack of effective protection, or a lack of an effective penalty, although of course people were put into custody for breach of orders made by the courts. The deterrent effect of having only civil law remedies, which were difficult to enforce and rarely enforced, was therefore lessened.
It is important to get this point across: none of this is to attack legitimate arranged marriages, which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) referred to in an intervention on the Home Secretary. None of it has anything to do with proper arranged marriages, or interferes with the customs or culture of minority communities in this country. I understand that the original decision by the previous Administration not to criminalise forced marriage south of the border may well have been based on a desire not to be seen to target minority communities. Nobody wants to target minority communities, or to attack their culture or customs, but I have to tell Opposition Front Benchers that, given the problem of forced marriage, that was an error—an error that this Government propose to rectify, with cross-party support, in part 9 of the Bill. That is very much to be welcomed, as is the entirety of the Bill, subject to the points that I have made, which the Minister will need to deal with, about dangerous dogs. If we were dividing on Second Reading, which we are not, I would of course give the Bill my support.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am delighted to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who gave us some very interesting information about forced marriage that I was not fully aware of, so I thank him for that. I realise that we are a bit short of time, but I am grateful for a few short minutes—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I would not like the hon. Lady to feel that she has to curtail her comments. She has approximately 10 minutes in which to make her speech, as did everyone else.
Andrea Leadsom
I am now even more grateful. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not speak at 90 mph, then. I want to take a few minutes of the Chamber’s time, because the Bill is a superb opportunity to break generational cycles of antisocial behaviour. I am changing the subject from forced marriage to how we can, through early prevention measures, stop today’s babies becoming tomorrow’s ASBO kids. The Bill rightly puts victims at the heart of our response to antisocial behaviour. However, a key part of the background to bringing in this Bill was the Government’s clear determination to focus on long-term solutions to antisocial behaviour.
In the May 2012 White Paper it was clear that the underlying issues driving antisocial behaviour, most notably mental health issues and troubled family backgrounds, should be addressed through this Bill. Not only that, but during pre-legislative scrutiny early intervention was identified as a crucial part of changing the route to antisocial behaviour, so I hope that the new clauses I will be submitting will help the Government to make even more progress in getting rid of the appalling blight of antisocial behaviour.
I want to outline why getting it right in the early stage of life could be the single biggest challenge of the 21st century. I am aware that I have touched on this subject many times in the Chamber, and thankfully I feel I am beginning to convince colleagues of its merit, but I want to touch again on what early attachment actually is. As babies we are only sensory beings. When we cry, we do not know what is wrong—that we are wet, hot, cold, tired, hungry or bored. We just know that something is wrong. Babies rely on an adult caregiver to meet their needs, to soothe them, and ultimately to help them learn that the world is a good place.
In the first year of life, the baby’s brain will form a million neural connections per second. Most of us receive good enough care from good enough parents, so our brain connections will develop into a healthy pre-frontal cortex, and we will become emotionally resilient adults, making a positive contribution to society. However, for the baby who is neglected or abused, the development of the brain will literally be stunted. Not only that, but the constantly raised level of the stress hormone cortisol, as a result of the baby being left to scream himself into exhaustion day after day, will lead to a significantly greater risk that they will suffer poor physical and mental health outcomes, and crucially in relation to today’s debate, that they will develop a high pre-disposition to high risk-taking behaviour, such as violence, substance abuse and criminality.
I want to see early intervention clauses in the Bill because what happens to the infant before the age of two has a profound effect on their later ability to contribute to society. Let me give three quick examples. First, violent criminals are shown to have a high level of tolerance to their own stress levels. Secondly, there is a study of long-term prison inmates that suggests that they have attachment problems stemming back to babyhood. Thirdly, the dramatic increase in recent years of the incidence of hyperkinetic syndrome in children points to the increasing prevalence of insecure attachment. A lack of secure attachment to a loving adult in babyhood will lead to a lack of social capacity in adulthood. All too often, unloved or neglected babies go on to have no real sense of responsibility or code of conduct, and they struggle to empathise with other people.
So much of the cost to our society of antisocial behaviour could be slashed if we focused our efforts on turning around the fate of these individuals in the perinatal period. Supporting families that are struggling to form a secure bond, via parent-infant psychotherapy, family-nurse partnership, better antenatal assessment of maternal mental health, better training for health visitors and family workers, and more joined-up working by midwives, health visitors and children’s centres, would all contribute to a better society. Such changes are cheap compared with the cost of social breakdown.
Preventing just one in 10 young offenders from entering custody would save £100 million per year. Just one adult inmate costs the taxpayer around £112 a day, and a child in care costs over £300 a day. I am afraid that too much of this Bill attempts to sort out problems once they have set in. This is the position we have got ourselves into as a society. The cost of dealing with it is vast, and reoffending rates are very high, so I urge the Government to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to overhaul the way we deal with antisocial behaviour.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend quickly outline what real, practical measures could be taken to help families in this situation, including, I presume, taking the child away if necessary?
Andrea Leadsom
I have certainly mentioned some of the specific measures. One of the big problems at the moment, which the Children and Families Bill seeks to address—I was delighted to be part of its Bill Committee —is the need to speed up proceedings when children need to be taken away. All too often, when there are doubts about whether a baby can stay with the birth parents, social workers find it difficult to make that final decision, so the baby is repeatedly passed into and out of care. Very often, the toddler can be three or even older before a final decision is taken. They can be passed backwards and forwards, with profound and detrimental consequences for their early brain development.
That is at the very sharpest end where there are real doubts and concerns about that child’s ability to stay with their birth parents. In the less terrible cases, perhaps mum has suffered desperately from post-natal depression, perhaps she has had previous children taken away, perhaps she has a violent boyfriend, husband or partner at home who is causing her great difficulty in being able to form that secure bond with her baby. There, clearly, we need to be providing talking therapies, not drugs. All too often, when a mum presents with post-natal depression to a GP, she will be offered antidepressants, which will mean that she cannot breastfeed and she becomes something like a zombie, unable to form that vital secure bond. That has profound consequences for her infant, as I have outlined.
I urge the Government to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to overhaul the way we deal with antisocial behaviour, and to put far greater emphasis on prevention. Prevention is not only cheaper but much kinder than cure.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that we have had a wide-ranging debate. There have been some significant and moving contributions from Members on both sides of the House. There has been a great deal of consensus on some aspects of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and, on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) have said, there is much in the Bill that the Opposition support, which leads us not to oppose its Second Reading. There are many issues on which we find a good resonance with the Government’s proposals, in what I accept is a Christmas tree Bill. It has many important aspects that will have our support.
I fully support the new criminal offence of possessing a firearm with intent to supply. In my last few months as the policing Minister, I visited the firearms centre in the west midlands and was lobbied hard on that very issue. A gun can turn up in offence after offence because it is for hire. We want to consider some further issues concerning domestic violence and owning a firearm, but we will accept and support that measure.
We support provisions on the new College of Policing. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, we want to look at governance, composition and diversity, but in principle we support the power to issue regulations. I will also seek to scrutinise in detail the pay and negotiation proposals, but in principle we will give them a fair wind, and test some of the issues in Committee.
It will come as no surprise that we support extending the powers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to oversight of private staff employed by police forces. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State raised that issue before the Bill was published, and we will want to consider constructively in Committee how to respond to IPCC recommendations and its role.
The measures on forced marriage have cross-party support. I was pleased to hear the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) give his voluble support to those proposals. The law should be strengthened to build on the work done to stop forced marriage, and we will build on positive measures by the previous Government, although I accept that there are issues that can be reflected on now, which will help to ensure that we have fairness and protection of individuals while still respecting traditions in our communities.
We will certainly support measures giving immigration officers stop-and-search powers, which I think is reasonable, particularly given the nature of terrorism that we have at the moment. We support the principle of community remedy under clause 93, but again we will want to test that to a good degree in Committee. We strongly believe that restorative justice and community resolutions should be used when dealing with antisocial behaviour, but we need greater clarity about what that means, not just a list of actions that authorities could take, which the Bill gives at the moment. We need more definition. I hope that we can explore those issues constructively in Committee.
I am also pleased to look at the powers of police community support officers. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) for his constructive and helpful remarks. He—dare I say it—reached out to Opposition Members with his support for previous policies. For that I am grateful, because it does not happen all that often. We will certainly look at those issues constructively and work with him, if he happens to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, to look at how we can form a consensus.
We will examine the clauses on victims’ services. We do not want to vote against them at this stage, but we have concerns about their fragmentation through commissioning by police commissioners and want to know what the relationship will be with national commissioning. We will test those concerns accordingly in Committee, as we will for the witness protection measures in clause 134, which were mentioned and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). They seem to be sensible measures that deal with some wider issues.
A number of issues raised in the debate will be looked at closely in Committee. I was particularly impressed by the remarks the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) made on sexual exploitation, and indeed by the Home Secretary’s generous intervention, when she said that she would look at discussing in Committee the role of hotels and guest houses. Again, we will have an opportunity to test that. The points made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on bullying were well made, and the cross-party discussions we have had tonight show that there is a potential consensus on really scrutinising those matters in Committee.
Early intervention, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), is extremely important. If there are constructive suggestions, the Opposition will look at them, because we recognised when in government that early intervention is key to preventing future poor behaviour. That support can be mirrored in a number of ways, and that is what we will do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) mentioned knife possession and the experience in Blackpool. I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) when she mentioned Travellers, litter and responsibility. That has had an impact in my constituency, which is a tourist area, and we will happily look at that in Committee.
There remain two main areas where there was the potential for consensus, but not necessarily with Government Front Benchers. The first relates to the question of how we deal with legislation on dogs and dog control issues. The RSPCA, ACPO, the CWU, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), have all suggested that the measures in the Bill are not sufficient for meeting the challenges of the problem.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The shadow Minister will be well aware of Northern Ireland’s dangerous dogs legislation, which is referred to as five-star because of the steps that have been taken. Does he feel that it is perhaps not too late for the Government to consider that legislation as the method for trying to control dogs here in England, by making the Bill more specific, rather than generic, as it is now?
Mr Hanson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The model in Northern Ireland could certainly be considered, as it has much merit.
I think that the Minister needs to reflect on the matter, because as the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, he will face some challenges in Committee on those issues. The RSPCA, the CWU, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have all raised concerns and suggested that we need to look at some further matters, so I think that the Minister needs to come to Committee prepared to deal with those concerns. I say that not least because of the cases we have heard about today. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) mentioned John Paul Massey and the recent case of Clifford Clarke. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) mentioned the death of Jade Lomas Anderson. Last week I had the privilege of meeting her determined parents with my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who over many months and years has given much time to this issue, raised dog control notices. When the RSPCA says that
“This is a missed opportunity and we cannot understand why the Government has ignored the majority of the public, politicians and organisations”,
we clearly have an issue to which we should return. Not one voice from the Government or Opposition Back Benches opposed those views during this debate. In February, the EFRA Committee said that the proposals were “woefully inadequate”. I am sorry that the Government produced this Bill prior to receiving the Committee’s comments.
During our discussions today, a powerful case has been made for considering measures on dangerous dogs. The Bill is far too weak on this immensely serious issue. For example, local authorities would be allowed to prevent dogs from entering a playground but could not ban them from streets and shopping areas. There are anomalies that we need to test and look at in detail. Dog control notices could ensure muzzling of dogs in places which the public access, the neutering of dogs, and the owner and dog having to attend and complete training courses. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home says:
“We are looking for the Government to introduce Dog Control Notices which will do more to provide for early intervention and prevention.”
I hope that the Government will listen to the voices across the Chamber that have asked for that.
The other big issue is antisocial behaviour orders. Opposition Members expressed the concern—I admit that it was potentially more partisan—that the lack of criminal sanction is an error that weakens the Government’s proposals and means that antisocial behaviour will not be tackled as effectively in future. We will test that in Committee and table amendments accordingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South and other hon. Friends stressed that that lack of criminal sanction is key to the effectiveness or otherwise of antisocial behaviour orders. The community trigger may not be effective in this context. Three complainants are needed before a complaint will even begin to be taken seriously, and that needs further review. Coupled with that, we have cuts in the community safety budget, cuts in police numbers and, even after a heckle by the hon. Member for Cambridge, a lack of commitment to CCTV cameras to provide really good support to policing in our communities.. That shows that there is the potential for a weakening of powers.
Sadly, I will end on a partisan note. The weakening of the provisions on DNA, the reduction in CCTV, the reduction in police numbers and the cuts in the community safety budget show that this Government are not tackling crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour in a way that will increase confidence within our communities.
Dr Huppert
The right hon. Gentleman listed a number of things that the Labour Government introduced that some would see as rather authoritarian. Is he really bemoaning the fact that this Government do not, for example, intend that the DNA of innocent people should be kept?
Mr Hanson
From memory, about 25,000 such people—according to Home Office modelling, not mine—could go on to commit further offences. We had a very full debate on this issue and we lost the arguments. Ultimately, I believe that the measures that Labour put in place in government on DNA, CCTV, antisocial behaviour orders, community investment and policing helped to reduce crime and will continue to help to reduce it still further.
This is not a bad Bill and we will not oppose it this evening, but it is a weak Bill: it weakens the potential for communities to receive strong support to tackle antisocial behaviour and it does not do what it could have done on dogs. We welcome and support some of its measures, but we will test them in Committee. We will ensure that the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight so that we can address those issues. I hope that the Minister will listen not just to the Opposition, but to Members on his side of the House.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to conclude this thoughtful and extensive debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for his largely thoughtful speech, although it was slightly diminished by his failure to acknowledge that this Government are presiding over the lowest level of crime since the independent survey began more than 30 years ago. That is a painful truth, but those of us who put the interests of our constituents before party political debating points are proud of it.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. Some contributions centred on parts of the Bill that have not been widely commented on, and there were some constructive ideas from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) about police community support officers and from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) about early intervention.
Large parts of the Bill are broadly popular across the House. For example, the right hon. Member for Delyn touched on provisions relating to the College of Policing and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and we will have an opportunity to study those in greater detail in Committee. He also welcomed the proposal, which I think is popular across the House, to make possession of a firearm with intent to supply a criminal offence. Of course, this country has some of the toughest controls in the world on firearm ownership, but we are considering how guidance can be strengthened further to take account of some of the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members.
I was also pleased to hear widespread support—including from the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who made a forceful, emotional and articulate speech—for the Government’s new proposal to criminalise forced marriage. Members were right to draw the distinction between arranged marriage, which involves the consent of both parties, and forced marriage, where mainly young women or girls, but sometimes—in about one in five cases—young men, are coerced into marital arrangements completely against their will. This is a difficult and sensitive issue, because they are usually coerced by their parents or another close family member, so nobody underestimates the difficulties faced by the Government, the Home Office and the Foreign Office in bearing down on this practice. We believe that criminalising forced marriage is the right step to take. It sends a powerful signal, and I think it is in tune with the mood of the country. I believe there is broad consent on those measures across the House.
About 90% of the contributions over the past four hours or so of debate have focused on antisocial behaviour, which is central to the Bill, and dogs. Let me talk about those two issues in turn. I am sure that every Member of the House who conducts regular surgeries for their constituents or who talks to their constituents more informally about their concerns recognises the importance that the public attach to the issue of antisocial behaviour. My constituency is by no means an inner-city area with high levels of crime, but antisocial behaviour is the issue most often raised spontaneously when I ask my constituents which of their concerns ranks highest.
Antisocial behaviour blights people’s lives and can cause profound misery. Even though some of the behaviour does not sound of huge consequence in the grand scheme of things—such as late-night noise, neighbours behaving aggressively or people ringing doorbells and running away late at night or early in the morning—it can cause great fear and unhappiness. The cumulative effect of that behaviour can be profound.
I say as a liberal—with both a small “l” and a big “L”—that people should be free from fear and persecution. That should be a measure of the civilisation that our society has attained. Many people across the country do not live free from fear and persecution, and it is their own neighbours and people in their community who impose that appalling state of affairs upon them. There is an onus on us in this House to see what we can do better to protect people in those circumstances.
It is with that in mind that we are introducing quicker and more flexible, but still proportionate, powers. We are de-cluttering and streamlining the legislation on antisocial behaviour that has grown incrementally, although with good intentions. We are streamlining the current 19 measures into six easier-to-use ones, but without weakening or diminishing the powers of the authorities—the police, councils and others—to assist the public. Why would the Government or any Member of this House want to weaken their ability to do that? We believe that the streamlined measures can be used more flexibly and speedily, and will allow the authorities better to assist the public to combat antisocial behaviour.
There are tough sanctions. One or two Members feel nervous about them, but we believe they are necessary to give the legislation force and to underpin the seriousness of this behaviour, which impacts on ordinary members of the public. There are also positive requirements in the Bill. As well as having measures to punish people and restrict their behaviour, we want to enable them to address and correct their behaviour. We want to see how those positive requirements can be used effectively. That was touched on imaginatively by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). We will certainly consider with her and the Department for Education what steps can be taken in the Bill or elsewhere to advance the points she raised.
The community trigger and the community remedy are important aspects of the Bill. The community trigger is designed to help persistent victims of antisocial behaviour. Often, a single incident is not devastating for an individual—although it could be—but the cumulative impact of incidents night after night or week after week does have a severe impact. The community trigger will ensure that there is a backstop in place so that there comes a point, sooner rather than later, when the authorities are obliged to act. Ideally, we would want the authorities to act immediately, but they will not be allowed to let a situation drag on. So that there is no misunderstanding, I should make it clear that the requirement in the Bill that at least three complaints have been made is a maximum threshold, not a minimum threshold.
I am pleased with the broad welcome the measures have received, including from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Witham (Priti Patel) and others.
The shadow Home Secretary described the Bill as a Christmas tree Bill, and suggested some extra baubles she wished to hang on to what she had already described as a cluttered Bill. It was perhaps surprising to some Members that Labour seems to have set itself against having streamlined, effective, new antisocial behaviour powers. Instead, we have the normal, lazy, endless checklist of unfunded spending commitments. The shadow Home Secretary talked about more money for the police, more money for CCTV, more money for councils and more money for legal aid—it went on and on. Last week’s rather implausible effort to recast Labour as trustworthy with the national finances has failed to survive first contact with the Opposition Front Bench. We will see what happens, but my fear is that her vast array of spending commitments may just become Labour’s next child benefit: furious opposition, followed by meek acceptance that the Government got it right and the Opposition got it lamentably wrong.
The provisions better to protect the public from dangerous dogs raised a lot of comment. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not believe that dog control notices are necessary because the powers already exist within the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) asked why there were no specific dog control notices, and went on to talk about illegal raves. There are no illegal rave control notices in the Bill either, because we believe that the flexible, adaptable powers can be used both for illegal raves and for dogs.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Will the Minister tell us briefly why, after three years of repeated consultations by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office, he has been unable to persuade any of the outside organisations, including the police, the Royal College of Nursing, the CWU and others, that his proposals are right? Is he telling me that he is going into the Committee stage with a closed mind? If so, we might have to object.
Mr Browne
What I am telling the hon. Gentleman is that we believe the dog control notices provide the right protection. This is a serious issue and there are serious proposals in the Bill to strengthen the protection for the public. We are bringing forward the extension for protecting the public in private areas, as well as in public spaces.
It was very moving when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) gave a roll call of the victims of dangerous dogs. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) for the moving speech she made on behalf of her constituent, Jade Lomas Anderson. We are looking better to protect people who have the potential to be victims of dangerous dogs. I am pleased that the proposals for assistance dogs were widely welcomed.
I look forward to debating all these issues and more in Committee. The rights of victims should be at the heart of our deliberations. I have no doubt that the true mark of the Bill’s success will be fewer victims, fewer communities blighted by antisocial behaviour, and fewer victims of gun crime and forced marriage. This is an important Bill and I am pleased that it has broad support across the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING BILL (PROGRAMME)
Business without Debate
dELEGATED lEGISLATION
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
committees
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, I shall take motions 7 to 10 inclusive.
Ordered,
Defence
That Sandra Osborne be discharged from the Defence Committee and Derek Twigg be added.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
That Thomas Docherty be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck be added.
Transport
That Steve Baker be discharged from the Transport Committee and Jason McCartney be added.
Work and Pensions
That Mr Aidan Burley be discharged from the Work and Pension Committee and Mike Freer be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Young People (Barnsley Central)
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in tonight’s debate on an issue that is extremely important for Barnsley and the country.
In these times of austerity, there is huge pressure on my constituents, including young people. This is a tough time to be growing up. Barnsley is a great place to live and raise a family. It is an exciting place to work and a good location to set up a business. It is a place to build a life. It is a town with a proud history and what should be a bright future, and the young people of Barnsley Central are key to unlocking our town’s potential. Prospects for young people are uncertain, however, and many are concerned that we risk wasting a generation of talent.
There is no shortage of talent among young people in my constituency. I see this in the Barnsley youth choir, which will perform a concert later this month alongside the world-famous Hungarian Aurin choir; at Carlton community college, where four pupils were recently awarded the prestigious Diana anti-bullying award in recognition of their commitment in tackling bullying; and at Holy Trinity school, which I visited on Friday and met some outstanding pupils. I felt privileged to meet Calum Barnes, Alex Haycock, Alexandra Ryan-Moss, Callum Mitchell, Jessica Knowles, Eleanor Coles, Lucy Towers and Tariro Munega. I came away inspired by their ambition.
I know from my time in the Army that young people can and will do the most amazing things. I have seen at first hand young people demonstrating outstanding courage, professionalism, dedication and commitment, but the potential that young people possess must be encouraged, cultivated and celebrated. Developing young people’s potential ensures not only that every individual feels valued in society, but that the UK has a bright future. Young people must be given the chance to make this future a reality, however, and my concern is that the Government run the risk of letting this wealth of potential fall by the wayside by failing to put policies in place that protect young people from the worst effects of the economic crisis.
Although I intend to focus this debate on young people’s education and training opportunities, it is important to understand the context of the challenges facing young people at the beginning of their lives. The beginning of a child’s life should be filled with hope and happiness. Instead, children and their parents face real financial challenges, at an already difficult time. In 2011, the Prime Minister assured the House that
“The money for Sure Start is there, so centres do not have to close.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 295.]
However, the budget has been cut by a third, and there are now 400 fewer centres nationally compared with May 2011. In my constituency there has been a significant reduction in funding, with a cut of £6.9 million since 2010. The Prime Minister also promised “a major step forward” on child care in the recent Budget. In reality, many families are set to lose up to £1,560 a year, at a time when wages are stagnating.
Recently I visited Darton college, a brand new Building Schools for the Future school, like all the secondary schools in Barnsley. There I met some hugely talented students who were researching the impact of child poverty. Like me, they were struck by the statistics. Twenty-two per cent of children in Barnsley Central live in poverty—a completely unacceptable figure in this day and age—so children and their parents need all the support we can give them. By supporting them in their early years, we can provide families with a stable emotional and financial platform from which they can get the best possible start in life.
I would like now to focus this debate directly on education and training opportunities for young people in Barnsley Central. I acknowledge that some of the issues I will raise sit outside the Minister’s brief and are the responsibility of other Departments. Although I do not expect the Minister to respond on all these matters, I would like to make it clear that they affect education policy and are relevant to the debate.
Everyone deserves the best possible start in life, and equal access to a high quality education should provide this. After all, education is the key to success. Young people have a range of options open to them when they reach further education, from the study of A-levels and BTECs to apprenticeships and other vocational courses, but the Government are making it harder, rather than easier, for young people to access further and higher education. The decisions to abandon the education maintenance allowance, treble tuition fees and remove the Barnsley-inspired future jobs fund have delivered a triple whammy for young people in Barnsley Central hoping to get on the career ladder. Consequently, the number of young people in my constituency in further education is falling. In 2011-12, 8,600 young people from Barnsley Central started a further education course of one kind or another. This was 400 fewer than in 2010-11 and 1,400 fewer than in 2009-10.
Proposed reforms to the way in which A-levels are studied also threaten the future prospects of some of our young people. The restructuring of exams to make assessment linear rather than modular is likely to affect the provision of education and skills needed by young people in later life. I believe we must encourage children to develop skills in school that will enable them to adapt and respond to situations and opportunities they will face in life, not simply to regurgitate remembered facts for an exam—facts that are quickly forgotten. Surely we should be equipping our young people with a more rounded and flexible education, which will better prepare them for the modern work place, rather than resorting to the old “exam conveyor belt” system in an attempt to boost league tables.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Last week I visited Newman school, which is a special needs school. I was struck by the vigour with which the school encourages young people to be empowered to have a voice and take an active role in society. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are also skills that children need?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. It brings me on neatly to what I was about to say about the impact of some of the Government’s proposed reforms on special schools, which also echoes the point she has just made. I have two such schools in my constituency: Greenacre and Springwell. Both are excellent, well-led schools, with hugely committed teachers. I share the concern of my hon. Friend and many others about the impact of some of the Government’s reforms on the delivery of education, particularly in the context of assessment and examination in special schools. I am sure the Minister would agree that we must do all that we can to support young people with disabilities and additional needs.
The educational opportunities open to young people in Barnsley Central include an outstanding tertiary college. In the words of the Ofsted inspectors,
“Barnsley College provides an inspirational resource for the Barnsley community and a transformational one for many learners.”
However, I believe that, in order to create a level playing field for post-16 schools and colleges, we need to remove the basic funding differences. One issue that has been debated by Members in this House is the fact that the entitlement to free school meals in schools and academies does not extend to colleges. Another significant difference is that colleges have to pay VAT out of the money they receive for teaching and learning. The principal has informed me that if Barnsley college was treated the same as an academy for VAT, he would have around £1 million a year more to spend on teaching students.
Barnsley college also has a successful programme of encouraging community groups and school-age children to use its new building in the evenings and at weekends. The latest addition to this programme will be additional classes in English and maths, held on Saturday mornings. The principal has informed me, however, that he cannot grow that valuable work any further because Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regards teaching children in colleges as a business use, and he will run the risk of receiving a huge bill if he tries to grow classes or activities for the community beyond their current level.
It seems reasonable that parents and politicians should be able easily to compare the performance of post-16 provision in schools and colleges. To enable this to happen, there needs to be a level playing field in the production of the data in the Department for Education league tables. We must also ensure that Ofsted applies the same standards and judgments to all post-16 providers, including the awarding of a clear separate grade at inspection for school and academy sixth forms. May I ask the Minister or a ministerial colleague to write to me about these specific issues relating to Barnsley college?
Leaving school or college is a time of fresh challenges and tough decisions for our young people. Those pupils who opt to go to university will face the daunting prospect of high tuition fees. Those young people who feel they cannot afford to do so face missing an opportunity to further their study. The rise in tuition fees has also had a significant impact on the number of young people applying to university. According to the latest figures from UCAS, university applications are down for a second year running—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is a long-established convention in this place that when someone is making a speech in an Adjournment debate, they are heard with courtesy and in silence. I ask the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) to observe that convention. If she does not feel able to do so, she can leave the Chamber.
Dan Jarvis
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The figures for students in England show a drop of 6.5% from 2012. The coalition’s decision to raise tuition fees has made it even harder for young people, particularly those from less well-off backgrounds, to gain access to higher education.
The focus of this debate is on young people, but it is important to reflect for a moment on the huge contribution that teachers make to supporting them. It is a truism to say that we never forget a good teacher. I know that leadership in schools is hugely important, and in my constituency, we have some great head teachers, including Simon Barber at Holy Trinity, Neil Hutchinson at Carlton community college, Dave Whittaker at Springwell, Sue Hayter at Greenacre, Sharon Rossedes at Darton college, Nick Bowen at Horizon—just over the boundary in the neighbouring constituency—and Colin Booth, the principal of Barnsley college. I have also been inspired by many other teachers I have met, including Mat Wright, Phil Evans, Kathryn Smith, Leanne Crowther, Sharon Stacey, Steve Iredale, Kate Davies, Vicki Bruff, Eleanor Wright and many, many more.
However, the truth of the matter is that many, if not most, teachers feel undervalued. Many have told me how low morale is, and many have shared with me the fact that they struggle to sleep at night because of the pressure of the job. I recently received a letter from a maths teacher. He told me that over half his colleagues had considered leaving the profession last year. He said:
“The attacks on pay, pensions and conditions of service are without precedent...I feel angry. I feel undervalued, and as though I am a scape goat for the ills of society”.
What can the Minister say to him and the countless thousands of others in the teaching profession who feel like that? Will he come to Barnsley to meet teachers to discuss these matters and education more generally?
I want briefly to say something about apprenticeships and other vocational routes.
For too long, people have focused on the 50% who go to university; now it is time to focus on the other 50%—the forgotten 50%. For too long, politicians have viewed vocational and academic education in silos, leading to a focus on the latter at the expense of the quality and status of the former. Approaching further education as a whole will allow the benefits of both forms of learning to be experienced by a greater number of young people, offering a broader and richer education, better suited to the needs and the challenges of a modern economy because today’s apprentices face very different challenges.
Many young people can expect to go through several career changes in their lifetimes, requiring them to possess a more flexible and adaptable skill set. These new challenges demand a co-ordinated and hands-on approach from Government, as well as from figures in the business and education sectors.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the downgrading of careers advice given to young people has contributed to some of the difficulties faced by young people not always knowing which is the best route for them, when they are not encouraged either to stay in education or to take up apprenticeships. That lack of good career guidance is detrimental to their future prosperity and health.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful and completely agree with my hon. Friend. The decision young people make about their future career destinations is an incredibly important one. It can make such a difference if they are able to receive helpful and useful careers advice in tandem with other advice that they receive from schools.
The vast bulk of additional apprenticeship places created by the Government have come in the post-25 age range, with an increase of some 367%, but the latest figures show that 69,600 16 to 18-year-olds started an apprenticeship in 2012-13 compared to 79,100 in the previous year—a drop of over 12%. Those in the 16-to-25 category risk being left behind. Our country and the town I am proud to represent are clearly in need of fresh initiatives aimed at addressing youth unemployment, and it is my constituency that is helping to lead the way in the fight against youth unemployment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that initiatives could be used to encourage more young women to enter into apprenticeships, which is one of the markets waiting to be developed?
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely agree, but time is running short, so I must mention briefly an initiative in my constituency.
The Minister may recall that I have written to him about the “Barnsley apprenticeship pledge”—a pilot scheme pioneered by Barnsley college, which is working in partnership with nine of Barnsley’s major public and private sector employers to ensure that 2.5% of their work force are apprentices. Schemes such as the pledge not only provide skills for young people, but provide businesses with the opportunity to expand and tailor a work force that meets their needs.
Finally, I would like to touch briefly on the issue of youth unemployment. Despite the recent figures showing that overall unemployment is going down, the job market for young people is still extremely difficult. Youth unemployment continues to climb with a growing number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training. According to the latest figures for my constituency, the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance is, at 7.4%, still higher than in May 2010. With 900 JSA claimants aged 18 to 24—a figure up from this point in 2011—youth unemployment continues to remain a serious problem in Barnsley.
The Government’s answer to youth unemployment was to introduce the Youth Contract, aimed at providing training and skills. However, the Youth Contract has been ineffective, and has failed significantly to gain employers willing to support the scheme. Fewer than 6,000 young people have been helped into permanent jobs—just 3.4% of young people on the Work programme. Those left behind are often people who are desperate for work, want to earn a living, get on the housing ladder, start families and contribute to our town—but there are simply not the jobs available.
This is a tough time to be growing up. There are genuine concerns about the need to ensure that young people secure the right education, training, apprenticeships and academic opportunities. My concern is that we are running the risk that the talents of thousands of our young people will go to waste. That is why we must talk up the importance of raising aspirations among young people. Research findings have shown that low aspirations are related to poor academic attainment and professional achievement—and that is an all too common trend in times of austerity. We must therefore take every single opportunity to encourage, inspire, persuade and, when necessary, cajole the young people in our constituencies to get on and realise their ambitions, hopes and dreams.
I urge the Minister and the Government to do all that they can to support the young people in my constituency and throughout our country, so that they can be given the best possible start in life. After all, they are the future of the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate, not least because, as the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) told us, the beginning of life is full of hope. I strongly agree with him about the need for and the benefits of aspiration and about the duty that we all have to encourage and strengthen it, and to support those who need nurturing as well as challenging those who are ready to rise to the challenge. Indeed, I agreed with much of what he said.
Let me now bring the hon. Gentleman up to date on some developments that he may consider to be in the spirit of support for Barnsley. He can help me, and help the Government, by telling his constituents about offers that can promote the very ambitions and goals that he has described.
Youth unemployment is undoubtedly a challenge throughout the country. It has been rising for far too long—its slow and sclerotic rise began in 2004—but, thankfully, it is now falling, and in Barnsley 210 fewer people aged between 18 and 24 are unemployed than a year ago. As the hon. Gentleman said, 900 are still unemployed, but that is the lowest figure for the last five years, and the figure is falling year on year. Things are moving in the right direction. While 900 young unemployed people are obviously 900 too many, make no mistake: we are focusing four-square on dealing with the problem, as the hon. Gentleman is urging us to do. The Youth Contract, which he mentioned, has helped about 6,000 people in Barnsley, and I think that, given the youth unemployment figure of 900, the ratio is pretty good.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned apprenticeships. The 75% increase in the number of apprenticeships over the last two years to more than 1,300 is very welcome. I pay tribute to Barnsley college, not only because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is an outstanding further education college that does a huge amount of work for Barnsley and for the whole community, but because its success rate in apprenticeships is 96%—higher than the 74% national success rate. It is outstanding in terms of its Ofsted grade, but also in terms of results.
The town of Barnsley also benefits from being represented by a strong advocate, and there are areas of agreement between the hon. Gentleman and me. The first issue on which we agree is the need for more employer engagement in education. Young people need to be prepared not just for an academic future—important though that is—but for a life in work. They need to understand what work is: to understand not only its benefits but how to engage in it. It is crucial for social mobility that we help everyone to understand what it takes to get a good job, and to hold down a job or an apprenticeship.
I also of course agree on the need to support disabled people and people with additional learning needs in Barnsley and across the country. I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman about removing funding disparities. Our funding reforms for those aged between 16 and 19, which come into force this September, remove the system that was in place for 10 years or so, whereby funding was applied per qualification. That meant that those who took a lot of qualifications, who tend to be the best educated, ended up getting more funding for their education from 16 to 19, and those who did fewer qualifications got less funding. People in full-time education who were doing, say, one or two BTECS, equivalent to one or two A-levels, would be funded at about half the rate of a very bright pupil doing five A-levels. That was wrong. We have changed that so that every pupil will be funded according to the same formula, with the same basic rate, with adjustments so that those from disadvantaged backgrounds have slightly more. There are other alterations for those taking particularly expensive courses. However, the fundamental point is that we fund per pupil from 16 to 19. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that change.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issues of VAT and free school meals, both of which I recognise. On free school meals, we need to be careful what we wish for. Schools have a duty to provide free school meals to sixth formers, but they do not get funded for it. If colleges asked for the duty and we were to be fair and have a level playing field, we would give them the duty without giving them the funding for it. I am not sure that that is exactly what he is calling for. We give a bursary to support the most disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds, including some in Barnsley, who need additional support, including for school meals.
What the hon. Gentleman said about Saturday morning lessons in English and maths was interesting. I strongly agree with him that English and maths are crucial. All the evidence shows that, as well as being academic skills, they are the two most important vocational skills. I will look into what he said about Ofsted and see what the circumstances were. Of course, Ofsted is independent.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman strongly on another aspect: the importance of data, the league tables and the need for the tables to be on a level playing field. We need to show not only exam results in an equal way for different types of provider, but the various destinations that people go to. Exams are important but they are a means to an end. It is about what proportion of people get an apprenticeship, what proportion of people go to university, how many get into work and how many go on to further study. We are committed to bringing that richer, more detailed destination data into the public domain. I hope that he welcomes that.
There are some areas where we do not have a disagreement of purpose, but we do have a disagreement in terms of what the Government are doing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of early years and of everyone getting a good start in life. Indeed, the Government are bringing in the offer for two-year-olds and extending the age range for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds to ensure that they have support to help them to get a good start.
I agree about the phrase “The forgotten 50%”, which we hear almost as an apology from some Labour Members. They have not been forgotten by us. The introduction, strengthening and development of the apprenticeship proposal is vital in ensuring that everyone gets a good start. We have made it clear that we want to see a new norm—that young people, when they leave school, go, of their own choice, either to a university or into an apprenticeship. Our job in government is to ensure that high-quality offers for each option are available, and higher apprenticeships in particular show that, if one goes into an apprenticeship, one can progress all the way through. I again heard at the weekend the Labour shadow Secretary of State saying he agreed with the 50% target for universities, but that can unwittingly push people into the wrong choices for them.
Finally, on the point about linear rather than modular exams, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about education not being just a conveyor belt of exams, but modular exams are more of a conveyor belt. We saw last summer the difficulties that a modular system can get our education system into. Linear exams are precisely about testing people on what they have achieved at the end of their studies, rather than constantly asking them to learn for another exam and another exam, and to learn information just so long as they can get through the exam and the module. Instead it is about imbuing people with a deeper sense of what that knowledge conveys.
The drive for rigour and reform in our education system is something that progressive Members on both sides of this House ought to support. They ought to support it whether there are tight budgets or not, and whatever the reasons for those tight budgets are.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will look at the answers I have given about the apprenticeship programme, the new traineeship programme coming in in August, and the rising standards we are driving through in schools and colleges in Barnsley and across the country, and will reflect to his constituents not only that things are indeed tough but are getting better, but also that there is a great offer from a Government who are determined to support young people and to ensure that youth unemployment falls every year.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Access to Eculizumab
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Loan to Ireland
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
I would like to update the House on the loan to Ireland.
Ireland completed the ninth quarterly review of its International Monetary Fund and European Union programme of financial assistance on 22 April 2013, following which, the utilisation period for the seventh instalment of the UK bilateral loan began.
Upon request, the Treasury disbursed the seventh instalment of £403.37 million on 6 June 2013, with a maturity date of 7 December 2020.
The interest rate charged on the loan is calculated as set out in the loan agreement as the UK’s cost of funds plus a service fee of 18 basis points per annum, creating an effective per annum interest rate on this tranche of the loan of 2.331%. The UK more than covers its cost of funds.
The Treasury will provide a further report to Parliament in relation to the bilateral loan as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010 as soon as is practicable following the end of the next reporting period, which ends on 30 September 2013.
The Government believe that it is in our national interest that the Irish economy is successful and its banking system is stable. The Government continue to support Ireland’s efforts to improve its economic situation.
UK Offshore Oil and Gas Recovery
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
The UK’s oil and gas industry is of national importance. It plays a vital part in our economic life and makes a substantial contribution to our energy security. For decades the oil and gas sector has been one of the UK’s major industrial success stories, a key contributor to growth, jobs and tax revenue. The industry supports 440,000 jobs directly or indirectly and paid £11.2 billion in direct taxes in 2011-12, almost a quarter of all corporation taxes received by the Exchequer. Investment in the UK Continental Shelf has risen substantially in recent years, and investment in 2013, up to £14 billion, will reach an all-time high.
Some 41 billion barrels of oil and gas have already been produced from the UK Continental Shelf, and 20 billion or more could still be produced. Although peak production is now behind us, we must maintain our momentum and make the most of the huge opportunity that the UK Continental Shelf still represents. In addition to the economic importance, maximising recovery of the UK’s indigenous supplies of oil and gas will also help maintain security of supply as we continue on our journey to a low-carbon future.
While investment levels are rising and the near-term prospects for the UK Continental Shelf are strong, it is one of the most mature offshore basins in the world, and therefore faces unprecedented challenges that require new thinking. For example declining exploration and production rates, ageing infrastructure and declining production efficiency, and the risk of premature decommissioning of key infrastructure all need to be addressed if we are to extract the maximum economic benefit for the UK.
Government already have an excellent working relationship with the oil and gas industry through our pilot partnership, which has made significant contributions to addressing some of these challenges over the last decade. However, I have come to the view that the challenges we now face are of sufficient importance that they merit a focused, in-depth review. Such a review has not been conducted since the early 1990s when the challenges faced were very different to those we face now.
I have therefore invited Sir Ian Wood, recently retired chair of Wood Group, a leading UK oil services company, to lead such a review. Sir Ian will bring huge experience to the task following a career spanning four decades of leadership in the UK Continental Shelf. He will work with leaders across industry, Government and elsewhere to produce robust analysis, conclusions and recommendations for improving future economic recovery of UK Continental Shelf oil and gas.
Since 2011 there has been a range of changes to the tax regime which industry has welcomed and which has led to significant new investment. It is too soon to review the effectiveness of these changes and so this review will focus on other factors such as the licensing regime, optimising use of and extending life of infrastructure, production efficiency, better collaboration across the industry, increasing the exploration effort and maximising the use of enhanced oil recovery techniques. It will also look at the current structure, scale and effectiveness of the Government stewardship regime in line with the increased technical and commercial complexity of the mature market. While the review will not make recommendations on taxation, its conclusions may nevertheless be drawn upon in future tax policy considerations by HM Treasury.
I expect emerging conclusions from the review to be published in the autumn and the final report and recommendations to be published in early 2014.
This is an exciting time for the UK’s offshore oil and gas industry and its extensive supply chain, and I look forward to seeing the recommendations of Sir Ian’s important work.
Grand Committee
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, as usual, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are here, we will adjourn for 10 minutes and resume after that time.
Clause 4 : Payments
Amendment 16
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) shall require the periodic review of average civil compensation amounts in mesothelioma cases, such review to be conducted by an independent body.
( ) Regulations under subsection (1) shall require an annual report to both Houses of Parliament and a review of payments made under the scheme.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 16 requires an independent review of average civil compensation for mesothelioma cases, an annual reporting to Parliament and a review of the payments made under the scheme. We know very little of how the payment arrangements and levy amounts will work in practice and trust that a draft at least of the regulations for payments under Clause 4 and the levy under Clause 13 will be available in good time before Report. Can the Minister give us an assurance on this? We are grateful for the additional documents covering these matters that were circulated on Thursday, which do provide some additional analysis. It is a pity, frankly, that we did not have sight of them in time for the Committee session last week.
Although the Minister told us that his negotiation had been about the levy rate, it seems, inevitably, that payment amounts will be determined by the tariff. The levy rate will be set at a level that is presumably estimated to be sufficient to meet the projected numbers of those diagnosed and their age profile, together with admin and legal costs. If this is the case, the computation of average civil compensation is fundamental to payment levels and it is important that compilation of the tariff is current, hence the call for an independent, periodic review. The period between reviews might depend on an interim uprating—perhaps based on CPI—and maybe the Minister can tell us what is intended in that respect. Amounts payable under the statutory schemes are in practice uprated on an annual basis. We need to know more about the intent when the levy produces more, or less, than is required to cover scheme payments and administration. When it produces more, has the Minister’s negotiation focused on this being used to enhance the percentage payout—to the extent that it is not already 100%—or on it being carried forward to reduce the levy in subsequent periods? What is the insurance industry’s expectation of the position from the negotiations? Indeed, what is the Treasury’s position?
Clearly, to the extent that it has not already been achieved, we would expect to see any surplus used to enhance payments. If levy shortfalls could be borne, in whole or in part, by those diagnosed with mesothelioma, we will resist this. What consideration has been given to the possible avoidance of the levy by insurers, by bundling products and/or loading premiums on other business lines such as public liability? The additional information provided last week indicates a significant change to the estimated amount of legal fees which the scheme will fund. It reduces from £7,000 to £2,000, a benefit of £5,000 per case for the insurers. What is the reason for that reduction? It is also noted that the percentage of average civil compensation taken is calculated before any benefit recovery, which depresses the net amount received by claimants. Can the Minister let us have a note of the overall savings to government from these proposals—not only the estimated benefit recoveries but from not having to make payments under the 1979 scheme in the first instance?
There is much we need to know about these matters before we sign off the Bill. As well as ensuring proper updating, will the Minister tell us why the proposed percentage of civil compensation amounts payable under the scheme has been reduced from the original impact assessment of, I think, 76% to 70%? Which of the various averages or means from the national institute’s calculations has been used to drive the tariff in the new document, and why? The levy rate for the first four years is calculated in that document at 2.61% at the 70% payout rate. Is this consistent with an overall average of 2.24%, which is in the updated impact assessment? Further, the updated impact assessment puts overall cost as a percentage of GWP at 2.74% for the first four years. The current impact assessment, in a footnote, suggests that this was due to basing the average only on settled and withdrawn cases. Why is this, other than the fact that it is to the advantage of the insurers? Our concern is that even in the past few months the insurance sector has been chipping away at the scheme in order to reduce its obligations. That is why we need to strengthen the primary legislation. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, before I address the noble Lord’s amendment, I shall clarify a couple of points that were raised when we last met on Wednesday, to put noble Lords’ minds at rest and to aid today’s discussions. In the case of people who contracted mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos fibres that were on another person’s clothes, or were brought into the household by other means, the question was raised whether these people, too, were covered by employer’s liability. This is a complicated area and I will do my best to be succinct.
In cases of secondary exposure, the claim will be of negligence against the person who exposed the primary victim. Theoretically, that person could have public liability insurance, employer’s liability insurance, or both, or none. We have contacted the ABI on this matter and I understand that it is not aware of any cases where anyone other than the employee has been compensated under the employer’s liability policy. Therefore, we return to the point that the scheme will raise funds from the employer liability market to cover those who would ordinarily have been covered by those insurers. In this case, it seems that, historically, instances of secondary exposure have not been covered by employer’s liability insurance, so the scheme cannot provide for them.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for responding to the Committee on this point, which was the subject of an amendment that I tabled. As I heard him just now, he said that because historically no cases had turned up, in future employer’s liability insurance should not cover secondary exposure, even in a case where the secondary exposure occurred—I hope he agrees with this; I think the Committee agrees—to someone who did the family laundry and washed the overalls of the employee who was exposed to asbestos fibres and who therefore found herself exposed to asbestos and contracted the disease. Surely we cannot simply extrapolate from the past on the basis that there do not happen to have been any such claims. It is entirely imaginable that there could be such claims, and it is not enough, if I may say so, for the Minister to say simply that because it has not happened, the Government will make no provision for it to happen in future. We still have a class of people whose predicament is just as grave as the predicament of someone who was a direct employee. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look further at this.
Lord Moonie
To follow up on that, was the Minister referring to claims or successful claims?
Lord Freud
I am not sure whether they are claims or successful claims. My understanding is that there have been no cases where there has been compensation. My interest today is obviously not to re-run the debate that we have already had. We will have another chance to do this. I just wanted to get this on the record for the convenience of Members of the Committee at subsequent stages.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
The noble Lord is generous with his time. I listened carefully to his words. If they were a direct quotation from what the Association of British Insurers told his officials, and therefore him, it said that it had no record of any claim of that secondary nature having been settled through the employer’s liability insurance, not no record of any claim having been settled. I ask the Minister to go back to the question: since the association clearly has comprehensive data, has it any record of claims having been settled? If so, through what form of insurance were they settled and—this is the important question—were the insurers and those who carried the risk the same companies that carried the risk for compulsory employer’s liability insurance in respect of the circumstances of the cases?
Lord German
Following that point, I will quote from a House of Commons document, Mesothelioma: Civil Court Claims, dated 22 March 2011. Under the section marked, “Claimants other than employees”, it reads as follows:
“In a number of cases, claims have been made by those, including family members, who have contracted mesothelioma following secondary exposure to asbestos. Each case is determined on its own facts”.
I dread to quote the following fact:
“For example, the Ministry of Defence admitted liability for the transmission of mesothelioma to Mrs Debbie Brewer, whose father died from small-cell lung cancer … after a career as a lagger at the Devonport Dockyard. He had greeted his daughter each evening whilst wearing dusty overalls from which she is believed to have inhaled the fibres that caused her disease”.
It goes on to cite another case. There have obviously been some cases. The one I have quoted admittedly has the Government as the employer, but there is one involving another company further on.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am grateful for those observations. I am sure that we will have a chance to discuss this in more detail later. I now move to—
Lord Wigley
Before the Minister moves on, is he not going to respond to the point made by his noble friend, who has shown that there were cases, which is totally at variance with the lead the Minister gave to the Committee?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we could spend all day on one point. I am just trying to get a response on the record. We will have another chance to go through this again. I was making a clarification.
I turn now to the query of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. When discussing the proposed start date of eligibility for this scheme, we talked about insurers being able to reserve against that liability from that date. The noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that the levy will be an annual running cost, not a liability to reserve against. She is of course correct: the payment is not the same as a liability. However, the impact is much the same. The levy is an additional cost to insurers that needs to be factored into their business plans. To do this, they need to have confidence in the timing and amount of the cost to be incurred. Therefore, on 25 July 2012, when the intention to set up a payments scheme was announced, this provided a sufficient level of confidence for insurers to start to factor the levy into their business plans for 2014. I ask the noble Baroness’s forgiveness for my incorrect use of terms, and for her recognition that this does not change the shape of things in this case.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for taking the trouble to look into that and for the gracious way in which he has acknowledged his error. Of course I am happy to forgive him for this and for any similar offences. However, can he reflect for a moment on the consequences of the change? Although I confess to a tendency to pedantry, on that occasion I do not think I was simply being pedantic. I was trying to draw a distinction between whether the matter was a liability for which the insurance company would wish to reserve or a running cost for which it would have to plan, because I understood that the Minister had used the fact that an insurance company would not be permitted to reserve before a certain date as an argument for why the scheme could not start before 25 July. Had that been the case, I would imagine that no such restraint would exist in the case of planning for a payment. An insurance company can plan for a future level of running costs based on its own judgment, not on any auditing limitations. Will the Minister respond to that?
Lord Freud
In the interests of time, the best thing I can do today is to accept the fantastic offer of future forgiveness for anything I may say, and in return I promise to reflect on the consequences of the change.
Let me move on to all the other points that have been made. I promised to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, about the Prison Service’s work, to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on Clause 2, and to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on three counts. A letter is now being sent to Peers and a copy has been placed in the Library. Judging from some side conversations that I have overheard, I am sure there will be further discussion on one or two of those matters. Having dealt with those issues, let me turn to the subject under discussion as set out in Amendment 16.
I understand noble Lords’ wish to ensure that if we are to express payment amounts in relation to civil damages, the data we hold on average civil damages in mesothelioma cases should be current. However, I must reject the proposal to require a yearly review on the grounds that it would not be fruitful due to the volume of mesothelioma cases. Reviewing civil cases on a yearly basis would be too frequent to show any trends or changes in the awards. Indeed, the data that we hold on the initial trawl for the period 2007 to 2012 show this. In this case, it takes a bit longer for meaningful trends to appear.
It should also be said that gathering the data is pretty costly, and in the interests of value for money we need to make sure that they are gathered at intervals that allow us to identify change. One year is too short a period for this, so a review of the data every five years is more appropriate. If we were to accept the amendment, costs would be incurred from gathering data on an annual basis, and further costs would be involved through the requirement for these reviews to be carried out by an independent body. As part of the monitoring planned, civil compensation amounts in mesothelioma cases will be reviewed, but there is no need for a separate body or for annual reports. Furthermore, I can give my assurance that this area will not go ignored.
I also offer the reassurance that we shall not just assign a fixed tariff to this and then ignore it. Far from it. Along with the monitoring of data from civil cases that I have just mentioned, I can confirm for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we intend to uprate the tariff on an annual basis in line with the consumer prices index. The noble Lord went on to put a vast number of specific questions to me, and we shall touch on quite a few of them later. However, perhaps I may pick up the point about legal fees, although we will deal with them in due course. A figure of £7,000 was mentioned, and more recently £2,000 was mentioned. In practice, it will probably come in at something in between, but we will deal with fees in the fullness of time.
A set of questions was based on what will happen if we collect more or less than we expected. The DWP will underwrite any under levy after the first four years through smoothing. Any over levy will be paid to the Consolidated Fund, as required by HMT.
Clearly, we will be setting a figure initially, then reviewing it. That is our best guess of the right kind of figure that we will be using. We moved the 76% figure to 70% on the basis of what the likely amount was that would minimise the risk of those costs being passed to British industry. This became clearer during the process of negotiation. Rather than go into the specifics about the 2.61% being consistent with the 2.24%, I will add that to a letter.
I hope with the commitments that I have made on how we are planning to set this levy, I reassure both the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on this matter, and I urge them not to press their amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarifications on some of our earlier debates. I am sure we will return to each of the substantive issues about who should be entitled under this scheme and, indeed, about the start date. I am grateful for what he has said this afternoon.
Perhaps the purpose of the amendment was not as clear as it might have been and the Government did not anticipate or expect that there would be an annual updating of the civil compensation analysis. That would have to be done periodically, and how often that would be done might be driven in part by what is going to happen on annual uprating. The noble Lord has reassured us that there will be an annual uprating of the starting tariff by CPI. I think that is consistent with the statutory schemes at the moment. I took it that he was also supportive of a periodic updating of the data that underpin the tariff. I think that meets the purposes of the amendment.
I note that any over levy will accrue to the Consolidated Fund and make the Treasury happy, I am sure. The noble Lord said that the move from 76% to 70% was driven by the assessment of whether amounts were going to be passed on to the customers of the employer liability insurance providers. I take it from the impact assessment that it was to do with quite what cases were included in the analysis and those that were not. Perhaps I need to look at the record and go back on that analysis. It seemed that for no justifiable reason there has been a 6% reduction in the support that is going to be available for those availing themselves of this scheme, quite apart from the further loss, because of the change in the support for legal costs. We will come on to these things later this afternoon. Having said that, unless the noble Lord has anything further—
Lord Freud
That is a good point. I should have made it in response. Just to make it absolutely clear, the legal costs, whether they are £7,000 or £2,000, will be on top of the levy that we are talking about.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for that, and I understood that position. I guess that the insurer in that respect have to pay £5,000 less per case than they otherwise would have done, so they are in pocket as a result of this change.
Lord Freud
There are two points there. We have not determined the £2,000. We are looking at those two figures and have not yet made a decision. There are two bits of clarification there.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I look forward to the final figures when they do come out. Can the Minister assure us that we will get at least a draft of the levy regulations before we get to Report? Without carping too much, if we are going to do that, it would be really helpful to have it at least in time so that we can spend a few hours getting our minds round what it all means.
Lord Freud
With the smallest of caveats, I am most hopeful that I will get that information to the noble Lord before Report.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am most grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
“( ) must ensure that applicants to the scheme are reimbursed in full by the scheme for reasonable legal costs incurred by them in their pursuit of payment from an employer or an employer’s liability insurer and from their application to the scheme, over and above any other payment from the scheme.”
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, when the Minister introduced the Bill on Second Reading, he rather gave us to understand that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice were on separate planets, and I think used the phrase that one was not beholden to the other. Indeed, it appears that, within government, the left hand is not at all clear what the right hand is doing and vice versa. It should not be like that, of course. There is a principle of collective responsibility in government. More importantly, it matters very much that there should be coherent policy-making in the interests of mesothelioma victims and their dependants. The way in which policy is developed should not be for the convenience of Whitehall but should have an unwavering focus on producing a scheme as soon as possible that will in every dimension benefit mesothelioma sufferers.
The legal, and possibly other, costs associated with getting to the point of making an application and then pursuing it are significant. The impact assessment issued on 7 May—only last month—indicated that legal costs associated with the scheme overall would be of the order of £24 million to £27 million. We were told that the legal costs incurred by an applicant to the scheme, in the event that he was successful, would be of the order of £7,000. However, in the previous debate, my noble friend Lord McKenzie drew to the Committee’s attention the new document issued by the department on 4 June—less than a month after the original impact assessment—which says that the published impact assessment,
“used a figure of £7,000 per individual for legal fees; here we have moved that assumption to £2,000 per individual (unless otherwise stated)”.
We have just talked about that, and I heard the Minister say that neither the £7,000 figure nor the new £2,000 figure had much solidity, and that it might end up somewhere in between. I would be grateful if he could explain to us what is going on, because it seems extraordinary that the assessment for an applicant making a successful application to the scheme should be £7,000 in legal costs one month and £2,000 the next. That shift is of a remarkable order of magnitude and leaves one a little anxious about impact assessments. I appreciate that they involve a whole mass of judgments and are very difficult to achieve with any precision, but there is extraordinary latitude here. Does the figure of £9,000 legal costs for an unsuccessful application still stand? As I say, does the overall figure that was given on 7 May still stand? As we go forward to Report, it would help the Committee to be given much more detail about how these figures are arrived at.
What costs will a claimant incur and what legal costs will he or she be able to recoup? I would be interested to know what happens about the preliminary legal costs that a claimant will incur before he reaches the door of the scheme. Following diagnosis, the claimant presumably has to make an appointment to see a solicitor. I do not know how this would work, but perhaps he would then be referred to a specialist personal injury solicitor. A lot of work must be done to determine whether a claim can be made against an employer or employer’s insurer, and to test whether that claim is strong enough to proceed in court. All these hoops must be gone through before the claimant is able to embark upon a claim against the scheme. Could the Minister in his response kindly escort the Committee along the path a claimant must take in legal consultation and legal process on his way to the scheme and to the completion of an application to it? We would then know much more about what the reality will be for claimants.
Lord German
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for raising these issues, because it gives me an opportunity to raise some of the questions around legal costs and about the work that has to go into preparing a case under the proposed scheme.
My first question concerns civil cases and the information that has been provided to us in the tariff about the awards. Is it net or gross, and does it include the legal costs? Have they been excluded from the awards or do they come on top? If they are on top, we need to know what kind of money has been paid to lawyers when a claimant has been awarded in order to be able to judge whether the figures in the documentation before us are accurate. I had always assumed that the impact assessment would provide accurate information, so I was rather stunned to realise that the figures of £7,000 for a successful applicant, £9,000 for an unsuccessful applicant downgraded to £2,000, is something of a leap. If you are a sufferer or the relative of a sufferer, engaging a lawyer to do the preliminary work that is necessary to undertake this sort of action presents some sort of risk if the application fails. I want to explore that area as well.
The impact assessment gives an estimate of unsuccessful legal fees as £3 million out of a total of £24 million. A rough division shows that one case in every eight is unsuccessful, so if you are the one person out of the eight, presumably in a civil case action you are going to have to find those fees, unless of course you can find a no-win no-fee lawyer. I raised this issue at Second Reading. It seems that if you were about to embark upon this legal route, unless there is some form of support guaranteed at the end of it it would be the no-win no-fee lawyer to whom you would have to turn. I would be grateful if my noble friend could confirm that or tell us what alternatives there are.
The issue of evidence that requires a lawyer is quite substantial. Having now had the benefit of seeing the draft rules for the scheme, Part 1 paragraph 2 lists the evidence that an applicant may be required to provide. It is quite substantial and includes the history of employment and the companies to which the applicant is referring. In civil cases the courts have made it clear that you have to prove negligence, and three tests are given in the Appeal Court judgment. Three measures have to be satisfied in order to prove negligence. My second question, therefore, is: does the applicant have to prove negligence? That would be far more difficult to do in a case where the company or insurer is not present, unless the word of the applicant is determined to be acceptable.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendment 42 in this group, about which I can be brief. Before speaking to it, I will say that I support the thrust of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Howarth and the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord German. Specifically, the amendment seeks to ensure that the definition of the costs of the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme includes legal costs incurred by a person bringing proceedings, including appeal costs, and in particular that it covers the costs of proceedings brought as a consequence of Clause 10. Where Clause 10 proceedings are facilitated, can the Minister confirm that the financial help referred to will cover the legal costs of proceedings, including appeal costs? How is the funding for this to be organised? Presumably it will come from the levy but, like other amounts in respect of legal costs, not in a way that reduces the tariff amount. I will not probe further the issue of the reduction in estimated legal costs as the Minister has enough queries about that already. However, I look forward to the answer.
Lord Freud
My Lords, these amendments look to allow for legal fees to be paid by the scheme without limit. Amendment 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, looks to reimburse in full all legal costs incurred either through applying to the scheme or through bringing proceedings against an employer or insurer. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has also tabled Amendment 28 to cover the cost of legal advice obtained in respect of appeals to the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also seeks to cover any legal costs, including the cost of appeals.
The introduction of the scheme is aimed at making the receipt of payment as quick and simple as possible. The amount that a successful scheme applicant is paid will include an amount for legal costs. This will be a fixed amount and will be included as part of the scheme payment received by an applicant and specified in the regulations. In the impact assessment, we used the working assumption of roughly £7,000 to go towards legal fees for each successful application. Since then, we have revised the numbers, using the working assumption of £2,000. The final amount will likely fall somewhere between the two. For clarity, the schedule will show the amount of the actual payment and the amount of legal fees, which will be on top of the 70% figure, to be absolutely clear in response to the question from my noble friend Lord German and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that the MoJ and the DWP are at least on the same planetary system—some of the time, anyway. The specific regulations will be laid after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The MoJ will conduct elaborate, complicated consultation. To update the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on timing—I hear his strength of feeling on this—the consultation will be launched in July 2013, next month, and will contain specific options. Clearly, it is recognised that this is a complex issue. The consultation period will last 12 weeks as it will go through the summer, and the response will be published in the winter of 2013. Some of the issues around the right kind of fixed costs will be dealt with in that consultation.
The aim of the scheme is to make the receipt of payment as quick and simple as possible. In response to my noble friend Lord German’s question about the level of information that is required, the eligibility criteria are specified in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. The scheme is not a no-fault scheme, so the applicant will be required to establish the eligibility criteria. However, they are in practice much simpler and more straightforward than in a civil claim. Rather than go through all the specifics of that, in the interests of time I would prefer to set it out in writing.
The reasons for wanting to set a fixed amount of legal costs that can be recovered by lawyers are threefold. First, it is important that applicants are not charged unreasonable or disproportionate legal costs by their lawyers, as we have seen happen in other instances. Any legal work would be in respect of an application to a statutory scheme, which is non-contentious and much quicker and simpler than civil litigation. Secondly, we hope that fixed costs will deter scheme applicants being pressured into entering no-win no-fee agreements, potentially reducing the amount of scheme payment paid in respect of their disease. Thirdly, it is important that the scheme is not overburdened with high legal costs, which would raise the levy and jeopardise the scheme in its entirety.
In respect of any legal costs associated with appealing to the First-tier Tribunal, if these were to be paid in every case that could act as incentive for anyone who was unsuccessful in receiving a scheme payment launching an appeal, even if the appeal was without merit. This would significantly increase the amount of money needed to fund legal fees, requiring the levy to be set higher. Any significant increase in costs could prevent the scheme being set up. It could also overburden the tribunals system with unnecessary appeals.
Lord Avebury
That takes care of the disincentive to bring claims to the First-tier Tribunal that have no merit, but what about the claims that do?
Lord Freud
It is important to highlight that higher rights are not required in the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal as they are in civil courts. That means that scheme applicants could represent themselves, or that their solicitor could conduct any advocacy on their behalf; they would not need to instruct expensive legal counsel. There will be no legal aid for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal following the review scheme decision unless exceptionally it is necessary to make legal aid available to avoid a breach of an individual’s rights under the ECHR or under European Union law relating to the provision of legal services. This will keep costs to a manageable level.
Picking up on the point about the tribunal system, it is traditionally an inquisitorial rather than adversarial system and is designed to make things easier for those representing themselves. For those who do wish to obtain legal representation, it is hoped that lawyers will charge a fair and proportionate rate. The work will be non-contentious and there will be no defendant as there is in a civil case. The tribunal system is there to assist appellants. There is therefore every incentive for lawyers to carry out work on scheme appeals required efficiently and in a way that keeps costs proportionate.
Picking up the question from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the level of fixed fees, clearly the MoJ consultation will consult on both the principle and the structure of such a regime to support a dedicated pre-action protocol. I hope noble Lords can see the need for pragmatism here—the need to keep costs at a proportionate amount and to protect the money that an applicant receives in respect of the disease from high legal costs, as far as possible. I urge the noble Lords not to press the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Could the Minister deal with the point about proceedings that could arise under Clause 10? These are proceedings which the scheme administrator may help a person to undertake,
“for example, by conducting proceedings or by giving advice or financial help”.
Presumably the costs of that help would be outside the fixed fee arrangements. Would the levy make some sort of provision for those costs? Otherwise that would come off the tariff announcement.
Lord Freud
We will deal with this issue in some detail in debate on a later amendment. In practice, where the scheme decides that it is a sensible thing to do, it will of course by definition take on the costs of pursuing that application.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, and to my noble friend Lord McKenzie for their precisely focused and apposite questions. I am also grateful to the Minister for what he has said in response to this debate, although I wish he had not set up an Aunt Sally in misrepresenting both my amendments, because I was very careful to include in the wording of each amendment that it was only reasonable legal costs that I contemplated should be met in these ways.
Lord Freud
Let me apologise for any misrepresentation that I may have inadvertently made.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The Minister is so engaging as he apologises that of course it would be churlish if I did not immediately say yes. I think it would be helpful if at some stage he would also elaborate on the circumstances in which the ECHR exception to the disqualification for legal aid might apply. Should we anticipate that people taking cases to tribunals would do so in pursuit of justiciable rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, because that could make a significant practical difference? I simply do not know the answer, but it would be interesting and helpful to have some advice.
The Minister did his best to defend his colleagues over the way at the Ministry of Justice, but when I inquired on Wednesday of last week when they expected to issue the consultation, I was told that it was going to be this week. He has just told us that it has slipped yet again to July. There would then be the consultation, and it is proper to allow a reasonable amount of time for people to respond to that. Finally, the Government’s response and determination of what they are going to do is not expected until the winter. That is a fairly elastic target.
I am worried that the MoJ might be holding things up so that mesothelioma sufferers and their families will be prevented from getting the benefits of the scheme as soon as they might. While we as parliamentarians seek to scrutinise this legislation properly, we are anxious to give it the speediest possible passage through Parliament. It would be rather sad and ironic if, because of the lumbering pace at which another department moves, it was not possible to get the whole scheme up and running as early as it otherwise might be. I hope the Minister will convey these thoughts to his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.
The Minister brought us the good news that legal costs will be paid on top of the 70% payment under the scheme. That makes me very happy, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I should explain that this amendment was tabled before we had a chance to peruse a draft of the scheme rules, but there are some issues still worth pursuing. It is a probing amendment and is, I hope, precisely focused for the benefit of my noble friend. Clause 4(3)(a) states that the scheme may make payments “subject to conditions”, and paragraph (b) gives,
“the scheme administrator power to decide when to impose conditions or what conditions to impose”.
To the extent that these conditions are to be covered in the scheme rules and that those scheme rules are to be subject to some parliamentary process, we are perhaps more relaxed about the position. However, paragraph (b) appears to give a wide discretion to the administrator, which is likely to be an arm of the insurance industry. The draft scheme rules throw some light on this by identifying that the conditions that might be imposed include requiring that a trust be established and that a deputy or guardian be appointed. The draft rules also authorise the meeting of costs to this end by the administrator. The thrust of this seems to be a concern in situations relating to the capacity or legal competency of the claimant or a dependant. However, there is nothing that requires the imposition of conditions to be for the benefit of the applicant or dependants rather than that of the levy payers.
A key point in the draft rules is that conditions can be imposed to ensure that that payment is used for the benefit of the applicant. That requirement does not appear in primary legislation. There would be merit in it doing so to tie down this potentially wide discretion. I await the Minister’s response on that. We might return to this quite narrow point on Report to embed the concept that is in the draft rules, which we have now seen, into primary legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I rise to reinforce the points made by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. It is easier to understand what lies behind Clause 4(3) now that we have the draft scheme rules. To understand the Government’s thinking one has to read that subsection along with Rules 15 and 16(3)(e)—I think—and presumably also the review provisions and the appeal provisions that will apply all the way back to any conditions that may be imposed, set out in Rule 19 and those following it. It is by no stretch of the imagination straightforward to determine what exactly the combination of this provision and the rules will mean in practice. I have just a couple of specific questions, which I hope are relatively simple.
The primary legislation, if enacted, will allow conditions to be imposed on any payment. There appears to be no limit to the conditions that can be imposed. The rules, to some degree, limit them. Rule 15, in particular, says that this rule—that is, the decision to impose conditions on making a payment—applies when the scheme administrator first decides to make a payment under the scheme but considers that there is good reason to impose one or more conditions in making a payment in order to ensure that the payment is used for the benefit of the applicant.
The next paragraph, paragraph 2, says that the scheme administrator may impose such conditions as it considers appropriate. We appear to go back into a very broad power immediately after a limiting power. It is not clear to me that the limitation in the first part of that rule applies to the second part of that rule. If it is intended to do so, clarification from the Minister might be of some assistance.
I reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord McKenzie that if that restriction on making conditions is to apply to all conditions, it would be better for that restriction to be reflected in the primary legislation rather than in the rules. There is at least one possible interpretation of this at the moment—I have not had time to work out all the possible interpretations—that is, that the power to make the rules requires the scheme administrator to come to the view that rules are necessary to ensure that the payment is used for the benefit of the applicant. Once they pass that hurdle, the administrator can make any rule that it considers appropriate. It is not clear that all rules have to pass the test of being rules made to ensure that the payment is used for the benefit of the applicant. That is intended, but it would be helpful if that was clear.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I fully recognise that Amendment 19 is a probing amendment that would remove the possibility of the scheme making payments subject to conditions. It would therefore have the consequence that the recipient of a scheme payment would have full control over the use of the scheme payment.
Let me make the purpose of this part of the clause absolutely clear. In general, we fully expect that most scheme payments will be made to the applicant. This is for vulnerable people who might be mentally incapable of handling their own finances or who are unable to look after their own welfare by attending to basic financial transactions that adults normally carry out for themselves. It is important, therefore, that in those sorts of cases the scheme administrator is able to subject some payments to certain safeguards, such as how a scheme payment is to be used, and to decide when such conditions should be imposed.
We expect the scheme administrator to use this power to ensure that, where appropriate, payment is made to an appropriate person or fund to safeguard the beneficiaries’ interests. I am sure that the one thing on which we are all agreed in this Committee is that we want to avoid the recipient of a scheme payment having unsupervised control over the use of a large sum of money if they are incapable of managing such a sum. However, a number of valuable points are being made about the interplay between primary legislation and regulations, which we will take away and consider. Clearly, the rules are in draft and we will take the points made today as we look over them. With that assurance, I urge the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, not to press their amendment.
Lord Avebury
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend why, if the only circumstances in which conditions are to be imposed are those that he has just outlined, where the recipient of the compensation is incapable of handling his own financial affairs, Clause 15 does not specify those circumstances and thereby reduce the breadth of the wording, which according to him is completely unnecessary.
Lord Freud
I take on board my noble friend’s point. As I said, I shall look at this and the other points made by this Committee. The rules are only in draft form, and we may look at them to lock that down.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am sure that the Minister will do this, but perhaps I may check that he will consider whether it would be better to reflect that restriction in primary legislation rather than allowing it to appear for the first time in the rules.
Lord Freud
I will look at that, but I remind noble Lords that primary legislation sets a framework, and what matters here is how the rules work. In this case, the rules that we have agreed will go before Parliament in the form of regulations, so there will be a chance for oversight of that issue. Therefore, it does not matter too much where we make sure that the matter is under control.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and his consideration of this matter. I am not sure that we had formally heard that the rules will go before Parliament by way of regulations. We had anticipated that from our debate last week, but I am grateful for the assurance.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I must withdraw that completely. I meant to say that we are considering very deeply the suggestion made by the Committee that the rules will go into regulations.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am most grateful to the Minister for his further clarification. Of course, this was a probing amendment, and we have common cause in seeking to make sure that vulnerable people are safeguarded in relation to these payments. I thank my noble friend Lord Browne for his support—he made a very telling point about the interpretation of things as they stand—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am grateful for the fact that the Minister will take this away and give it further thought. I hope he will consider putting a provision into primary legislation that will make clear the intent of this decision-making power and the conditions that could be imposed by the administrator. Even if the rules are to be dealt with by regulations, they are likely to be dealt with by the negative procedure, which is what the Delegated Powers Committee recommended. Obviously, that is a less satisfactory forum in which to address these details. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
“( ) The Secretary of State may not seek repayment of that portion of any compensation or scheme payment made in respect of pain and suffering.”
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the amendments in this relatively large group are intended to enable us to probe the Government on their intentions behind the recovery of social security benefits and lump-sum payments from payments made by the scheme. I also offer some suggestions as to how a relatively lenient recovery regime might reasonably be applied to payments from the scheme.
Schedule 1 deals with these matters, but it is a prime candidate for the plain English prize for legislative opacity. It was beyond my wit to amend it for the purposes I had in mind. Therefore, I tabled the amendments to Clause 4 to establish some principles to constrain and guide the Secretary of State—and, in the case of Amendment 26, to provide him with an opportunity not to take away too much with one hand while he, or rather the insurance industry, gives with the other. I emphasise, as is the nature of amendments to the Bill, that we are talking only of the application of these proposed measures to the diffuse mesothelioma payments scheme or other schemes that might be set up under this legislation. I am not, needless to say, seeking to rewrite social security law; the Minister need not fear that that the ground will give way under his feet if he is willing to take an accommodating view of some of these amendments. It is an opportunity for the Minister to explain—relatively fully, I hope—what the spirit and practice will be of his department’s approach to recovery of benefits and lump-sum payments in these circumstances.
There is one principle, at any rate, that we all—I believe I can include the Minister—want to apply: the rules and the practice where the social security benefit arrangements and the scheme interact ought to be as generous as possible. That is more particularly the case in the situation in which the full, insured entitlements which a claimant ought to have have proved impossible to obtain because the documents are not there: a situation in which claimants have had to fight and wait for financial relief; and in which, when that relief then comes, it is discounted by 30% from the payments they might have secured from a civil court action. Of course, that discount of 30% might become less if Parliament in due course agrees with every noble Lord who spoke in our debate last week on Amendments 15 and 18 on whether the 70% measure should be raised.
The Minister might say that there is a deficit. He will not quite put it like this: that the further the Chancellor’s financial strategy goes astray, the more imperative it is that no opportunity is lost to reduce the deficit between what the Government raise and what they spend. In response, I say that, of all members of society, mesothelioma sufferers and their families should least be required to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction. On any reasonable scale of values, they surely should have priority for relatively generous treatment—before, for example, affluent individuals who can still get top-rate tax relief at 40% on their pension contributions.
However, the Minister might say that we must have regard for the interests of the generality of taxpayers. To that, I say that the British people are kindly and sympathetic. I believe that 99.9% would be positively glad to think that some minuscule part of the taxes they pay was going to help their exceptionally unfortunate fellow citizens who are mesothelioma sufferers or their dependants.
The principle that should govern the specifics of benefits recovery that are provided in the Bill should be that the DWP should be as generous and lenient as it can be. What, in particular, ought the Bill to provide? Amendments 20 to 22 and 27A offer alternative ways in which we might exempt from recovery payments from the scheme made on account of pain and suffering. This goes with the grain of DWP practice; indeed, it might even be in the law that the compensation recovery unit does not recover the element of an award made by a court that is in respect of pain and suffering, in contrast to the elements of a court award that are made on account of loss of earnings or costs of care where recovery occurs.
If it is going with the grain of existing DWP practice, the Minister might say that these amendments are unnecessary. To me, however, it is not clear that the rules that the DWP and the compensation recovery unit apply where court cases are concerned can simply be transposed to the scheme. The Minister at Second Reading was at pains to say with the utmost clarity:
“The scheme is not intended to be an alternative to civil damages, nor is it a compensation scheme”.—[Official Report, 20/5/12; col. 689.]
However, he then went on blithely to say that,
“an eligible applicant will receive a scheme payment after the deduction of relevant social security benefits and lump-sum payments, which the scheme administrator will repay to my department through its compensation recovery unit”.—[Official Report, 20/5/13; cols. 691-92.]
Setting aside the palpable contradiction there, the Committee ought to probe the significance of the Minister’s insistence that payments from the scheme are not compensation. I wonder whether what is going on here is that the DWP wants to be able to decree that no part of a payment from the scheme should be taken as compensation for pain and suffering, and therefore that the capital rules will, or should, apply to the whole of the payment, and that the compensation recovery unit, which henceforth should be better known as the MPR—the mesothelioma payments raider—would be able to help itself to a vastly larger proportion of a payment made by the scheme.
Under new Section 8A(2)(b), in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, it is contemplated that the gross amount of the compensation payment—that is, the payment that the Minister said, in terms, on Second Reading, was not a compensation payment—
“is to be reduced to nil in any case where the amount of the recoverable benefit is equal to or greater than the gross amount of the compensation payment”.
There we have it. We need to amend the Bill to protect mesothelioma sufferers and their families from the compensation recovery unit predators. The law should not enable the Government to take away from an award made by the scheme that element of the award that, if it were a court award, would be designated as being made on account of pain and suffering and which the CRU therefore could not touch. The scheme is already unfair, with payments 30% less than they would be from the court. If the compensation recovery unit is to be let loose untrammelled on scheme payments, it will be even more unfair. The draft rules of the scheme, with which the Minister has provided us, make no mention of any of this. They say nothing about whether any part of payments from the scheme would be on account of pain and suffering, loss of earnings or costs of care. The rules say simply that payment must be made in a lump sum.
Amendments 20 and 21 would provide that the whole payment by the scheme would be regarded as being made on account of pain and suffering, and that the Secretary of State could not recover payment made on account of pain and suffering. In that way, the whole payment would be secured from the grasping fingers of the CRU. If the Committee thinks that is going too far, Amendment 22 would limit the protection on account of pain and suffering to the first £75,000 of a payment made by the scheme. Amendment 27A is more moderate still, and would provide that:
“The first £50,000 or 50% of any payment by the scheme, whichever is the larger amount”,
should be protected. I hope the Committee will look seriously at that proposition.
I will be brief on the other amendments, which are intended to probe the Minister’s intentions with regard to the recovery of means-tested benefits and non-means-tested benefits, recovery from the person diagnosed, carers and dependants, and of social security benefits paid before the grant of an award by the scheme and of benefits or lump sums paid after such an award has been granted.
The May 2013 impact assessment dealt with these matters on page 18, and anticipated that over 10 years the department would recover £71 million in social security benefits and lump sum payments. It would be helpful if the Minister would break down that £71 million as between social security benefits and lump sum payments. The £71 million would be reduced by £2 million of administrative costs and another £17 million for the smoothing costs over the first four years of the scheme, leaving a net £52 million going back to the department.
Paragraph 90 on page 23 of the impact assessment states that,
“under the Universal Credit … rules being developed, if a person suffering from mesothelioma received civil compensation or a payment from the scheme, it would not affect their means-tested benefits for at least a year (and would be ignored indefinitely for Pension Credit). If they put the compensation or scheme payment into a trust within that year, the value of the trust and any income from it would continue to be ignored”.
The paragraph goes on to note that bereaved relatives would not be so protected.
Amendment 25 would extend that period of ignoring from one to two years. Tragically, at the end of two years it may be anticipated that nobody who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma will still be alive, so they will not see benefits or lump sums taken from them.
Amendment 27B suggests an alternative route to protecting these payments via trust law. It would be extremely good if the Minister could look at this, having regard to the situation of the terribly vulnerable households, one of whose members has been diagnosed with mesothelioma. In effect, the amendment would protect social security benefits and lump-sum payments beyond that first year by deeming that the payments from the scheme had been made as payments from trust and should therefore be ignored. Of course, it deems that the money held by the scheme is held in trust for claimants.
An alternative way to approach this might be to have another amendment stating that the scheme should make all payments into trust on behalf of its beneficiaries. I am well aware that trust law is immensely complex, but I suggest that there might be a route that could reasonably be pursued by the Committee and by the Government through the use of trusts to protect recipients of payments in that second year.
Amendment 27 would protect lump sums altogether from recovery. In the normal course of events, I would endorse the principle that nobody should be compensated twice for the same thing. Indeed, my amendment is still consistent with that principle for two reasons. First, the Minister said that these payments were not compensation, so he cannot argue that people would be compensated twice. Secondly, as the payments are to be discounted by 30% from what the court would award, we can very properly take it that the lump-sum payments will fall into the 30% that will not be paid and therefore cannot be reclaimed.
I hope the Minister will explain very precisely his intentions in regard to the recovery of social security payments and lump-sum payments, and that he will seize some practical hints that I have offered as a way forward, so that he can protect mesothelioma sufferers from his own compensation recovery unit. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I am strongly in favour of the principle that informs the amendments in this group, which has been set out in such detail by my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport. At Second Reading, the Minister in explaining—and, I dare say, in justifying—the part of the Bill that allows for the recovery of benefits, relied on the principle, with which we all agree, that nobody should be compensated twice. However, until then he had explained in some detail, in order to explain the 70% of average as a payment to mesothelioma sufferers and to defend it against the argument that it was insufficient, that we were dealing not with a compensation scheme at all but with a payments scheme. As I pointed out strongly in my contribution at Second Reading, it is inconsistent to have the same two arguments in relation to the same legislation. Either this is a compensation scheme or it is a payment scheme.
My noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, in trying to devise a justification or a reason for this, was being generous to the Government. He has observed from a sedentary position that he did not mean to be; I know that, but he was. This is a payment scheme until we come to compensation recovery, because if it were a compensation scheme, all the justifications for averaging and for taking percentages of averages would fall away. They would be intellectually incapable of being defended. However, one comes to the point at which it is clear that the Treasury wants to try to recover some of this money as if it was compensation, so it has to become compensation or quasi-compensation to justify that. One can then deploy the high-minded principle that no one should be compensated twice for the same loss. I have some sympathy for the Minister in having to ride these two horses, and I hope that he is not torn apart by them. However, as I said at Second Reading and as someone once said to me when I was a Minister, if you cannot ride two horses at once, you should not be in the circus.
The truth is that that is what lies at the heart of this issue. The justification for recovering benefits paid to people through the compensation recovery process is not because people cannot be compensated twice, it is just because the money is there and it can be recovered. It is because it can be done. To some degree, given that the Treasury has inadvertently been subsidising the insurance industry through a genuine compensation scheme in the past, perhaps there is some justification for trying to get some of the money back, and of course we are living in difficult financial times. I understand that, but I would like the Minister to explain in simple terms why this is being done rather than by seeking some justification in the principle that informs compensation recovery.
The compensation recovery system is set out in quite complicated law called the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, as now amended, and in a variety of subsequent Acts of Parliament. It applies throughout the United Kingdom. I was not present for the earlier debate about the calculation of the average that would inform the payment, but there are substantial differences between awards for mesothelioma in Scotland as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish courts are much more generous to mesothelioma sufferers than are the English courts and award substantially more in damages. However, compensation recovery law is consistent throughout the United Kingdom.
If Amendments 20 and 21 were to be accepted, my noble friend Lord Howarth would have created a device to defeat the Government’s ability to recover compensation at all by designating all payments as being for pain and suffering, and through the second of the two amendments would discount all payments for pain and suffering from recovery. He is wise to do this because that is the way the Act operates at the moment. However, thanks to some of my colleagues in the legal profession in Scotland, I have a pretty exhaustive list of all the heads of damages litigation that are not offsetable in relation to benefits. The list is the best part of half a page long. I will spare noble Lords the whole list, but it moves from pain and suffering to loss of future earnings, and it goes into some detail. All of them are component elements that one would look at if one were calculating the level of compensation payment due to a mesothelioma sufferer as a possible head of damages.
The thing about this list is that it lies behind all the settlements that form the history of the settlements that in turn have informed the average, from which the Government will take the 70%. They are not irrelevant to the calculation of the payment that will be made; they are at the heart of it. If the payments were made through a court process of compensation, a very small number would allow for benefit recovery: substantially, they would not allow it. There is a lot to be said for treating these payments, which are informed in that way, in the same way as one would treat compensation. Not the least that can be said in favour of that proposition is the fact that the Government cannot justify recovering any benefits unless they can use the word “compensation” against the payments.
I will make a final point to the Minister that is not reflected in an amendment. I would like to know his justification for this situation. If, having gone through a process of looking at historical settlements and averaging them one is then justified in making a payment that is 70% of that average, why is one justified in taking 100% of the benefits of that 70% settlement? Why do we not at least restrict the recovery of the benefits to the same percentage that we apply to the calculation of the payment?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howarth opened up an important area for consideration, and was strongly supported by my noble friend Lord Browne. I start by asking the Minister about the computation of the benefit recovery amounts in the impact assessment. Does he have an analysis that distinguishes between the recovery of lump sums and the recovery of a benefit, and, if so, what is included in the second list?
In principle, we should seek from the Bill a scheme that will place claimants in the same position as they would have been had they received compensation in the normal manner, notwithstanding the fact, as my noble friend outlined, that it is a payments scheme. This position is fettered in two key respects. First, average compensation in age bands is used as a proxy for actual compensation. We accept this as a practical matter. Secondly, only a percentage—70% is the figure that is currently suggested—of relevant average compensation will be used. We strenuously reject this and will continue to press for 100% payment.
On benefit recovery, we do not challenge the current broad approach in the benefits system, although there is always scope for a review to see how it is working in practice. However, I suggest that any change should not be fundamentally a matter for the Bill. However, neither should we see it as a mechanism to redress any shortfall in the payments scheme. That should be addressed by paying at 100%. To do otherwise would relieve insurers of their obligations and impose a cost on the state. However, it is absolutely right, if our benchmark is normal compensation arrangements, to ensure that a scheme payment should attract no greater benefit recovery than a payment received as compensation. If our benchmark is 100% payment, we would not want to see any compensation recovery that was greater than it would be with a formal compensation scheme.
One key difference is that a scheme payment, absent my noble friend’s amendments, is not allocated over various heads. We received a helpful note on this from the Bill team with some illustrative examples, and were grateful for a further meeting this morning that helped to clarify some issues. As for lump sums recoverable in respect of the 1979 and 2008 Acts, it is understood that there is no difference between the payment scheme and normal compensation, although if paid at less than 100% there might in extremis be a shortfall for a scheme payment. The recovery of other benefits is more convoluted, and a whole range of benefits are potentially recoverable. The rules were helpfully summarised in the briefing note, which says:
“The compensator may reduce the amount of payment he makes to the injured person to take into account … any amounts he is required to pay the SoS. The injured person is never required to repay the SoS recoverable benefits or lump sums. If the compensator cannot reduce the compensation he is still required to repay the SoS”.
Two things are happening here: there is an amount that has to be paid by the compensator to the Secretary of State, and there is a second question about the extent to which any of that can be recovered from claimants. The note continues:
“Compensation can only be reduced to offset amounts to be repaid to the SoS where the compensation and the benefit are both paid to meet the same need”.
So,
“compensation paid for loss of earnings can only be reduced to offset benefits paid for loss of earnings”,
such as IIDB, while,
“compensation paid for cost of care can only be reduced to offset benefits paid for cost of care”.
Further, compensation paid for general damages such as pain and suffering—the thrust of a number of my noble friend’s amendments—cannot,
“be reduced to offset any recoverable benefits”.
On principle, since what is being paid here is not allocable over any of those amounts, it would seem difficult to justify any benefit recovery as a result. I think it was suggested in our meeting this morning that this is a practical matter and that these things are somehow fixed by the insurers in how they allocate payments. I am bound to say that I struggle to see how that might happen.
There is a further issue. Again, I am grateful for a note from the officials on this. I just want to press a point of principle to clarify the situation. If the scheme payment was 100% for pain and suffering, would the compensation recovery work as follows? If the scheme payment was £100,000, the claimant received IIDB of £10,000, and a 2008 scheme payment of £10,000, the benefits of IIDB could not be recovered from payments for pain and suffering but the 2008 scheme lumps could be, so the outcome would be that the claimant received £90,000—that is, the £100,000 scheme payment minus the £10,000 deduction for the lump sum—but the cost to the scheme administrator would be £110,000: the £20,000 to DWP and the £90,000 to the claimant. In those circumstances, the claimant actually meets more than the gross cost of the scheme payment. I do not know the extent to which that is factored into the noble Lord’s calculations. It seems that we need clarity about how this will all work. We would be reluctant to go down the path of tweaking the benefit recovery as a means of letting insurers off the hook. It is their obligation to pay 100% compensation. If we do otherwise, we in effect ask the state to meet that shortfall, when insurers should be doing that.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for these amendments. Clearly, the general intention behind them is to place restrictions on the ability of the Secretary of State to recover both social security benefits and existing lump-sum payments made in accordance with the 1979 and 2008 Acts. This would then prevent the scheme administrator from reducing scheme payments to offset the cost of repaying recoverable benefits and lump sums to the Secretary of State. Actually, it may be the case that two of the amendments would restrict the scheme administrator from seeking repayment where sums were paid incorrectly due to error, mistake, misrepresentation or fraud. Clearly, where a scheme payment is falsely claimed it is only right that it should be repaid. Broadly, we think—as the noble Lord pointed out in his cogent remarks—that the amendments are aimed at restricting the recovery of benefits from scheme payments.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, would a person be advised not to submit a claim where it appears that the amount of the repayments would be greater than the £87,000 that he was likely to receive? Is that the effect of this particular section of the clause? When he obtains initial legal advice, would the solicitor be bound to tell him that, as he has already received a sum approaching £87,000, it would not be worth his while submitting a claim?
Lord Freud
That is clearly the theoretical position. The reality is that, of course, in practical terms, the payments in the scheme we are introducing dwarf any other payments that have already been made and any of the lump-sum and other benefit payments. They absolutely dwarf them, given that typical payments under the 2008 Act run at, I think, approximately £15,000. It would inevitably be worth anyone’s while, in terms of money, to go after a promising claim.
On the trusts mechanism, we are using the existing mechanisms to protect these kinds of payments, or to isolate them and see what they are. As the years stretch out, it would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut to change all that legislation. As noble Lords know, I am trying to do my best to keep the benefits system coherent and as simple as possible.
With that, I hope that I have covered most of the ground there—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think that the Minister is about to wind up his remarks. Can he confirm that if one is dealing with benefits, not lump sums, a scheme payment can only be reduced to offset amounts to be repaid to the Secretary of State where the scheme payment and the benefit are both paid to meet the same need? As the scheme payment is not allocated to meet any particular needs to do with mobility, the cost of care, loss of earnings or pain and suffering, it would seem logically to follow that there can be no withholding from the scheme payment in respect of those benefits. Is that correct? It is a different issue for lump sums.
Lord Freud
I shall speak slightly off the cuff. We do not look backwards to those payments anyway, so only the payments in respect of mesothelioma would be offset. Looking ahead, there may be some payments, but they would have to be specifically for mesothelioma. I do not think that I have misrepresented the position, but I will write to get it precisely right for the noble Lord.
Lord Freud
These amendments do not achieve their aim in many cases, and they could have some deeply unintended consequences. In particular, they would change the way in which the long-established benefit recovery system operates, and I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw them.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord McKenzie of Luton, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for participating in the debate and for the excellent points that they have made. I will study with great care what the Minister has said and see whether I can elicit from his words a clear and acceptable set of principles that the department will apply here. He seemed to say that nothing must shake or disturb the existing ways of doing things, and I am not in the least bit surprised that he has said, in his characteristically courteous way, that my amendments are variously defective, subversive or would create chaos. I am an amateur in these matters and I have simply sought to raise the pertinent issues. Merely because my amendments may not stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of this Committee does not mean to say that the issues are not very important and worthy of continuing consideration as we reach the later stages of this legislation.
I agree with the Minister that the term “compensation” is a pretty slippery and rather sloppy one. It becomes a fairly sickly euphemism, not least in the context in which it is often used, where it refers to bankers’ compensation. Those are remuneration packages worth many millions of pounds, and one wonders what the bankers are being compensated for, other than the opprobrium in which they are held in society. I am with him in being cautious about the use of the term “compensation”. However, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie indicated, there may be difficulties in the Government seeking to have it both ways. We should consider further whether the normal rules that apply to compensation recovery, which are entirely legitimate and we do not challenge, can actually be laid over this particular scheme with its very distinctive circumstances.
I detect between the lines of what the Minister has said and from his tone that he wants to be as flexible, constructive and generous as he can be. In that case, we should certainly look further at the use of the mechanism of trusts. I completely accept that we should not take a sledgehammer to crack a nut and that it would not be sensible or appropriate to drive a coach and horses through the existing provisions of trust law in relation to social security benefits. However, it may be possible to harness those provisions to provide slightly more extensive alleviation. Whether, for example, the scheme might be able to provide a hand-out package, which is a trust ready for use that it would be easy for people to pick up and use, I do not know.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 29, I will also speak to Amendment 30. Clause 7 provides for the Secretary of State to administer the payment scheme or to make arrangements for a body to administer the scheme. The arrangements can allow the body to arrange for somebody else to administer the scheme or any part of it. Amendment 29 would ensure that any further delegation which is permitted has the approval of the Secretary of State. This is a straightforward issue. Administering the scheme is an important undertaking, and the Secretary of State should be satisfied that those involved are fit for purpose.
It may be that the Minister will say that the Secretary of State should not have to be bothered if somebody is appointed to administer, say, a routine part of the scheme such as the processing of payments. However, as it stands, an appointed body would appear to be able to cause the whole of the operation practice to be transferred to somebody without any recourse to the Secretary of State. Our concerns in this matter might be negated if we knew what arrangements the Minister envisages for membership of any company or other body which it is expected will run the scheme. We know the insurance industry view but, by now, the Government must have arrangements in mind. Perhaps the Minister will share these.
This leads on to our Amendment 30, which requires the administering body to be constituted from members who are demonstrably independent of any active insurers. As levy payers, clearly they have an interest in the numbers and the profile of successful claims. The Minister may again say that they may also have an interest in helping people bring proceedings against individual insurers. That may be so, but it does not negate the fact that active insurers have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the scheme.
Of course, it is accepted that claimants have a right of appeal, but we have already touched on the costs and time of this, and it is not a sufficient answer. In the draft scheme rules it does not appear that there is a requirement for any specific insurance expertise to be brought to bear—or, if there is, it does not seem to be the driver of the scheme. What discussions have taken place with the insurance sector about administration? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
If the noble Lord will curb his enthusiasm for just a moment, the amendment proposed states:
“Page 4, line 11, after ‘may’ insert ‘, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State,’”.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful for being curbed. I support the amendment. It will lead on to Amendment 32, which also addresses these issues, so I may come back to them at a later stage. It is immensely important that this body is seen and respected by those outside the industry as being at the very least impartial with regard to the way things will be conducted. It must have the confidence of the beneficiaries, their families and everyone else involved. This amendment, together with Amendment 32, which we will consider in a moment, needs to be taken on board, if not in this form of words then at least in a form of words that addresses what could be a weakness in the Bill.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their amendments. I assure them that all diligence will be observed during the setting up and monitoring of the administrative body. Irrespective of the background of the scheme administrator, the body will have to administer the scheme in a way that satisfies the requirements of the legislation and apply scheme rules that will ensure that the administrator is sufficiently tied to a set of rules as determined by the Secretary of State and not by the insurance industry. What matters is not whether the body administering the scheme is formally independent of the insurance industry but whether it is controlled by the arrangements put in place by the Secretary of State and whether it is properly monitored. The arrangements will achieve that.
The insurance industry is setting up a company to meet the requirements of the scheme rules. There would be time advantages to using such a body, with it potentially being able to make payments more quickly than if the Government had to establish a body. However, any body with which the Secretary of State makes arrangements will be subject to the standard call-off contract that gives us the power to change a supplier should it fail to operate as required.
I make it clear that we will undertake due diligence in ensuring that whoever ends up delivering the scheme does so in compliance with the rules that we set out. If any body does not meet our requirements, we will not make arrangements with it, and, if it fails to deliver, we will make arrangements with another one. I will respond to Amendment 32 when the noble Lord moves it. It may be relevant, and I will make a further statement at that point.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his support. He said it was important that the administrator was seen as, and respected for, being impartial and particularly important that he had the confidence of beneficiaries. I was less than satisfied with the Minister’s response. He said that it might be quicker to get things under way because the insurance industry was actively engaged in putting together a body now, but that does not cut much ice because it will be April 2014 before any payments are made, which gives ample time to set up all sorts of bodies in the interim.
Also, we still do not have a response as to who the members of the body are likely to be. I do not know whether the Minister can at least share his initial thoughts on that. We accept entirely that, ultimately, it is the Secretary of State who must be satisfied that the scheme is being run properly but that is quite different from having someone with overall responsibility and having confidence in the routine operation of the scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, both the beneficiaries and the industry itself must have confidence in the way its routine operation is undertaken.
I think that this is outstanding business that may overlap in part with the next amendment but, for the time being, I shall withdraw the amendment after the noble Lord has dealt with the issue of the likely membership of the vehicle, whether it is set up by the insurance companies or someone else.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That is fine. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Oversight Committee
(1) The Secretary of State must establish, by statutory instrument, an Oversight Committee to monitor, review and report to the Secretary of State on the overall arrangements comprising—
(a) the scheme;(b) scheme administration; (c) the Technical Committee;(d) the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office; and(e) the Electronic Information Gateway.(2) The Oversight Committee must include representatives of—
(a) the Asbestos Victims Support Groups;(b) trade unions;(c) active insurers;and must be chaired by an independent person.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment calls for the establishment of an oversight committee to monitor, review and report to the Secretary of State on the overall aspects of the scheme and related arrangements. Those arrangements cover not only the scheme, but its administration.
Lord Freud
My Lords, in the interests of time, I thought I might pre-empt the noble Lord on this, although I think that he must move the amendment first.
The Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, must beg to move the amendment, and I will then put the question. If that is in order, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, can then speak.
Lord Freud
I apologise to the noble Lord for cutting him off in full flow. I understand that the level of independence of the scheme administrator is of some concern and clearly it is one of the things that have prompted the amendment. I can reassure the noble Lord that whoever the Secretary of State makes arrangements with to administer the scheme will be bound by agreements to comply with the scheme rules and departmental standards of implementation and administration. However, I am attracted to the idea of having some oversight of the scheme set out more formally. We could, for example, put something about reviewing and monitoring the scheme in the scheme rules and set this out in more detail in the arrangements for the scheme administration. I am minded to do more work on this to consider further whether we should bring forward an amendment on oversight of the scheme. I am not able to agree to the amendment today because I need to do the work first, but I would be grateful if I could consult the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and get his wisdom on this. I shall then come back to noble Lords at a later stage. On that basis, I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord James of Blackheath
I will make one small comment about subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 32: there are no longer any active insurers for asbestosis. You are really talking about the reinsurers. They are the people you should seek to have represented.
Lord Wigley
They say in the world of chess, as I have quoted before, that a threat is more dangerous than the execution. Clearly the threat of the speeches coming in support of this amendment evoked the shooting of the fox before it got out of its hideaway. I am grateful to the Minister for his positive response. Obviously, it is in the hands of the noble Lord whether to now withdraw the amendment, but I hope that we will come back to this on Report.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
I will just add my support for this, particularly for subsection 2(a) of the proposed new clause and the place in it of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups. We have talked lengthily in this discussion about the place of insurers, but one principle of legislation such as this needs to be that nothing that is for us may be done without us. It is crucial that the victim support groups are represented on any oversight group that is produced.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I think the Minister said in replying to the previous amendment that when we came to this one he would give us some more information about the membership of the body that the industry proposes to establish. It would be very useful to know that, as it conditions the way we will think about monitoring and reviewing. Clearly, if the board established by the insurance industry contains people who have an association with that industry, the degree of intensity of monitoring and reviewing would have to be far higher than it would if the board were totally independent.
Lord Freud
To answer in just one minute: I will take the whole package and look at it. That is what I am committing to do.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, just before I formally withdraw the amendment, I should say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to take this away and consider it. I am happy to engage with him in doing so, as I am sure are other noble Lords who have spoken in support of this: the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. To make the point clear: I see this as an oversight not only of the scheme but also the wider components of the ELTO technical committee. We know that the insurance industry sees all these arrangements as an integrated package. It is important that the oversight that we set in train covers all the components. I would certainly be keen to see those people involved in the victim support groups having some role in this, as well as the insurers.
Lord Freud
I can assure noble Lords that I will enter negotiations with them without any preconditions. Basically, we will have a look at this issue and then discuss it with noble Lords to determine the best way forward.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 34, 35 and 44 in this group. Clause 10 gives the power to the scheme administrator to help a person bring proceedings. However, this is only the case where a payment is first made under the scheme. Under Clause 2(1)(c), eligibility for the scheme depends on a person not bringing or being unable to bring an action against a negligent employer or insurer. Perhaps the Minister would expand on the circumstances envisaged where a payment has been made but proceedings may now be possible. Is it to do with the subsequent discovery of the possibility of proceedings in light of new information? Why is there the requirement that a payment be made before these provisions apply?
On Amendment 35, the Bill suggests an enabling power for the administrator to help a person bring proceedings. Our amendment requires the administrator to give this help, provided they have the agreement of the claimant. In pressing the point, we are mindful of the prospect of the insurance sector itself running the scheme, and thus of potential conflicts of interest. Where proceedings are possible that might garner a higher reward for the claimant, then, unless the claimant stipulates otherwise, that help must be provided. I accept that it may be necessary to stop any spurious or vexatious requirements by claimants, but that could be built into any amendments.
The proceedings in question can be brought against an employer for negligence or breach of statutory duty, or against an insurance company. Amendment 34 includes those against whom proceedings might be taken, such as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. I am bound to say that this is rather a tentative amendment, but it is understood that the FSCS compensates those covered by insolvent insurers. However, perhaps that is what the Minister has in mind in Clause 10(5).
Amendment 44 in this group addresses a different point. It requires the arrangements for establishing a technical committee to be in accordance with regulations; that is, that the committee should be subject to a parliamentary process. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has addressed this point, but having seen the Government’s response to it, I am minded not to press the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for these amendments. Amendments 33 and 35 cover the scheme administrator’s ability to help a person bring relevant proceedings through the courts. The amendments allow the scheme administrator to help a person bring relevant proceedings against particular employers or insurers whether or not a scheme payment has been made. They also provide that the Secretary of State’s scheme rules may include the circumstances where the scheme administrator is required to help a person bring proceedings with that person’s consent.
Where bringing relevant proceedings will benefit both the applicant and the scheme by allowing a scheme payment to be recovered from an award of civil damages, it is right that the scheme should be allowed to help a person bring relevant proceedings. We want to allow flexibility in the scheme so that the scheme administrator can decide, based on an individual’s circumstances, whether it is in the interests both of that person and of the scheme to help that person bring proceedings. We want to avoid inflexibility where a scheme administrator is obliged to help a person bring proceedings with that person’s consent. It is also not appropriate for the scheme administrator to use scheme funds to bring proceedings where the scheme may not benefit from such action.
Amendment 34 allows the scheme administrator to help someone bring a claim against the Financial Services Compensation Scheme where they have already received a scheme payment. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme makes compensation payments when insurers are insolvent. In cases prior to 1972, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme will pay compensation only where both the employer and the employer’s liability insurer are insolvent. Where both an employer and insurer are insolvent, a person may also be eligible for a payment under the Bill. So it is possible for a scheme payment to be made where a person may also be eligible for compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. If a scheme payment has already been made and it is subsequently established that a Financial Services Compensation Scheme payment can be made, it could be in the interests of the scheme to help a person make an application for an FSCS payment so that the scheme payment can be recovered from the FSCS payment.
This amendment is an interesting proposition. I am minded to do more work on it to consider further whether we should bring an amendment to allow the scheme administrator to help a person make a claim to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. However, since I have not done the work, I am not able to agree to the amendment today.
Amendment 44 means that regulations will be needed for the Secretary of State’s arrangements with a body to establish a technical committee. The committee will make decisions on questions arising between a potential claimant and an insurer as to whether an employer maintained employer’s liability insurance with that insurer at a particular time. The technical committee is separate from the scheme and will decide an issue prior to any application being made for a scheme payment. The scheme may in fact never be involved with some cases, if insurance cover can be determined by the committee. The committee is therefore still essentially determining a private dispute between two parties, albeit facilitated by legislation, and is not directly making any decision about the allocation of public money to individuals. For that reason, it is appropriate that it will be outside government and that it should be set up under non-statutory arrangements.
We also want the procedure of applying for a technical committee decision to be simple, straightforward and as flexible as the law will allow. We believe that the best way to achieve that is for the Secretary of State to make arrangements with a body that will have the expertise to decide questions on insurance, rather than to enshrine the technical committee’s functions in statute. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment and to not press the others.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As I think I said in moving the amendment, I had already gone cold on Amendment 44. The exchanges with the Delegated Powers Committee have dealt with that. I am grateful to the Minister for taking away the point about the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and I hope that we will see an amendment on Report. On the other amendments, I am not totally convinced that there should be a “may” rather than a requirement but I am not minded to press the matter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I hope we can be brief with this. In moving Amendment 36, I will speak to the other amendments in this group; namely, Amendments 37, 38 and 39. I have raised the issue with the Bill team, so this is an opportunity to put something on the record.
Schedule 2 precludes an individual from claiming benefits under the 1979 and 2008 state compensation schemes if an application is made under the mesothelioma scheme provided for in the Bill. Equivalent exclusions are added to the parallel Northern Ireland legislation. This probing amendment simply adds the word “successful” to the reference to “application”. As it stands, if somebody should apply to the mesothelioma payment scheme unsuccessfully, Schedule 2 would seemingly prevent access to the 1979 or 2008 statutory schemes. I cannot believe that that was intended and it would not be particularly fair. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of this amendment for the same reason: to try to get clarification with regard to the interplay with the 1979 scheme. I raised this matter at an earlier stage and would be very interested in some clarification from the Minister.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for these amendments, which I understand are probing amendments. I am hopeful that I can give complete satisfaction on the matter. The intention of these amendments is to enable a person to apply for a payment under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, or under the corresponding legislation in Northern Ireland, after they have made an application for a scheme payment but before a scheme payment is made or where the application is unsuccessful.
One of the conditions of entitlement under the 1979 legislation is that a person has not brought any action or compromised any claim for damages in respect of a disablement, for example by issuing proceedings against a negligent employer or insurer, or by settling a potential claim out of court. The provisions of Schedule 2, which these proposals would amend, ensure that people who apply to the scheme and those who bring an action or claim for damages are treated equally under the 1979 Act. If a person is prevented from claiming under the 1979 legislation because they have made an application to the diffuse mesothelioma payments scheme, instead they may still be able to claim under the 2008 diffuse mesothelioma schemes established under Part 4 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 and the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am again grateful to the Minister. I accept from what he has said that there is a route to at least the equivalent, even if the 1979 Act would be barred under these circumstances. I am a bit less clear as to why the 1979 provisions could not be amended in the way suggested in the amendment.
On the 2008 Act, I accept entirely that compensation under that scheme is currently paid at the same rate as the 1979 scheme, but that was not always the case—certainly not in the early years of the scheme. I do not think there is anything that technically links the two to require each to be paid at the same rate. Although people will currently be able to put themselves in the same position as if they could have claimed under the 1979 Act, I am not convinced that that would inevitably be the case if the route is to have to look at the 2008 Act. However, perhaps we can reflect on the Minister’s response and return to this at a later stage; or maybe we could have some more detailed, technical discussions on this before the Report stage so as to make sure that we understand precisely why the 1979 scheme cannot be amended as suggested. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, Amendments 40 and 45 in this group relate to the possibility of additional schemes being established. They would introduce that possibility into the Bill; perhaps I should say that they would clarify what has already been hinted at and may already be in the Bill. Amendment 40 would empower the Secretary of State to levy employers’ liability insurers in order to fund additional schemes comparable to the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme. Amendment 45 would empower the Secretary of State to establish by regulation other schemes in relation to long-latency, asbestos-related diseases.
The difficulties of establishing entitlement to insurance payments after many years, when the employer has gone and the documentation is missing, are not confined to the circumstances of mesothelioma. If sufferers from asbestos-related cancer or asbestosis face the same barriers to securing compensation, if we call it that—perhaps we had better say “financial relief”—is it not right that they should be supported by analogous schemes?
I spoke at Second Reading about those two particular diseases as well as diffuse pleural thickening, pleural plaques, pleural effusion and rounded atelectasis. All of these are diseases of the lung and the pleura caused by inhalation of asbestos fibres. The Minister spoke encouragingly in that debate, saying:
“The issue of individuals who have developed other asbestos-related diseases through negligence or breach of statutory duty and are unable to bring a civil claim for damages of course needs to be addressed”.—[Official Report, 20/5/13; col. 690.]
Indeed, justice requires that where people have contracted one or another of these terrible diseases as a result of the negligence of their employer causing them to be exposed to asbestos fibres, surely they ought to be supported on a comparable basis.
Interestingly, the department has just produced a document entitled, Estimates of the Impact of Extending the Scope of the Payment Scheme in the Mesothelioma Bill to Include Other Asbestos-Related Diseases and Other Non-Asbestos Work Related Diseases. It expects that there will be some 2,000 asbestos-related lung cancer deaths yearly, 725 newly assessed cases of asbestosis and 821 cases of non-malignant pleural disease—around 3,500 cases a year of one sort or another. The department acknowledges that it may be more difficult to establish a causal occupational link where these other diseases are concerned and estimates that the levy on insurers to fund a scheme for asbestos-related diseases other than mesothelioma, if the new scheme were to be constituted on the same principle as the DMPS, would amount to £478 million compared with the £322 million cost of the levy for the mesothelioma scheme. That is a significantly larger cost than that of the mesothelioma scheme, but I think it is not impossible to contemplate at some point in the future. I certainly do not think that new schemes should be funded via the DMPS itself, nor do I think that anybody is in a position to create a new scheme immediately. However, it should be done in the fullness of time—indeed, as soon as possible. Therefore, while we are legislating to provide the basis for the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme, it seems sensible that we should also be clear that we are legislating to make provision for further analogous schemes to be established on future occasions. I beg to move.
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, the problems of the Navy in this regard persist for that service. An MoD meeting has been called for 10 o’clock tomorrow morning. Will the Minister be present at that meeting? It would be helpful to know that.
Lord James of Blackheath
I think it will be harder to make progress without the Minister. It seems to me that three very significant problems are emerging in any dialogue with the MoD at present, and they will not go away very easily. Each of them has been shadowed in the discussions this afternoon. For a start, of course, this is a compensation payment for a dying sailor. There is no argument about it. There is no way you can call it anything else. We are here talking of it not being a compensation payment and this gives rise to a total misunderstanding in the minds of the MoD people to whom I have been talking because they seem to think that what we have here is a great big government-funded handout that they can dip their hands in and have a share for their sailors.
Of course, the downside is that in saying no to them, we run the risk that this clever and inspired programme to force the compensation programme through for non-compensation payments will invite the dreadful comparison that the Government, who are concerned to prepare catch-up payments to all the sufferers of this disease for whom they can, should include responsibility for the Navy, which has deliberately discarded any responsibility for payments for people who are suffering similarly. I cannot imagine a more unfortunate juxtaposition.
The MoD has to understand that if it wants a solution to this problem, that must come out of its own resources. It cannot come from this scheme. When I first realised this, simply on the grounds that I did not know the answer I tabled my strange Amendment 47, which says that we have a problem for which we need an answer, and that we must find it when we get a sensible dialogue going with the MoD—which may or may not start tomorrow morning.
There are two other big problems with the MoD. First, it will have a hugely high percentage of what I call the household contamination problem. The sailors and workers will have gone home at night to their wives with their dirty washing from working in the boiler rooms of the intensely asbestos-lagged warships. We are going to have a huge problem of a different nature there.
Secondly, the MoD cannot run an insurance industry-based solution because it cannot insure its ships or people; that has to come from a different pot and a different source. It is absolutely unacceptable that we do not have a solution for the sailors in parallel with this, but it is not going to be compatible with this Bill. Forgive me for having put the clause in, which is completely wrong and irrelevant, but it really is a desperate call: we have got to have something instead. I want to put a marker down that the whole House must work towards this.
We must be totally intolerant of any fudge that does not give the Navy a fair deal. There are far too many affected persons out there. The way to get the MoD really interested in this is to threaten to write to the Queen and tell her how many of her crew of Royal Yacht “Britannia” have been killed by it. That will get the MoD’s undivided attention. I will continue to run that one.
I will withdraw my amendment as it stands, quite clearly, because I cannot run it here. I just wanted to leave it there for the moment. It is a hole into which I have got to get something put before we are through with this.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, briefly, I support the two speeches which have just been made, not least because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord James, that there are other groups of people outside the scope of this Bill who are clearly looking to the Minister, who has done such a good job for this group of people: the 300 or so of the 2,200 who have unmet claims. He has done such a good job in dealing with this that there is the raised hope and expectation that other groups, whether they are in our Armed Forces or other groups entirely—such as those who have suffered from asbestos-related diseases of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, referred in his remarks—who will also be hoping that the noble Lord will in due course be able to come forward with other measures that might to meet some of those hopes and expectations.
I feel some sympathy with the Minister in this situation. I think it was William Wilberforce who was criticised by William Hazlitt for not dealing with problems of children who were being sent down into the mines; it would take Lord Shaftesbury to do that in due course. One of those who was defending Wilberforce, I think it was Henry Thornton, said it was rather like criticising Christopher Columbus for discovering the United States but also for not going on to discover Australia and New Zealand as well. The Minister is in that slightly invidious position at the moment. People will unfairly criticise him for not solving all the problems of the whole of mankind. What he is doing in the context of this Bill is incredibly noteworthy and all of us pay tribute to him for that. However, he should not neglect the points made by the two noble Lords, because they were well made and these amendments raise the point that there will be unfinished business even once this Bill has passed into law.
Lord James of Blackheath
Perhaps I may ask the Minister if he will have a meeting with me after I have been to the MoD so that I can get his advice and guidance on what to do next?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, our Amendment 46 is in this group. I will say at the start that I thoroughly support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Howarth. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the Minister has almost made a rod for his own back in raising hopes and expectations. Those are challenges that he will have to face, and I am sure he is well up to the task. The noble Lord, Lord James, should not apologise for having brought forward his amendment. He is right to say that what he seeks is not an insurance-based solution, but there are issues around inviting comparisons with the progress that has been made.
As we have discussed, the payments scheme relates to those diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. It therefore excludes other asbestos-related diseases such as asbestos-related lung cancer and asbestosis. It also excludes other work-related, non-asbestos diseases such as pneuomoconiosis. The DWP’s June 2013 analysis quotes the HSE data on industrial diseases, which has an annual estimate of sufferers of asbestos-related diseases of some 3,500—that excludes those suffering from mesothelioma—and of non-asbestos-related industrial diseases of some 4,200. Many of these will face the same problem in identifying a negligent employer, or an employer liability insurer. The DWP’s June note acknowledges that many of the diseases covered do not share the same characteristics as mesothelioma, and that their severity and progression may vary, depending on the heaviness of exposure to asbestos.
It also highlights the fact that, for example, only a small proportion of asbestos-related lung cancers are compensated through government schemes, because of the range of different causes of lung cancer that mask an asbestos cause. Notwithstanding this, and perhaps somewhat strangely, in computing the effect of extending the scheme, it has been assumed in the data that the same proportion of those with diffuse mesothelioma who can access the scheme proposed by the Bill will be able to access an extended scheme, that the same level of scheme payment will be received, and that the same amount of benefit will be recovered. Those are fairly broad-brush assumptions, to say the least. In resisting the amendment, the Minister will doubtless point to the costs of bringing forward an extension of the scheme. On the basis of their estimates over a 10-year period, they suggest that there will be 5,100 successful applicants for other asbestos-related diseases, and 6,100 non-asbestos work-related diseases. There will be an additional levy on insurers of £478 million and £564 million respectively.
At face value, the figures are shocking. It is not so much the amounts as the suggestion that over 10 years, some 11,200 people will miss out. By how much will depend on benefit recovery arrangements, but they could miss out to the tune of £1 billion. If the concentration were just on the other asbestos-related diseases, not expanding the scheme will deny 5,100 people, who will miss out just because an employer has gone out of business or cannot be located and a relevant insurer cannot be established.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals within a year to establish other schemes to cover these other diseases. On reflection, limiting this to diseases covered by the 1979 Act may not be the most appropriate approach, and we might seek a different definition on Report. We have been clear that we do not want the pursuit of broader coverage to hold up the scheme of diffuse mesothelioma, and there is no reason why acceptance of the amendment, or my noble friend’s variations, should cause this to happen. It is accepted that it will be difficult to graft on to the mesothelioma scheme the tariff approach, given the varying degrees of suffering that some of the other diseases entail, and that there may be convoluted issues around causation. Therefore, while continuing to acknowledge the merits of the mesothelioma scheme, we should no longer look aside from those people—many thousands on the Government’s own figures—who face terrible suffering because of the negligence or breach of statutory duty of an employer. This is all the more important where access to the state lump sum and social security support is more difficult, as it is for some.
The Minister has come thus far and we have supported and congratulated him on doing so. Indeed, he has expressed sympathy for a broader scheme. Accepting the thrust of these amendments would add to that journey, which I beg him to undertake.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for these amendments, and clearly I am sympathetic to the desire to provide for as many people as possible. Let me deal with the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in the first instance, and then perhaps I may turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord James regarding members of the Armed Forces.
I recognise the wish to provide for other groups of people who fall foul of poor record-keeping by the insurance industry and so cannot bring a claim for civil damages. There could be another scheme for these people in the future, but as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just acknowledged, it cannot and will not be this particular scheme. It is neither possible nor realistic to extend it in this way, and that is the reason I must reject these amendments.
The remit of the Bill is strictly related to mesothelioma. However, like many noble Lords, I hope that the momentum generated by this legislation will not dissipate and that further work will be done in the future. Perhaps I may explain why we cannot be flexible on this. I should start by reminding noble Lords about the distinctive characteristics of mesothelioma. The Bill allows for a relatively straightforward and quick scheme to be established. The key points are mesothelioma’s undeniable link to asbestos exposure and lack of co-causality with other factors such as smoking. The unique elements of diffuse mesothelioma allow us to establish a tariff payment scheme of this nature. A streamlined scheme like this would not work for other long-tail diseases. The law of causation is favourable to mesothelioma victims in the sense that it is an indivisible injury. It does not matter who exposed the victim or how many people exposed him, they will all be jointly and severally liable for the same damage. This allows for simplicity when assessing whether someone is eligible for a payment. Assessing liability for other diseases where the causation rules are not the same would involve a degree of complexity that this scheme has not been designed to allow for.
I join noble Lords in their hope that, in the future, other people will be provided for. Until such time, there remain state payments that sufferers of other long-tail diseases can apply for, such as payments made under the 1979 and 2008 Acts. I hope that I have explained and made it clear why this scheme will succeed only if it deals exclusively with mesothelioma, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Let me now turn my attention to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord James of Blackheath regarding the creation of a scheme to cover retired or current members of the Armed Forces who were exposed to asbestos and have since developed a related disease. I should clarify that, when I denied the 10 o’clock meeting, one of my representatives sitting behind me today will be at that meeting, and so I will be given good intelligence on what happens.
Lord James of Blackheath
Can we have an indication by paw of who will be attending the meeting?
Lord Freud
The paw has been raised. I am more than happy to hold a meeting with the noble Lord after that meeting if he so desires.
Lord James of Blackheath
The noble Lord is taking a big risk in sending the best looking member of his staff to the Navy.
Lord Freud
The noble Lord must be very careful about making remarks like that. I think that we should strike them from the record.
The noble Lord was clearly referring in particular to those working in the boiler rooms of those three ships—HMS “Britannia”, HMS “Furious” and HMS “Albion”—a great many of whom would have been exposed to asbestos during the course of their service. We all in this Committee, I know, are deeply sympathetic to a tragic situation. However, as the noble Lord acknowledges, it is not possible for this Bill to be the solution for that, mainly because the MoD was not and is not covered by employer liability insurance. It would not be appropriate to raise finds for such a scheme from the employer liability insurance markets; they are entirely different issues. I know that the noble Lord has particular issues with the arrangements which the MoD has in place for compensation, so I will not go into those. They are dealt with by the MoD and I suspect that they will be the subject of conversation tomorrow.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Before the Minister goes any further on that, would he accept that there is a parallel between people who slipped through the insurance arrangements for people with mesothelioma—and for whom there is therefore no known legal authority and so the Bill has been brought forward to plug that gap—and servicemen who have also fallen through a gap because there is no liability accepted by the Ministry of Defence and no insurance arrangements in place for them either? In parallel with this scheme, surely we should at least accept a moral responsibility for the obligations of the Government to people serving in our Armed Forces and risking their lives in the service of this nation, and therefore accept that it should in due course be met. Can the Minister at least tell us how many people are in those groups to which he has just alluded?
Lord Freud
My intelligence on this comes from my noble friend Lord James, who told me that the estimate was 300 people. However, I stand to be corrected by him.
Lord James of Blackheath
The provisional estimate is up to 300 dead already and 180 contaminated. However, the figure we need to be concerned about is the number of wives who have got it, too.
Lord Freud
The noble Lord has put that on the record. Clearly, there is a difference in the sense that the MoD as a public authority does not use employer liability; it effectively self-insures. The noble Lord is concerned about the terms of when it pays compensation; I know that he is looking to address that issue with the MoD.
I share the concern of noble Lords in the Committee to help to provide for as many people as possible who have a terrible disease through absolutely no fault of their own. However, this scheme is addressed precisely at one part of that. It is not stretchable in that way.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I do not think that anybody is suggesting that we should stretch the scheme in the Bill to encompass other arrangements. Certainly, however, Amendment 46 would require a commitment from the Government that they will bring before Parliament within a period of time other arrangements to deal with these other situations. It is accepted that it cannot be readily grafted on to the existing diffuse mesothelioma scheme for the reasons that the Minister has advanced. We are looking for the commitment to saying, “Let us move on and bring forward a scheme or schemes to deal with these other issues”.
Lord Freud
Regrettably, I am not in a position to make any kind of commitment along those lines. We responded to the consultation document which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, launched, and our considered view was that this was the most urgent thing to tackle. That is the only commitment that I am in a position to make today. Having urged other noble Lords to withdraw or not to press their amendments, I ask the noble Lord, Lord James, not to press his amendment either.
Lord James of Blackheath
For the sake of accuracy, I will just correct the figures to this extent. The Navy’s figures include subcontracted staff in naval ports.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord McKenzie for laying out the case in his customarily lucid and reasonable style. I strongly support Amendment 46, in his name, which wisely would require the Secretary of State to set out his plans to establish further analogous schemes within a year.
We will come back to the Minister’s refusal to contemplate doing that in a moment, but I will just comment on Amendment 47, concerning the Armed Forces, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath. He has raised a massively important issue. Our concern has to be not only for sailors, for people doing highly skilled labouring jobs in naval dockyards and for other members of the armed services, but for people who could well have been directly employed by government in a whole host of other fields in publicly owned facilities of one kind or another, including of course civil servants. The Government self-insure, and there must be an employer’s liability in that situation. I cannot see how it could possibly be otherwise. Perfectly understandably, the Government do not go to the insurance market to take out employer’s liability insurance but absorb the risk themselves.
I can well understand that the Ministry of Defence has form and has sought, over many years, to resist what many very well informed people consider to be well founded claims for compensation against the Ministry of Defence. It digs in and goes into the trenches. However, there must be a strong case—not only a moral case, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, very powerfully suggested, but, I would have thought, a strong legal case. The difficulty, presumably, is that potential claimants do not have the confidence to take on the MoD because it has infinite resources with which to defend itself in those trenches.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, compared the Minister to William Wilberforce. The persuasive powers and techniques of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, are legendary, but I would join him more prosaically in simply encouraging the Minister not only to receive a report on the important meeting that is due tomorrow but to pursue this matter strenuously. I do not know whether the Bill would permit an amendment to be incorporated that was designed to achieve the purposes of the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, with this amendment. However, I hope the Minister will do his very best to ensure that some such amendment is included.
This brings me back to my own amendments, which the Minister resisted despite saying that he was sympathetic to their purpose. How could he not be considering that he went so far at Second Reading? I assume that if the department was going to do the work to produce the estimates document to which I and others have drawn attention, it must be because it sees that there is a strong case for establishing other schemes in the future for other long-latency asbestos-related diseases.
I now know that this is his technique in debate, but the Minister has set up another Aunt Sally, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie spotted. He sought to interpret the purport of my amendments and my remarks as being that we have to stretch the mesothelioma scheme to encompass the payment of compensation in relation to these other diseases. That, of course, is not at all what I said. Amendment 40 would insert,
“or any other scheme established under this legislation”.
Amendment 45 says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulation establish other schemes in relation to other … diseases”.
I am not at all saying that the mesothelioma scheme should be expanded, inflated or stretched to do what he said. I am saying that, to the extent that the Bill clearly does not confer the powers requisite, we ought to amend it so that it would be possible to establish other schemes analogous to the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme in future. This does not cost the Treasury a penny, and I cannot see what the conceivable difficulty should be. The Minister has given no reason why this should not be done.
Lord Freud
I apologise if I abused the Aunt Sally—if I did so, I did so unintentionally. I want to make absolutely clear that we have had recommendations from the Delegated Powers Committee that we are obviously taking with great seriousness. One of the two big recommendations is resisting widening this Bill in the context of the technical committee. The noble Lord in this amendment goes directly against the thrust of the Delegated Powers Committee, which said we should keep this specific rather than giving wider, extra powers to the Secretary of State. I neglected to put my finger on that point, but it is a substantial one for that amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If my noble friend will allow, is that a fair representation of what the Delegated Powers Committee said? I thought its point was that, in the context of this Bill, the reference to other kinds of disease or bodily injury when it referred specifically to a definition of a potential insurance claimant was too broad and could be made more specific. Indeed, if the noble Lord felt able to adopt one or more of the amendments before him, that would tie nicely in with that. I did not think the committee’s point was that a broader reference was inherently inconsistent with the Bill, simply that the specifics of this clause were not specific enough to identify the other kinds of disease that might be involved. If the problem is not being specific about the other types of disease that ought to be covered by the scheme, that could be rectified quite readily by drafting. Would the Minister be more comfortable with that?
Lord Freud
Perhaps I have opened up a completely new front. I am reluctant to go into that specifically. The point is that we are trying to draw up a specific scheme in this legislation. We would be most reluctant about other schemes with other rules having powers in secondary legislation, whether or not the Delegated Powers Committee were on the same page. I will resist; I cannot do that.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I yield to no one in my respect for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which does extremely valuable work in ensuring that the Government do not take outsized powers of a rather generalised nature when they present legislation to Parliament. However, I am not sure that an argument put forward by the Delegated Powers Committee on the proposed technical committee would have a bearing on whether it would be appropriate to take the opportunity of this scheme to make provision in primary legislation to be able in due course by regulation to establish further schemes that would be on the same model as Parliament will have approved in the primary legislation for the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme, and which would of course have to be legislated in their specifics by way of regulation—as is quite explicitly stipulated in my Amendment 45.
I do not know what the Minister had in mind when he addressed the House at Second Reading and said that schemes to deal with these other terrible diseases should be brought forward, and that there were situations that needed to be addressed. If he was saying that he hoped he would have the opportunity to bring forward a Bill of one sort, then another and then another after that to establish further schemes, he must have known that that was not realistic. To secure legislative time is always a considerable problem, and I am afraid it would be pretty improbable that we would have the opportunity to embark on fresh primary legislation to repeat the process that we are going through now to create the mesothelioma scheme. Therefore, I can see no difficulty of principle that ought to deter us from amending the Bill to provide a clear legal base for establishing other schemes, so that it could accommodate the principle that the Secretary of State could by regulation establish further analogous schemes. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
“Report on record keeping by insurers
The Secretary of State shall establish a commission to examine and report within one year of enactment on the history of record keeping by insurers who have provided cover against employers’ liability for mesothelioma and other long-latency asbestos-related diseases.”
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the Committee will be relieved to know that this is the last amendment in my name, at least in Committee. It will introduce into the Bill a new clause to require that the Secretary of State commissions a report on the history of record-keeping by liability insurers. We are legislating for the scheme precisely because the insurance records are missing in a significant proportion of mesothelioma cases. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to give us figures on that. What proportion of mesothelioma sufferers who contracted the disease as a consequence of employer negligence will have to have recourse to the scheme because the documentation for their insurance has gone missing?
In its publications, the department has taken a bland tone on the matter. It has talked of poor record-keeping. In his speech at Second Reading, the Minister was restrained in his language. In Committee, too, he has been studiedly non-judgmental. He has spoken a number of times of “market failure”. He did so far unbutton himself at Second Reading as to speak of,
“a terribly damaging market failure”.—[Official Report, 20/5/13; col. 692.]
In Committee, he has urged noble Lords not to allow emotion to cloud pragmatism, nor allow moral indignation to frustrate practicality. He may be wise in those admonitions. However, I will say—very quietly, not in a sermonising tone but recording what I believe to be a matter of fact—that we are dealing with a major scandal.
At Second Reading, the Minister said that he hoped that noble Lords would agree that,
“the principles driving the Bill are right and just”.—[Official Report, 20/5/13; col. 692.]
He allowed himself to take a moral tone there. I put it to the Committee that justice entails not just making payments under the scheme that is proposed, but exposing wrongdoing and exacting punishment where there has been breach of contract or where criminality is in evidence.
Lord James of Blackheath
I might be able to ease the noble Lord’s concern on this. I believe that when the major reinsurances were written, they were limited as to the dates when an infection was identified and the reinsurance applied only to the names of those who had a registered claim at that time. That was all that was relevant for a claim; there is no question about that. Lloyd’s of London did not buy its first computer until 1986. It has nothing that goes back to this period.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am always disposed to defer to the noble Lord as he has a depth of knowledge on this matter that I do not think is matched by the rest of the Committee. However, if Lloyd’s of London did not get a computer until a rather late date in the history of that august market, it none the less had brown cardboard files. It seems to me that strong procedural safeguards and impeccable record-keeping are always central to the upholding of property rights and the protection of people who enter into contracts. I cannot see how employer’s liability insurers at any phase of their history could ever have been justified in allowing the documents to disappear. There might have been a fire in the warehouse but we have not been told that there has been such a fire at any of these insurers. Other than in an extraordinary circumstance of that kind, it must be normal and basic practice to keep the documentation and to pass it on to the successor insurers and reinsurers. I cannot see how anything else could have been appropriate.
We are looking here at a spectrum of wrongdoing that runs from inefficiency and muddle through negligence to, very possibly, deliberate criminality in some places. Indeed, the scale on which the documentation has gone missing suggests that there could have been widespread criminal intention on the part of some people in an earlier generation of insurers. I say “an earlier generation”; they may no longer be active in the market but many of them may still be extant as individuals.
Another recent major scandal has occurred in terms of record-keeping. I refer to the sub-prime lenders in their Gadarene rush towards 2008. The banks, in issuing huge numbers of mortgages and eagerly selling them on, took to neglecting procedural safeguards. The combination of disregard for procedural safeguards with fraudulence led to the catastrophe of 2008 and in the years following, from which we continue to suffer. It reached a point where, with millions of mortgages in default, the banks abandoned the attempt to examine individual documentation to certify that a particular person owed a certain amount of money on a mortgage, which was the asset being sold on, and took to what was known in the trade as “robo-signing”. Instead of examining the individual records, they hired a person simply to sign masses of these documents without even examining the records.
The temptation for businesses not to keep full, accurate and proper records when it is convenient to do so clearly can be very great. We do not suppose—I do not think we do; I certainly do not—that the banks which were guilty of that systematic failure of proper record-keeping should be able to walk away from the scene of what they did and just get away with funding a token scheme. Equally, it seems to me that in the interests of justice and for exemplary purposes, there should be a proper investigation of what went wrong with the employer’s liability insurers. Of course, ELTO has been created and that improves the methodology of tracing claims and liability. However, a disastrous failure has occurred in this regard for a great many people. As I say, it seems to me that this is a major scandal. That is the reason why I have tabled Amendment 43—to require the Secretary of State to establish a commission to investigate and report on what happened in this history of inadequate record-keeping, which I do not think anything can possibly have justified. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the noble Lord has tabled this amendment to require that investigations be made into the record-keeping practice in the insurance industry which, to put it no more brusquely, we know has been insufficient in the past. It would also require us to legislate to protect those who cannot bring a claim against an employer or insurer because the records have not been traced.
I sympathise with the aim behind this amendment, which is to bring those culpable to account. Unfortunately, what we already know about record-keeping practices tells me that this simply will not be possible and that any investigation of this sort would be a costly addition to the scheme. One of the things of which the noble Lord may not have been aware, and inevitably would not have been aware of when he put down this amendment, is that on 4 June the FCA published details of its requirements for employer liability insurers to undertake effective searches for historic policies. Moreover, the employer liability tracing office, ELTO, is currently undertaking an audit of the record keeping of its 150 or so members, including Equitas. The number affected by the issue of records that were destroyed is broadly 300 out of the 2,400 people with relevant mesothelioma per year, which implies that one in eight cases is untraced—that is the proportion of the problem.
I hope that noble Lords will understand that we want to ensure that the maximum amount of funds possible go to helping those eligible people who come to the scheme and therefore there is not the flexibility to put resources into potentially costly investigations such as these. I have already spoken to noble Lords about the exercise that I conducted into what was likely to be available on a historic basis, and we already have measures to improve tracing. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am glad that the Minister sympathises with my aim in tabling this amendment. I am sorry, however, that he thinks an investigation of the kind that the amendment would require is not practical. I think it depends on how important people think it is to do the detective work. Of course, it is not within the resources of his own department and I think it would be difficult for the employer’s liability insurers themselves to meet the full cost of this.
However, if we consider that an inexcusable series of abuses has occurred, I cannot see that it is right to allow those who perpetrated these abuses simply to get away with it. If as many as one in eight cases of insured people are untraceable, then something is going wrong on a very big scale indeed. It cannot be satisfactory to leave it at that. The noble Lord gives me a modicum of encouragement in telling me that from now on the FCA is going to intensify the requirements for effective search and that ELTO is going to audit its members. However, if we accept the position as stated by the Minister just now, we will be saying in effect that those generations of people in the insurance market who did not take the basic duty of care that they should have done in relation to the documentation of people who turned out to have contracted this most terrible of diseases should get away with it, I think we should be ashamed of ourselves. I will not say any more about this today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I wish to be brief and I am slightly hesitant about whether I should move the amendment. It was pressed on us by ACOR. It concerns the definition of dependants, and the suggestion is that rather than live with the definition we have, which I think is based on what is set out in the 1979 Act, we should pick up the definition used in the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011, which ACOR suggests is fairer, more flexible and less prescriptive. It includes, for example, siblings, grandparents and grandchildren. It seems to me that this can cut both ways. The wider the group of dependants, the less each will get, although the wider the group, the more likely it is that a dependant will be spotted and available to benefit. On balance, living with the existing definition is probably the better route, but perhaps the Minister will give us the benefit of his wisdom. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I think I will treat this as an extremely probing amendment, and in that spirit I am happy to go through our thinking; indeed, there is some value in doing so. The amendment seeks to replace the definition from the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 that we have used in the Bill with the definition of “relative” set out in Section 14 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011.
The definition in the 1979 Act provides an order of priority and is not just a straightforward list. In other words, the first dependant on the list is a spouse or civil partner and it is that person, if they exist, who must make the application for a scheme payment. If there is no spouse, the next on the list is a child or children and they must make the application, and so on. The scheme payment would then be made to that applicant or applicants, and it would be up to those applicants if they wanted to share the scheme payment with any other relatives further down the list.
The definition in the 2011 Act is a straightforward list. The effect of the amendment would be that anyone on the list may make an application for a scheme payment. The 2011 list includes some relatives who are not defined as dependants in the 1979 Act. They are uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, cousins, and former spouses or civil partners. If all these people make an application for a scheme payment, the payment made in accordance with regulations under Clause 4 under the scheme must be divided equally between them. It is right that there is a hierarchy of those who can make an application for a scheme payment as it provides certainty to those who may want to make such an application, and certainty to those administering the scheme who would not be in a position to identify all the other relatives who might want to make an application.
Most applications for a scheme payment are likely to be made by a surviving spouse or civil partner. In these cases, the amendment would dilute the amount available to that spouse or civil partner by compelling the scheme payment to be divided up between other relatives who are less close, either legally or by blood, to the deceased person with mesothelioma. That could mean that a former spouse or cousin, for example, would receive the same amount as the current spouse. Without the amendment, the current spouse would receive the whole payment. I do not think that it is right that a scheme payment should be divided up in this way so that those closer to the deceased person with mesothelioma would receive less in order that a proportion could be paid to more distant relatives.
I can tell that the noble Lord was already concerned about the effects of the amendment. With this explanation, I hope that he will be encouraged to withdraw it and that we will perhaps not see it again.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of and response to the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it, and I can assure him that he will not see it again; not from us, anyway.
House of Lords
Airports: London
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to expedite the announcement of their policy on the future of London airports.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the long-term question of aviation capacity is a matter of national importance. It is vital that the Airports Commission has sufficient time to carry out a thorough investigation of the options, and to build consensus around its long-term recommendations. The timetable set for its final report, by the summer of 2015, will allow this to take place, and will enable a stable, long-term solution to be found.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, does not the recommendation in the report of the Transport Select Committee that a rapid decision be made in the go-ahead for a third runway at Heathrow count for anything?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we welcome the report of the Transport Select Committee but do not necessarily agree with all its conclusions. It is important that we have a solution that will withstand a change of government. The Crossrail and HS2 projects can withstand a change of government. We need a policy for Heathrow and the London hub that can also withstand a change of government.
Lord Soley
The noble Earl wants a thorough inquiry, but we have been having thorough inquiries since the Maplin inquiry, which was about 50 years ago, so it would be quite nice if we could finish this. Had the Government taken on board the last Government’s position, we would be there now, which would be helpful. I put it to the Minister that there is a danger of an unconsidered policy developing on this, since we now have six London airports with seven runways—or seven airports, if you include the newly renamed London Oxford Airport. I do not know how far this is going to go on until we actually get a proper policy.
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord knows very well that the issue is not about point-to-point capacity with the various London airports; it is about hub capacity.
Lord Bradshaw
On the subject of hub capacity, is it not relevant to think in terms of which airlines bring people into Heathrow who require the access to a hub? Many airports cater for people who are coming to the United Kingdom for short or long stays, and they do not need to interline. The announcement this morning of Birmingham Airport’s massive expansion, and the fact that it is going to be 35 minutes from the centre of London, should also be taken into account.
Earl Attlee
My noble friend makes many very good points, and I am sure that the Airport Commission will take them into consideration.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I speak as the life president of BALPA. The inordinate delay in making a decision about the siting of a major airport in London can only result in benefiting Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt. Any alternative to Heathrow is bound to take a huge amount of time to come into operation, whereas Heathrow, properly adapted, is ready now. Is it not the most obvious choice for any Government to enable them to make a speedy decision, which will not result in giving an advantage to other airports in Europe?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Heathrow has one fundamental disadvantage: there are 220,000 who live within the 57 decibel noise contour, making it a very difficult problem to overcome.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, in his initial Answer, my noble friend talked about the importance of taking three years over this and the fact that a decision would not come until just after the next general election. Is he aware that the Government, who keep pressing for more economic growth, are in danger of being charged with dithering, given that a speedy resolution to this will do more to promote economic growth than many of the other things that we all read about in the newspapers?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, there is no point in making a decision that will not stand a change in government.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that one of the difficulties of this open-ended discussion, which has, as my noble friend Lord Soley has said many times, been going on for a very long time, is that a lot of areas are under constant threat and the blight that occurs in them is very damaging to the communities that live there? Is it possible for the Government at least to start ruling some things out, rather than leaving every option on the table?
Earl Attlee
As usual, the noble Baroness makes a very good point. The Airports Commission has been charged with reporting by December this year to rule out certain options.
Lord Higgins
Given that the legislation for a hub at Maplin Sands went through with comparatively few problems back in the mid-1970s, is there not a case for looking at that site again?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Airports Commission will look at all sites including Maplin Sands or the Thames Estuary airport, and will then come up with a shortlist of which options need to be looked at in greater detail.
Lord Davies of Oldham
The Minister has shown great sagacity in indicating that there may be a change in government. His answers thus far have indicated that one of the two parties that form the coalition votes on one great negative—namely, no to the third runway at Heathrow—and intends to present itself before the next election with absolutely no advance in policy whatever.
Earl Attlee
It was the party opposite that came up with a policy for a third runway at Heathrow with no consensus and therefore it did not survive a change in government.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that any decision on the future of London’s airports will be taken in the light of a coherent and integrated transport policy for this country, involving both rail and road?
Earl Attlee
Absolutely, my Lords. The Airports Commission is charged with taking that into consideration, particularly as regards rail connectivity.
Lord Richard
The Minister does not exactly give the impression of a Government who are anxious to find a speedy solution to this problem. He keeps saying that the policy has to survive the next election. What consultative processes does he have in place for trying to ensure that it will survive the next election? Is he, for example, discussing it with other parties?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, currently it is planned that the final report of the Airports Commission will come out after the next election. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and I could have a chat before the next election but, even though he and I have solved a lot of problems together and we have rarely needed to seek the opinion of the House, I suspect that this matter will be far beyond our pay grade to determine.
Egypt
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the situation of religious minorities in Egypt since the Arab Spring.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, Egypt has witnessed an upsurge in sectarian violence during the transition period. Foreign Office Ministers have been clear throughout the events in Egypt that have taken place since the revolution that the freedom of religious belief needs to be protected and that the ability to worship in peace is a vital component of a democratic society. We continue to urge the Egyptian authorities to promote religious tolerance and to revisit policies that discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. We are also in contact with representatives of the Coptic Church and other religious groups.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his sympathetic reply. Is he aware that since the downfall of President Mubarak there have been attacks on Sufi shrines, the marginalisation of the Baha’is, hostility towards Muslim secularists and a massive escalation of assaults on Christian communities, including the Coptic cathedral, when security forces stood by doing nothing to deter the violence? In what specific ways have Her Majesty’s Government encouraged the Egyptian Government to create an environment of social cohesion, reduce tensions and promote mutual respect between adherents of different faiths so that they can live together as equal citizens in a nation that recognises their rights and values their citizenship?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, as we all know, it has not been an easy transition, and one could add to the noble Baroness’s list new laws that limit the role of NGOs and their ability to accept foreign funding, arrests of bloggers and restrictions on the freedom of the media. It is a messy transition, which is not entirely surprising given how long the authoritarian Government of Egypt had been in effect and given also the internal divide between a relatively liberal urban elite and a much more conservative peasant class from outside Cairo. We have intervened on a number of occasions. My noble friend Lady Warsi made a major speech at the organisation of Islamic states conference on the importance of freedom of religion and belief, and my honourable friend and colleague, Alistair Burt, has spoken to the Egyptian Government several times in Cairo and elsewhere on the importance of respect for minority rights of all sorts.
Lord Boateng
How are the lessons from Egypt being applied to Syria? Given the plight of Christian refugees in the region since the rebellion in that country, it is not clear how the removal of the arms embargo actually assists the development of a free and multifaith, tolerant Middle East.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That is a huge question. A free and tolerant Middle East is something that we would all love to have. At present, in Iraq as well as in Syria and a number of other countries, the question of religious minorities, be they Muslim or non-Muslim, is very much in play. We know that the conflict between what one might call moderate Sunnis and Salafi Sunnis is also acute. We do what we can, and I have to say that Muslim leaders in this country also do what they can, to influence the debate, but we recognise that the Middle East is in turmoil. Coming out of this very long period of authoritarian regimes does not make it easy to change habits immediately.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, in Egypt the use of defamation laws to lock up people on supposed religious grounds has increased, and Article 44 of the constitution bans blasphemy. What actions are Her Majesty’s Government taking in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to ask the Egyptians to look again at these provisions?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are working through a number of multilateral and bilateral channels to argue to the Egyptian Government that they need to have a much more open attitude towards minority opinion of all sorts. Article 44, as the noble Baroness rightly says, prohibits blasphemy, but Article 45 advocates freedom of speech. Given the continuing conflict about the role of the judiciary in Egypt, it will take some time for the new Egyptian constitution to be applied in full.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that freedom of religion involves the right to change one’s religious beliefs and that Egypt and other nations need to be pressed to ensure that those who change their religious affiliations are defended in doing so? How far are the Government able to put pressure on countries to ensure that blasphemy laws do not prevent that happening?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, religious tolerance is something that we in the United Kingdom learnt about the hard way through religious persecution. We have to argue as vigorously as we can to all other countries that religious tolerance between a whole range of different religions is highly desirable in the development of an open and stable society.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the Government are about to host the G8 conference and much of it will be focused on the Deauville partnership about Arab countries in transition. To revert to the specific question raised by my noble friend Lady Cox, in hosting the G8, will the Government take any specific initiatives to progress religious tolerance?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
At the moment, I am not aware of the Government’s preparations for the G8 in this area. I shall feed that back to the Government and see what they can do.
Baroness Afshar
My Lords, is not the real problem that by focusing on faith as a means of the political arrangement in the Middle East—in Israel, in Egypt and in all areas—we are coming to the dangerous point of fanaticism taking over? People are doing things in the name of faith. Would it not be a good idea to demand of nations not to take their faith as a parameter of government? I speak about Iran as well as Israel and other countries.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
One has to demand that of people as well as of nations. As we know, there are moderate people of faith and extremist people of faith in almost all religions one can think of, sadly, including Buddhism. We all have to work actively to promote a moderate version of faith. I am a member of the Church of England and as a Christian I have always regarded St Thomas as my favourite saint because he doubted.
Medicine: Experimental Drugs
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will enable the use of new experimental drugs by terminally ill patients who are prepared to waive their right to sue pharmaceutical companies in order to assist the development of new drugs and ease their own condition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, there are existing provisions under medicines legislation for access to unlicensed medicines without requiring changes to the law. The Government are committed to ensuring access to new and promising medicines for patients while ensuring that medicines continue to meet high standards of safety, efficacy and quality. This is why the Government have been taking forward work on an early access scheme, adaptive licensing and promotion of clinical trials in the UK.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I welcome that Answer as it means that many valuable drugs might come to the market much earlier and be available for patients. Does the Minister agree that many elderly patients with a terminal condition will definitely get treatment that they may not particularly want themselves but that hope is terribly important in all our lives? Any of the new, experimental drugs can provide this valuable ingredient of hope to such patients.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, in light of the proposed EU directive that is being led by MEP Glenis Willmott to facilitate clinical trials and the work done by Empower: Access to Medicine, led by Les Halpin, are the Government working with the Halpin protocol, which aims to overcome the legal barriers—real or perceived—to early access to, and development of, medicine in the UK?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is at the forefront of the negotiations at European level to ensure that the new clinical trials regulation, which will replace the current directive, is much more conducive to companies directing their clinical trials towards Europe, in particular, we hope, the United Kingdom. This needs to happen. The trend over the past 10 years has been in the wrong direction and we want our own market share to increase; there are already signs that it is doing so.
Lord Taverne
The Minister’s Answer is encouraging. Does he agree that if one looks at the possible benefits to patients and the public from avoiding delays and extra costs, to press on with it is a no-brainer?
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Question refers to waiving the right to sue pharmaceutical companies. What is the Minister’s response to that?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is no need to think in those terms. There are many routes by which patients can access medicines lawfully and maintain their legal rights. We want to make sure that ethics and patient protection continue to be at the forefront of drug development. It would be wrong to give an indication to drug companies that they can throw caution to the winds in that sense.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
It often takes as long as five or six years to develop a new drug. Sometimes, even after that period, when permission has been given, something is found late in the day. Therefore, does the Minister agree that we need to know what sort of period he is thinking of in accepting drugs that have not yet been approved?
Earl Howe
My Lords, this will very much depend on a case-by-case analysis of the drug in question. If there is a very promising new drug that is a breakthrough medicine, where there is no alternative treatment, there may be a case for considering that more favourably than a drug for which there is a readily suitable alternative. As I mentioned earlier, the menu of options available to us, such as an early access scheme for unlicensed medicines and an adaptive licensing scheme within European Union rules for licensed medicines, can perhaps be tailor-made to suit the drug in question.
Lord Patel
Does the Minister agree that there are two separate issues: one is doctors’ and nurses’ ability to prescribe off-label drugs, which is allowed, and for which the doctor takes responsibility; and the second is using a drug that might be promising for treatment and doing research on it, which requires research protocol to be followed? Neither is permissible under current regulations.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the two issues are distinct. It has always been the case that a doctor can, under his or her own professional responsibility, in certain circumstances, prescribe an unlicensed medicine. However, he is also correct that clinical trials need to take place within a framework of proper ethical and organisational approval.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I refer to my health interests in the register. Will the introduction of value-based pricing inhibit or encourage early access to new medicines?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord will have to wait, I am afraid, for the results of the current discussions that are going on with the pharmaceutical industry about what value-based pricing will look like in the end. Certainly, it is our ambition that the price of a medicine should more fairly reflect its benefit to the patient and society. Therefore, if doctors have greater confidence that those two things apply when they are made aware of the price of the medicine, we certainly hope that uptake will follow.
Health: Midwives
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cumberlege
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that independent midwives can continue to work with clinical indemnity.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare the interests that are on the Lords’ register and, in this instance, the unremunerative position as patron of Independent Midwives UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, a 12-week consultation on the legislation to require regulated healthcare professionals to hold indemnity or insurance closed on 17 May. We are now analysing the responses to assess how the issues might be addressed, including those affecting independent midwives—that is, self-employed individuals in the private sector. This includes consideration of different models of service. Officials are also facilitating meetings between NHS England and representatives of independent midwives to discuss emerging commissioning issues.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. On 26 October, when the European directive comes into force, it will preclude around 170 independent midwives from practising, and this at a time when we have a burgeoning baby boom. Many of these midwives actually work within the NHS. Is my noble friend aware that many of these independent midwives are seeking a solution but they require help, advice and support from the department and, above all, a revision of the tariff for maternity services? Will my noble friend ensure that this issue is a priority for urgent action by his colleagues, the Department of Health and the other agencies involved?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as my noble friend knows, work has been going on for a number of years, including going back to the previous Government, to see whether there are viable ways of ensuring that this small group of independent midwives can obtain suitable indemnity or insurance cover. One of the difficulties we have had is the absence of information on the potential barriers to independent midwives moving to alternative governance and delivery practices in order to obtain that cover—hence the consultation I have spoken about. As I said, we are now analysing the responses. However, I do not agree that there is no way through. We know that some independent practitioners have opted for a corporate or social enterprise model as a way of gaining insurance cover. We are trying to understand what the barriers are to that among those who are resisting the idea.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, why cannot these people just get employment as midwives within the NHS?
Earl Howe
My Lords, some of them already do. As I understand it, we are talking about 154 individuals as compared with 41,000 midwives on the register. If they work for the NHS, there is generally no issue; they will be covered by NHS indemnity in one way or another. The issue is if they wish to practise privately as individuals. That is the point of my noble friend’s Question.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, there is a certain element of urgency here. A woman expecting her baby in October would be half way through her pregnancy now. What plans are in place to deal with such women under the care of these midwives and indeed the midwives themselves if, come October, the situation has not been resolved?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we are working hard on this. Officials from the department have been in discussion with stakeholders, including Independent Midwives UK, on an ongoing basis for at least four years with a view to identifying potential solutions to the issue. Arising in part from these discussions, independent midwives can now obtain affordable indemnity cover for the whole of the maternity care pathway either in the NHS or in the private sector. However, it is acknowledged that this is achievable only if they operate as part of some form of social enterprise or corporate entity. That is the issue that we have to get to grips with between now and October.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, how independent are these midwives? Are they responsible to themselves?
Immigration Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Accession of Croatia (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2013
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 25 April and 8 May be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 4 June.
Elections (Fresh Signatures for Absent Voters) Regulations 2013
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 25 April and 8 May be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 4 June.
Care Bill [HL]
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
Lord Warner
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to require HEE to give attention to ensuring that, in educating and training staff for the NHS, it also ensures that, as far as possible, staff can work across the health/social care boundary in an integrated way. I welcome the fact that the Government have inserted into Clause 88(1) paragraph (h), which states that Health Education England must have regard to,
“the desirability of promoting the integration of health provision with health-related provision and care and support provision”.
That strengthens the Bill from its draft version, but the Bill should go further, hence my amendment.
I would like to ensure that when separate regulations are made under Clause 85 for particular groups of staff, Health Education England is also required to try to use particular regulations to promote integration in accordance with the Clause 88 provision. For example, if there are to be regulations on community nurses or healthcare assistants, the issue of training them or recognising qualifications or registration, Health Education England should act in a way that facilitates integration of services by enabling those staff to carry their training and qualifications across employment in as wide a range of settings as possible. In short, it is to help secure an integration through portability of training and qualifications provision.
We are very good at mouthing platitudes about integration and swearing undying fealty to that great god, but we are rather less good at removing the blockages to it. One of those blockages can be training and education that prevents staff from working in a range of settings, with qualifications that are not always recognised by a range of employers. We need to do our best when we have the opportunity to remove those blockages and secure more people who are equally at home working in a predominantly health or a predominantly social care setting and can easily move between those settings for the benefit of services users. These staff need to be alert also to the importance of integrating care for individual service users across organisational boundaries. I want to ensure that Health Education England is in no doubt that this approach is important for tomorrow’s workforce. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve.
I recognise that there may be better ways of reflecting my intentions in the Bill than the precise wording of my amendment. However, I think we should go further than the broad duty in Clause 88 and relate it specifically to regulation-making powers for particular groups of staff. I would certainly be happy to discuss other ways of achieving this in the best interest of patients. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment. It is absolutely vital from the point of view of the patient and the family that the workers with whom they come into contact have an understanding of the whole of their situation. The training and experience of such workers has to encompass that whole situation. For example, a person who is admitted to hospital quite suddenly with a stroke has contact with social care services, finance departments of local authorities, charities of all kinds, reablement services, private care providers, as well as all the health services concerned with the actual condition.
Most people in that situation have none of the hinterland that some of us in the House have. We start with knowledge that, for example, health and social care systems are differently funded and that there is no commonly understood framework for integration. Most people experiencing services do not have that pre-existing knowledge. If such a person is going to have the opportunity for choice, to which we are all committed, it is absolutely vital that the workers with whom they deal have the broadest range of knowledge and experience. People’s experience of health and social care does not come in discrete packages. It is vital that the experience of workers does not come in discrete packages either.
As this is the first day of Carers Week, I will add a further point about carers. The report published today by Carers UK, Prepared to Care?, shows that every day 6,000 people take on a caring responsibility, often without any preparation, information or advice. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree that the responsibilities of the workforce across all services should include training and awareness of the needs of carers. The promotion of integration contained in the amendment would also address that issue.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I should like to say a few words. My experience in all this is very much as a layman and as a tri-weekly visitor to see my mother in a nursing home. In discussion with health assistants working in the nursing home, I have found that there is a transfer between hospital settings and social care, and there are clearly disciplines and learning requirements that apply in both settings. Sometimes, in either setting, you see people who would have benefited from the training available in the other setting, particularly in the area of elderly care. To take nutrition, cleanliness and the changing of bedding, clearly the same standards apply. Often, simple tasks require a common training programme. I hope that the Minister takes the amendment very seriously.
Baroness Emerton
I entirely support the amendment on integration, particularly across the boundaries between acute and primary care. When we consider discharge policies and mechanisms, it is terribly important that those working in the acute sector understand what they need to look at to integrate with the services that will take over the care. There is division where, through the education programme, we need a holistic approach to the patient pathway.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I very much support the intention behind the amendment. It points us where we should be going. It is evident that the way in which professionals are trained deeply affects how they carry out their duties for the rest of their lives. That is a sign of good education. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, has been pointing the direction in which health and social care will and must go. It is essential to lay down the basis so that professionals accept that it is the shape of things to come.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, for many years in medicine, there has been a move to try to ensure training in the community, but its implementation has been woeful. It has not been instigated as rapidly as people have been campaigning for over many years. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the spirit behind the amendment, although, in an odd way, the wording may be a little too restrictive. It is a very important move to ensure that, as more patients are moved out to be cared for in the community, community services can deliver what they need. With very sick people in the community, a different skill set will be needed from that which is currently available.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Warner’s amendment. There will of course be further debate on integration in the wider context of the Bill, but the amendment is important because it underlines that Health Education England must have the strategic overview and understanding of the workforce requirements across the boundaries of health and social care if it is to undertake its role effectively.
Our stakeholder meetings have shown that there is considerable concern among stakeholders on that issue. They want the links between HEE and the social care sector to be more explicit. The noble Earl’s reassurances last week in that regard concerning Clause 88 were helpful, and I look forward to hearing from him further on how HEE is to work with integrated care delivery. I hope that he will concede that my noble friend’s cross-reference in his amendment to Clause 85 is necessary, because it links the HEE’s duty in Clause 88 to have regard to promoting integration to its key role of ensuring that there are sufficient skilled healthcare workers available.
The Health Education England mandate acknowledges that the future needs of the NHS, public health and care system will require a greater emphasis on community, primary and integrated health and social care. HEE is essential in that. Staff must be trained and developed in the skills that are transferable between different care settings and in working in cross-disciplinary teams in a range of different health and support settings. It must also work closely with the social care sector by developing common standards and portable qualifications across the NHS, public health and social care systems. The local LETB role, linking up with the health and well-being boards, is particularly important in that respect.
It is worth briefly mentioning two recent reports on integration, both of which, among other things, reinforce how much awareness and understanding of each other’s roles must take place for integrated services to happen and to be delivered. The shared commitment statement under the National Collaboration for Integrated Care and Support was drawn up by an impressive mix of national partner organisations, including government departments, the HEE itself, regulatory bodies, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, National Voices and other stakeholder groups. It pledges to help,
“local organisations work towards providing more person-centred, coordinated care for their communities”.
There is not time to go into detail, but National Voices’ A Narrative for Person-centred Coordinated (“Integrated”) Care, which sets out what integrated care and support looks like from an individual perspective, for both the cared-for and for carers, is a powerful vision for the future. It underlines how closely staff across primary, community, NHS and social care will have to work if this is to be achieved. The section of the narrative on communication describes professionals talking to each other, and patients always knowing who is co-ordinating their care, always being informed about what is going on, and having one point of contact. This in itself would be nirvana to most patients, service users and carers.
The recently published Nuffield Trust report, Evaluation of the first year of the Inner North West London Integrated Care Pilot, looks at developing new forms of care planning for people with diabetes and people over the age of 75. It underlines the importance of staff having a high level of commitment to the pilot and to the care planning process in particular. Initial results show that work on care planning and multidisciplinary groups resulted in improved collaboration across the different parts of the local health and social care system.
On public health, the HEE mandate itself states:
“The health of people in England will only improve in line with other comparable developed countries when the entire NHS, public health and social care workforce genuinely understands how their services together can improve the public’s health”.
Does the Minister accept that the HEE mandate supports the case for the Bill to include an explicit reference on the overall strategic context?
HEE’s role is to provide national leadership for workforce training, planning and development, ensuring that we have skilled, committed staff in the right place, in the right specialities and numbers. We need to meet these challenges of the future and of the changing face of healthcare provision. How to ensure an integrated approach to education and training across the NHS, public health and social care is a very strategic issue. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House on this by responding positively to the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, integration between health and social care is a strong theme of the Bill, and the Government take it very seriously. I very much agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and others said on that topic.
First, to deliver integrated care, it is important that local planning is aligned and is mutually reinforcing. That applies also to the planning of education and training. As Members of the Committee are well aware, the future needs of the NHS and the public health and social care system will require a greater emphasis on community, primary and integrated health and social care than in the past. An understanding is required of working in cross-disciplinary teams and working to break down barriers between primary and secondary care.
The mandate the Government published a couple of weeks ago gave Health Education England a clear remit to ensure that it trains and develops a workforce with skills that are transferable between these different care settings. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, seeks to amend Clause 85 to require HEE to have,
“regard to the promotion of integration with care and support provision”,
when it performs its duty under that clause of ensuring that there are sufficient skilled healthcare workers for the purposes of the health service. As the noble Lord is well aware, Clause 88, which lists the matters that Health Education England must have regard to in exercising its functions in Clauses 85 and 87, already includes a requirement at subsection (1)(h) that Health Education England must support,
“integration of health provision with health-related provision and care and support provision”.
Subsection (1)(i) requires Health Education England to support staff to be able to work across different settings. These provisions were added to the Bill at the recommendation of the Joint Committee following pre-legislative scrutiny. Although Health Education England does not have a direct remit for the social care workforce, it will be expected to work closely with the social care sector at local and national level to ensure that workforce plans align with the training and development of the healthcare and public health workforce.
To support the development of this integrated approach, Health Education England needs to work with partners across health and care to develop common standards and portable qualifications. This must make it easier for staff to work and move between settings and should build on existing work, such as skills passports and national minimum training standards. Health Education England will work closely with the sector skills councils, Skills for Health and Skills for Care, nationally and through the local education and training boards, to ensure that workforce development is co-ordinated and integrated.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Let us consider a private home in the social care sector that is owned by an individual who, let us say, has 10 healthcare assistants in that home. How will this new authority be able to ensure that those people are properly trained? My noble friend’s amendment at least tries to insert into the Bill wording that would in part have covered that. How will this new body be able to ensure that those assistants are getting the necessary training?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord’s question relates specifically to private sector organisations, such as care homes, and the broad answer to it is exactly as I have tried to outline. Health Education England will make it its business to ensure, by working with the sector skills councils in social care, that the training that healthcare assistants and care assistants receive is fully aligned and consistent, and that it can more and more ensure that people can transfer from one sector to another. The issue of continuing professional development for somebody who is already working in such a setting is, of course, a separate issue, and we will come on to debate continuing professional development. However, that is the broad answer. As the noble Lord rightly said in his earlier contribution, all this will be increasingly important as more health training shifts into the community and into social care settings. We will see delivery of this training in a variety of settings, not just in the public sector.
To answer a question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, about what HEE will be doing to support the needs of carers, Clause 89(2)(c) means that HEE must ensure that it obtains,
“advice on the exercise of its functions from … carers”.
I hope that that gives her reassurance that the role of carers will be every bit as much in the sights of HEE as its other duties.
There is a further plank to this structure, and it is one which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, whose contribution I listened to with great respect and agreement. The Bill places a clear duty on local education and training boards to consult health and well-being boards on their education and training plans. As the vehicle for strengthened partnership working across health and the local government and public health sectors, health and well-being boards will be well placed to reflect local priorities that need to be supported through workforce education, training and development.
The importance of multidisciplinary training was highlighted in the Government’s mandate to Health Education England. Although it will always be necessary to deliver discrete training programmes for many professions, there will be an increasing need to deliver healthcare in multidisciplinary teams, and the delivery of training should reflect this. Where appropriate it should incorporate working in multiskilled teams reflecting care pathways, rather than exclusively professional or staff groupings.
I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is reassured that the Government fully support the spirit of his amendment. I hope that he has also gained a sense that, more than simply the spirit, we are pursuing the letter of what everybody wants to see: a much greater degree of integration of training and education in these sectors.
Lord Warner
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and I take them very seriously. I do not wish to be churlish, but I may be tempted along that path a little way.
Clause 85, as I understand it, is a regulation-making power. It seems to envisage that the Government of the day will from time to time make regulations that relate to very specific groups of staff. I have read the provision carefully, and it could presumably make regulations that exclude particular groups of staff. Somewhere along the way, there is a very real possibility that we will get regulations that cover particular groups of staff in a very specific manner. I am particularly interested in those groups of staff who work at the sub-professional level—the healthcare support staff. As my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said, these are very much the people who work across both these settings. At the moment, I cannot see why it will do harm—indeed, it is likely do some good—if we require this regulation-making power to take account of the kinds of issues which foster integration that I and other noble Lords have spoken of. The Minister mentioned the mandate. I know that mandates are extraordinarily fashionable at the moment, but mandates come and mandates go. Regulations tend to have a bit more sticking power than mandates, which might get out of date or move out of fashion.
I think that there is an issue here. I would probably be more reassured if the noble Lord could write to me, and send a copy to other Members who have spoken in this debate, on which groups the Government envisage covering in regulations under Clause 85(2).
Earl Howe
I would be happy to write to the noble Lord and other noble Lords on this topic. Perhaps I may add one final comment. If we were to go down the road proposed in this amendment, by providing a cross-reference to Clause 88(1)(h) in Clause 85, it could suggest that consideration of this factor alone takes priority over other factors. We want to avoid the risk of creating any perceived hierarchy in the matters to which Health Education England must have regard in the exercise of its function under Clause 85(1).
Lord Warner
I would like to reflect further on this. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Greengross
“Regulation of healthcare and care assistants
(1) HEE shall establish and maintain a register of qualified healthcare assistants and care assistants.
(2) HEE shall, from time to time—
(a) establish the standards of proficiency necessary for admission to the register being the standards it considers necessary for safe and effective practice under the register; and(b) prescribe the requirements to be met as to evidence of good health and good character in order to satisfy HEE that an applicant is capable of safe and effective practice as a healthcare assistant or care assistant.(3) Regulations may prescribe—
(a) access to the register;(b) the process of application to and acceptance on the register;(c) the process of registration and readmission;(d) deemed registration of EEA health care assistants and care assistants;(e) lapse of registration;(f) approved qualifications;(g) EEA qualifications; and(h) fitness to practice under the register.(4) HEE shall, before carrying out duties prescribed in subsections (1) and (2), consult—
(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Care Quality Commission;(c) such other persons, or other persons of such a description, as may be prescribed; and(d) any other person it considers appropriate.(5) “A healthcare assistant” is an individual who provides personal care for the health service, but who is not—
(a) a carer as defined under this Act;(b) a healthcare worker currently registered with the General Medical Council or Nursing and Midwifery Council; or(c) any other healthcare worker as may be prescribed. (6) A “care assistant” is an individual who provides personal care for the purposes of adult social care, but who is not—
(a) a carer as defined under this Act;(b) a healthcare worker currently registered with the General Medical Council or Nursing and Midwifery Council; or(c) any other healthcare worker as may be prescribed.(7) “Adult social care”—
(a) includes all forms of personal care and other practical assistance for individuals who, by reason of age, illness, disability, pregnancy, childbirth, dependence on alcohol or drugs, or any other similar circumstances, are in need of such care or other assistance, but(b) does not include anything provided by an establishment or agency for which Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills is the registration authority under section 5 of the Care Standards Act 2000.”
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I bring this amendment before the Committee because, as we all know, there are huge numbers of very frail people, usually older people, often with multiple conditions, in our hospitals and care homes, and indeed in the community now. The numbers are growing. For all sorts of reasons—I think that some of them could be tracked back to the European working time directive—nurses are doing more and more complex tasks in the care that they provide, some of it electronic, that very often removes them from the day-to-day care of some of these very frail people. The same applies in care homes. The care that is provided is very often not provided by qualified nurses but by healthcare assistants or care assistants. There are many of those people who are fantastically caring. They have a natural ability to relate to the patients that they deal with or the residents in care homes. However, a lot of the dreadful cases that we read about in the newspapers take place because unqualified and unregistered care assistants are looking after people without the necessary training and without the necessary standard of care being insisted upon. This is extremely worrying.
We have heard a lot about dehydration or malnutrition and about a lack of dignity and respect. That is terrible, whoever is providing the care, but it is even worse somehow if the care is provided by people who are neither registered nor trained adequately and cannot be blamed for the fact that complex and difficult care situations are thrust upon them and they are landed with residents that they do not know how to care for adequately.
The amendment asks HEE to establish and maintain a register of qualified healthcare assistants and care assistants. If we could get there, we would then begin to have a remedy for some of the awful cases that we read about. We would know that people were fit to practise under the register and that there would likely be fewer cases of what can, unfortunately, amount to abuse.
When this system goes wrong in our country, we often learn that it is due to people who are not trained, qualified or registered being given enormous responsibilities. I would be pleased to know if the Minister agrees with me that this amendment would be of enormous benefit to patients and residents.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the enormous amount of work that has clearly gone into this amendment and on the way that she introduced it, drawing on a lifetime’s experience in this field. My one reservation is about having to consider what the fundamental purpose of Health Education England is. As I see it, if HEE works well, then in future it will be the engine that delivers a better healthcare workforce in England, thereby improving the quality of care for patients. It is responsible for the education, training and personal development of all NHS staff and for recruiting, from our schools and into our universities, suitable people to carry on these tasks within the NHS. It is employer-led and it is there to provide the right workforce with the right skills and values, in the right place and at the right time, to better meet the needs and wants of patients.
The NHS has more than 300 different specific jobs and more than 1,000 employers nationwide, and the workforce needs to be educated and trained to exacting standards. Its task now is to prepare students for a very different NHS in the future: more care out of hospitals, more focus on long-term conditions, greater integration of health and social care, and new technology and techniques, all of which require planning and changes to curricula, as well as more of a focus on student choice towards NHS needs. It has an enormously difficult and comprehensive job to do. As I understand it, Health Education England accepts and supports the concept of mandatory training for healthcare assistants and the introduction of some sort of certification scheme that would allow HCAs to prove that they had attained the required levels of education and training.
It is a matter for Parliament to decide a view on regulation that goes beyond that recommended by the Government, but I do not believe that Health Education England would be an appropriate regulator. It is not created to have such a role, and that would not sit effectively with its core role of education and training. Therefore, although I very much understand the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendment and appreciate the knowledge that she brings to the subject, I do not think that HEE is actually the tool to do this with.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I, too, welcome the principle behind the noble Baroness’s Amendment 16 but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that Health Education England may not be the right place for this. At various times in our debates I have banged on about the regulation of healthcare assistants, because not only would it reassure employers and patients that standards were being met but being on a register gives individuals a degree of self-respect and sense of identity and it boosts their morale. In a way, it is a pity that we got rid of state enrolled nurses some time ago when we moved to university-educated nurses. In effect, that has been very successful and nurses have done very well—they do a marvellous job—but we have left a gap where the SENs were.
Amendment 23, which moves slightly along this same route, may be as far as we can go but, if we do have mandatory training, that will inevitably mean that someone has to produce a register of those who have received such training. This may not be quite the right place for it but we might get there by another route.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lady Greengross. It is not that her sentiments about registration are not right but we debated this at great length during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill and to a degree I felt that we lost the battle about registration then. What is now important is Amendment 23A, which, with all due respect, is a better amendment because it focuses much more on training and the responsibility of the employer. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that HEE is not the right organisation to be a regulator of registration.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I refer to the register and my charitable interests. I am also the named carer for an adult with a direct payments care package.
I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, although I must tell her that I have listened very carefully and I share some of the concerns about which is the right body. However, the argument for the principle of her amendment is well made.
The Bill gives Health Education England responsibilities for ensuring that the health workforce has the necessary skills to meet the needs of patients. That is valuable but there is a key omission concerning the registration of healthcare assistants and care assistants. Although those doing this work provide the vast majority of personal care to people receiving health and social care services and are fundamental to promoting and protecting service users’ dignity and respect, there have been—as we have debated on many occasions in this Chamber—far too many concerning reports in the recent past. These reports have indicated that something needs to be done at all levels and in all structures in healthcare, whether in hospitals, care homes or people’s own homes.
The Francis report clearly showed the failings at Mid Staffordshire Hospital and, while it identified the trust management as responsible for the shocking quality of care, it outlined incidences of poor care and inaction by healthcare assistants in reporting concerns. At Winterbourne View, people with severe learning disabilities were treated with an appalling lack of dignity by care assistants and nursing staff, some of whom have since been given prison sentences. A number of reports looking at dementia care in hospitals have found unacceptable variations in practice and high levels of dissatisfaction, alongside incidences of unacceptable care. A number of reports looking at home care provided to older people, including the Alzheimer’s Society reports Support. Stay. Save. and Home Truths, as well as an inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, indicate that care assistants lack the time to provide good-quality care to service users. There continue to be isolated incidences of reported poor care and abuse of older people in care homes. I shall not continue the list. Sadly, it goes on, and we see new reports in newspapers even today. It is so frustrating that we raise these issues and try to do things about them but they still continue.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, I will make a few comments on the contributions made so far by noble Lords. During the passage of the Health and Social Care Act I was very strongly in favour of the regulation of healthcare support workers. We have moved on in time, and in terms of the setting up of Health Education England and the role that the other bodies are taking. There is no doubt about all the points made by my noble friend Lady Greengross, and those about Winterbourne View and people being given prison sentences; most of them were registered nurses, not support workers. We want to ensure the safety of patients. For various reasons the Government now take the view that regulation is not possible through the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Regulation is possibly a step too far at this stage.
The Francis report recommended the creation of a registration system, under which no unregistered person should deliver care to a patient, whether that be in the community or in hospital. I agree that we need to have some form of certification, and some form of safeguard that will ensure that anyone delivering care will be able to be examined. Amendment 23A, which is grouped with Amendment 23, further sets out my view, which is shared by the noble Lords, Lord Willis of Knaresborough and Lord Patel, that basic training should be given with certification, and that it is important that employers take that into account.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, from what I hear and from what I have been told, the problem seems to be that no one wants to do this job. A number of organisations have been approached, and many of them have made it clear that registration would be an impossible task. However, when you talk to healthcare assistants in nursing homes or wherever, you find that among them are some who strongly believe in it, because they want to see weeded out the people who they believe should not be practising. If they want it, and they believe that it potentially defends their professional position, why can they not be given some organisation, some kind of structure to which they can belong and be registered with, which would give them confidence within their working conditions?
I understand that the Government’s response will be the vetting and barring scheme. However, despite that scheme, there is still strong support for the principle of a registration scheme. Perhaps the Minister might give his response to that, setting out the reasons why some people do not have confidence in this vetting and barring system.
Finally, in the event that we do not make progress on this matter during the course of this Bill, the best way to deal with it might be to refer it to the Liaison Committee when it is next considering applications for ad hoc committees. Perhaps those who are interested in this subject can make a joint application to the Liaison Committee to set up a House of Lords inquiry into what the blockage has been historically, what the benefits would be, and to look at the way forward in the future.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, as has been claimed in the course of this short debate, this amendment should be seen in the same context as Amendments 23 and 23A. However, together they have one common difficulty, which I think has been highlighted. The first point they make is that there should be proper training and education in this area, which is absolutely right; it should be a matter for Health Education England. Secondly, there is still a residual concern, which is very real, that the presence of training does not always guarantee that the care will be of the level and quality that we reasonably expect. So there may be a separate question about imposing some degree of regulation on employers. It is hinted at in Amendments 23 and 23A that employers could suffer a liability were they to put into the field, be they agencies or statutory employers, someone who evidently is unable to provide a decent quality of care. So the separation of these two issues is what I propose.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
I would like to ask the Minister a question. I do so agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, over Winterbourne; we do not want any more Winterbourne Views—and they can happen in any part of the country.
My question to the Minister is whether he would agree with me that, when it comes to crisis intervention and physical restraint techniques, all front-line staff should receive a national standard of training to deliver the best possible quality care and health services. Undermining best practice in this area is driven by three elements: a fragmented, unregulated training provider sector; procurement pressures, and commissioners’ and regulators’ roles in quality monitoring; and practice application. The people who have to be restrained are very vulnerable and, usually, mentally ill in some way. Is it really suitable for untrained people to do this job?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Baroness takes us back to our debates last year on the regulation of health and social care support workers. We had some excellent discussions but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said, the Government set their face against the statutory approach without convincingly explaining to the House why they did not favour such a move. As far as I can see, the Government’s main objection appears to be cost; they are relying on better training and a voluntary register. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, pointed out, this may not be sufficient. As she says, unqualified care assistants are looking after very vulnerable people without the necessary training and support, and are being placed in a very vulnerable position. This is probably not the time to debate the loss of state-enrolled nurses, but my noble friend Lord Turnberg is absolutely right to say that the essential removal of the SEN grade has left a gap which needs to be filled.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours points out that we are absolutely reliant on support workers to provide care. Many or most of them are actually very dedicated, but they are not being given sufficient tools to do the job effectively. One has to have great sympathy with the noble Baroness in her amendment.
Some noble Lords have said that it is not readily apparent why Health Education England ought to be the regulator. I certainly sympathise with that point, but no doubt the noble Baroness could easily substitute either the NMC or the HPC. We could no doubt come back to the question of which regulator it should be. The HPC has been somewhat acquisitive in past years in adding professions to its register, and would no doubt be keen to add healthcare and social care support workers to the large number of people whom it registers at the moment. As for the NMC, we understand that it has been through some difficulties in leadership and has a backlog of cases to be heard by its regulatory committees. But it has new leadership, and I am confident that it will be able to get through those problems—and, if it was chosen, it could also register health and support care assistants if that were to be required. So I do not think that there is an organisational issue in terms of difficulty in organising the regulation of support workers.
The Francis report has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. This compelling report says:
“A voluntary register has little or no advantage for the public. Employers will not be compelled to employ only those on the register although they could be incentivised to do so”.
It concludes:
“It is not generally those who would seek voluntary registration who are the concern. It is those who will or would not seek voluntary registration but are still able to obtain employment who will be in contact with vulnerable patients”,
and those patients may not be appropriately protected. The Francis report says that this,
“need not be costly and can be self-financing”.
Amendments 23 and 23A, which we are going to come to, are very helpful but they do not do the job of regulation. Does the noble Earl think that the Government should reconsider their position in the light of the Francis report and of today’s debate?
Earl Howe
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her very carefully crafted amendment. It seeks to extend compulsory statutory regulation to healthcare assistants and care assistants and to make further amendments to legislation to account for this. I want first to acknowledge the crucial role played by healthcare and care support workers in the delivery of high-quality care to patients and service users throughout the country. That much is a given. The vast majority of workers give the very highest quality of care and are relied on and valued for the way they improve people’s lives. However, we have all seen evidence that a minority let patients down. This is a cause for concern and it is right that there is discussion about how we can ensure consistent, high standards of care.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege made some very compelling points on the terms of the amendment but on the wider issue of principle the Government do not believe that the case for regulation is proven. Compulsory statutory regulation is not, of itself, an effective way to assure the quality of care by these workers and it can detract from the essential responsibility of employers to ensure that any person they appoint is suitably trained and competent for the role.
There are already existing tiers of regulation that protect service users, including the standards set by the Care Quality Commission and the Disclosure and Barring Service. We also need to be clear that professional regulation is not a panacea. It is no substitute for good leadership at every level and proper management of services. It can also constrain innovation and the availability of services. Experience clearly demonstrates that a small number of those workers who are subject to compulsory statutory regulation from time to time fail to ensure that their practice is up to date and delivered to the standard that we expect. In these circumstances it is too often the case that regulation can react only after the event.
The placing of hundreds of thousands of individuals on a list would not, of itself, ensure that we never again see the appalling failings in care highlighted by the Francis report into Mid Staffordshire or, indeed, Winterbourne View. Strong and effective leadership of the workforce is where the focus for improvement should lie. Employers and managers who are closest to the point of care must take responsibility for ensuring standards.
We also recognise that we need to facilitate employers to appropriately employ, delegate to and supervise health and social care assistants. To this end, as I have previously mentioned, we commissioned Skills for Health and Skills for Care to develop a code of conduct and minimum training standards for these groups in England.
In addition, we have announced the Cavendish review to consider what can be done to ensure that all people using services are treated with care and compassion by healthcare and care assistants in NHS and social care settings. The Nursing and Care Quality Forum has been established to help all those involved in providing nursing and care in all care settings to deliver the fundamental elements of good care and achieve their ambition of providing the very highest quality of care. That is in part an answer to the point made very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that these workers are not being given the tools to upskill themselves. We want to ensure that all healthcare assistants provide safe, effective and compassionate care, and we have already announced a number of measures to support this, including a £13 million innovation fund for the training and education of unregulated health professionals, the publication of a code of conduct and minimum training standards for healthcare and care assistants, and a review of induction training by the CQC. This is work in progress.
Having made these points, I want to reassure in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that we have an open mind as to the range of measures that need to be put in place. However, before we can take a rounded view of what those measures should be, we need to take account of the recommendations that flow from the Cavendish review. I suggest to the noble Baroness that that is the most sensible approach.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way, but the terms of reference of the Cavendish review do not cover the regulation of healthcare support workers.
Earl Howe
No, the terms of reference encompass the core concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which is the competence and skills of this sector of the workforce. That gets to the heart of the concerns of my noble friend Lady Browning around safety and the rest. The Cavendish review will point the way to a number of ideas that can move us in a positive direction.
Lord Warner
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question before he sits down because I am getting increasingly puzzled by this debate. I agree with him that a list does not of itself do very much to protect the public, particularly if it is a list of apples, oranges, bananas, pears, cherries or whatever—and this is a list of people with different qualifications or experiences. However, the whole point about HEE is that it is meant to be a game-changer and to standardise some of the training for particular groups. Is it the Government’s view that the term “healthcare assistant” will start to mean the same in Cornwall as in Cumbria, because HEE has defined the training for those covered by that terminology to be the same wherever the person is trained?
Earl Howe
That indeed is the ambition whereby there should be consistency of standards throughout the country and people should know precisely what those standards are. The problem with this sector of the workforce is that the standards have not properly been defined until now—hence the work that Skills for Health and Skills for Care are doing. However, we will see from that work and the work of Camilla Cavendish where the gaps are and where we need to focus our attention. The noble Lord is certainly right to say that once we have these standards in place, Health Education England will be responsible for ensuring that they are properly promulgated and rolled out.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate his point about the responsibility of employers. They are immensely important. However, would he be prepared to extend the language of responsibility to liability, either of a fiscal, legal or right-to-practise nature? I am not asking for a detailed answer, but it would be a shift that many of us feel would be moving in the right direction.
Earl Howe
As a result of the Francis report, we are indeed looking at the whole question of the liability of employers in the NHS as much as anywhere else. No doubt we shall be debating those issues when we reach Part 2 of the Bill. However, I can reassure the noble Lord on that point. We have here a vital segment of our health and social care workforce. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sure the Minister will be very frank with the Committee. Is he aware of concerns being expressed about the operation of the vetting and barring scheme? Is he aware of any complaints?
Earl Howe
I am not aware of those concerns, and I apologise to the noble Lord as I meant to pick that up. I was slightly taken aback by his comment. Of course, I shall take advice on that point and I would be very happy to talk to the noble Lord outside the Committee on this matter. I have certainly not been made aware that that service is deficient in any material way, but that it operates effectively to protect patients and the public.
Does the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, wish to intervene?
Earl Howe
I conclude by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that I hope she takes some encouragement from the work that is in train, and that she agrees with me that it is right to take stock after we see the recommendations flowing from the Cavendish review later in the year. No doubt that can inform our deliberations on Report. I hope that, in the mean time, she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for accepting that the principle that I was arguing about is correct and that there is a need for something to be done. I think we all recognise that, too often, people receive rather poor care. It is very hard to pin down what is going on because we do not have the mechanism to do so.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for saying that the principle of what I said was right. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and all noble Lords who have spoken for agreeing that something really needs to be done. In my rather simplistic way of looking at things, I think that training leads to a qualification that will lead to a registration. It is as simple as that. Getting the training right would eventually lead to a professional approach of which people could be more proud and which would give them the self-respect that they need and, in the majority of cases, deserve. That would also give us the knowledge that, when things go wrong, there is a mechanism that will stop them from getting worse.
I also agree with the Minister that the Cavendish review could be the way forward and perhaps this is pre-empting something that we will have to wait a while to achieve. I feel very strongly that this has gone on for far too long; the anxieties are really great and something must be done. I hope I can work with my noble friend Lady Emerton so that somehow we can speed things up a little. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for his comments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Turnberg
“(b) the use of research evidence to ensure the rapid uptake of innovations into practice”
Lord Turnberg
This group of amendments, to which I have attached my name, is all about putting into practice the brave words we have heard about the need to place research at the centre of what the NHS does.
We have had the important and impressive inclusion in the NHS mandate to NHS England and CCGs of the duty to promote research, and we have had the recent publication of the Association of Medical Research Charities of a vision for research in the NHS with its three proposals. First, every patient should be offered the opportunity to be involved in research. Secondly, all NHS staff should be made aware of the importance of research. Thirdly, the NHS should conduct high-quality research and adopt innovation in healthcare rapidly. All the good intentions were spelt out in the earlier Bill and subsequently, but we seem to have lost sight of that in the current Bill.
Amendment 17 simply makes clearer what seems to be rather vague and perhaps less forceful in the current wording about accepting research evidence and putting innovations into practice. The Bill states that HEE must promote, which is a good word,
“the use in those activities of evidence obtained from the research”.
That has to be read several times to be understood. My amendment suggests something rather clearer, and what I hope is intended, which is,
“the use of research evidence to ensure the rapid uptake of innovations into practice”.
Amendments 20 and 32 aim to ensure that Health Education England also makes it clear that all who work in the NHS should understand and be able to play a part in research and innovation by including a new responsibility, to ensure that research and innovation are incorporated into the Bill. Amendments 37 and 39 point to similar responsibilities for the LETBs. My name is attached to these amendments, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who unfortunately cannot be with us today because he is unwell. We wish him well. There is considerable danger that the LETBs in particular, dominated by local provider interests, will not unnaturally focus on their need to provide a clinical service and their requirement for sufficient numbers to fill their workforce needs. In so doing, they may not see that a service that is constantly evolving and changing needs a workforce that is fully switched on to the research agenda. They may not see that the future leaders of change—those who can undertake research and introduce new and better treatments year in, year out need to have their training needs met, too.
There are at least two types of need. The first is that of future academic clinicians, professors, senior lecturers, lecturers and the like in medicine, surgery, obstetrics and so on. The second is the need of all practising clinicians, be they doctors, nurses or technicians, if they are to integrate innovations and change into their practices. The academics need training programmes that are sufficiently flexible so that they can do their clinical training for some of the time and their research at others. They will almost certainly need to take three or more years out to do their PhDs, and they often need to do their purely clinical training over a longer period than others, as they slot periods of research into their clinical training.
Those going on to straight clinical practice—always the majority—need to understand what research entails, and will need to have some contact with research. Some may even take full time out for research, and in that way can appreciate new research findings as they come along. All those factors need to be considered by those in charge of education and training locally. I fear that unless something to that effect, as proposed in the amendments, is incorporated into the Bill, it will be so easy for it to slip out of view under the considerable pressure simply to provide services for today, with no thought for the needs of tomorrow.
I am not encouraged by the Department of Health’s document which is the mandate from the Government to Health Education England, in which the section headed “Flexible Workforce, receptive to research and innovation”—a brave heading—spells out what is intended. There is little here about how the intention of encouraging the development of a research-receptive workforce will be carried out. There is much about generalism, flexibility across service divisions and so on—all highly desirable—but nothing about producing those capable of doing the research and engaging in the clinical trials needed to make innovation possible. I hope these amendments will help to fill those gaps.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I support these amendments. My name is attached to Amendments 17, 20 and 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and to Amendments 37 and 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, who, as we have heard, was taken to hospital yesterday. I spoke to him in his hospital bed just before we started and he was beginning to feel better. I am sure we will want to wish him well.
I strongly support the amendment because, through the Health and Social Care Act, we gave prominence to the need to promote research and innovation in the health service, and it is right that we did that. It would be a pity now if the only gap in that duty would be for it not to apply to the key body, Health Education England, and the local education and training board committees. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, so eloquently put it, the amendments are about education and training by research, and about making sure that LETBs also have a responsibility to make sure that they conform to the functions of the HEE. They are all related to research, training, innovation, continuing training and research and supporting research. They cannot be wrong and I hope the Minister will accept them. They are well meaning and promote research further.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Patel, for helping me with these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, is unwell and may not be returning to us in time to help with the Bill. His twin passions are training and research, and Amendments 37 and 39 to Clause 90, which are all about the functions of LETBs, completely underpin that. I would be doing him a disservice if I did not ask the Minister to explore these areas when he sums up.
It is critical not only at a national level, with HEE, but at a local level, with the LETBs, that this area is not forgotten. Staff must understand not only the implications but all aspects of research. That must be plugged in at HEE and, with these amendments to Clause 90, at the LETB level.
Baroness Wheeler
I strongly support this group of amendments, the case for which has been ably made by my noble friend Lord Turnberg, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
The importance to the NHS of research and innovation has come under close scrutiny and debate in the House in recent times, under the Health and Social Care Bill, in the powerful debate of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, earlier this year, and in the debate that we almost had in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, on the life sciences industry’s important contribution to healthcare and to our economy.
Under the Health and Social Care Act, Labour fully supported placing duties on the Secretary of State, the NCB and CCGs to promote research. Indeed, my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord Hunt proposed amendments to that Bill reinforcing the importance of research, and we were pleased to work with noble Lords across the House in strengthening these provisions. That is why amendments to Clause 86, which deals with quality improvement in education and training, are so important.
Amendment 17 deletes the current reference to HEE needing to promote,
“the use in those activities of evidence obtained from the research”,
and replaces it with a proactive reference to using this,
“evidence to ensure the rapid uptake of innovations into practice”.
Amendment 20 underlines the need for HEE,
“to secure that research and innovation are incorporated into education and training”.
This was a recommendation of the Joint Committee, which we fully support. All NHS staff should be equipped with the tools to understand and support research and to assess and use evidence to inform their decisions when caring for patients or supporting clinical staff. They also need to be able to make use of research throughout their careers—a point that my noble friend Lord Turnberg made strongly—and be familiar with the NHS research infrastructure, which can provide further help and support.
The recent survey by the Association of Medical Research Charities showed the challenges to be phased in in this regard. Some 91% of staff surveyed, including doctors and nurses, identified the barriers that they had experienced to taking part in research. Lack of time was the predominant reason given by respondents. Other reasons included funding, practical support and difficulties in navigating regulation. GPs are an important gateway for getting patients involved in research, but although a majority of GPs believes that it is important for the NHS to support research into treatments for their patients, only 32% felt that it was important for them personally to be involved. As AMRC emphasises, we still have a long way to go if the Government’s goal of every clinician being a researcher and every willing patient a research participant is to be achieved.
Amendment 32 to Clause 87 adds promoting innovation and research in clinical practice to the matters that the HEE should have regard to—a logical and crucial next step in our support for innovation and research under HEE’s national functions. Amendment 37 on the local functions that LETBs exercise on behalf of HEE makes the important cross-reference between Clause 90 and Clause 86, rather than Clause 84, on the issue of ensuring that there are sufficient skilled healthcare workers promoting research and the use of research evidence in the health service. We believe that if LETBs are performing other duties of behalf of HEE under Clause 90, there is no reason why they should not also promote research, obviously within the LETB area. Amendment 39 would confirm in legislation that HEE’s research duty applies to LETBs as a main function, and we strongly support that.
Throughout the debates on innovation and research, we heard continued concerns and frustrations at the often painfully slow, complex and bureaucratic process of getting innovation in care and treatment adopted in the NHS. There was frustration, too, that existing processes and pathways, such as conditional approval in the named patient schemes and the opportunities under existing legislation, are not being fully used. In the January debate, the Minister reminded us that it took an estimated 17 years for only 14% of new scientific discoveries to enter day-to-day clinical practice. That is why these amendments to ensure that HEE actively promotes innovation and research and carries that through in the education and training of healthcare workers needs to be supported by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is no doubt that education and training can play an important role in creating a workforce that is research literate and innovative, with the skills required to diffuse the latest ideas and innovations. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has focused our minds on some important goals in this area.
Through our investment in the education and training of health professionals, we must seek to ensure that our future practitioners know how to access evidence, use evidence and contribute to the national research enterprise. Developing a flexible workforce that is responsive to research and innovation is one of the key priorities that the Government have set for the Health Education England special health authority in its mandate. To answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, Section 63(1) sets out an objective for Heath Education England to support clinical academic careers.
Amendment 17 would require Health Education England to promote the use of research evidence to ensure the rapid uptake of innovations into practice. Amendment 20 would require it to exercise its functions to secure that research and innovation are incorporated into education and training. Amendment 32 would require it to have regard to the desirability of promoting research and innovation in clinical practice when performing its duties under Clause 85(1) to ensure sufficient skilled workers and Clause 87(4) when setting its objectives, priorities and outcomes for education and training.
The Government recognise very clearly the importance of promoting research and innovation. That is why Clause 86(2) of the Bill requires Health Education England, in exercising its functions, to promote research and the use of evidence from research in education and training activity. In response to stakeholder views in consultation and a recommendation from the Joint Committee that examined the draft Bill, we have strengthened the wording so that it is a duty to promote research. This has been welcomed by stakeholders such as the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Association of Medical Research Charities. It also reflects, incidentally, the equivalent duties to promote research already placed on the Secretary of State, NHS England and clinical commissioning groups by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
The duty requires Health Education England to promote research activity in relation to its education and training functions, and the use of evidence obtained from that research, to secure continuous improvement in the quality of education and training. Those are pretty powerful provisions. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate from what I have said that Health Education England already has the necessary powers under Clause 86(2) to secure that research and innovation are fully incorporated into education and training.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that Health Education England and the local education and training boards will work closely with research and innovation partners such as the academic health science centres and academic health science networks to deliver the duty to promote research. I can also reassure him that Health Education England will ensure that local education and training boards support this agenda and delivery of the duty to promote research. I hope that the noble Lord will feel sufficiently reassured by that to withdraw the amendment.
I shall now respond to the two other amendments to which noble Lords have spoken. Amendment 37 would add to a local education and training board’s main functions the promotion of research and the use of research evidence in the health service. Amendment 39 would require a local education and training board to support Health Education England in exercising its function to promote research into matters relating to social care services, primary care services and other health services so far as it is exercisable. I wholeheartedly agree that the local education and training boards need to take a strong interest in research and the use of research evidence when planning, commissioning and quality assuring the delivery of education and training. As noble Lords know, we have placed the primary duty to promote research on Health Education England but, as committees of Health Education England, the LETBs will be required to support the national body in delivering the duty through their workforce planning and education and training functions. Therefore, we do not see that the amendment is necessary in that sense. Health Education England will ensure that the LETBs support the delivery of key national duties, such as those in Clause 86, to promote research, support the NHS constitution and improve the quality of education and training. I also point out in this context that the appointment criteria that the Health Education England special health authority has used to appoint the existing 13 local education and training boards require the LETB to demonstrate effective mechanisms for partnership working with academic health science centres and academic health sciences networks.
I am sure that noble Lords will also be glad to know that Health Education England and the LETBs are working with the National Institute for Health Research, headed by Professor Dame Sally Davies, to ensure appropriate investment in education and training to develop clinical academic careers and increase the number of staff accessing academic careers programmes across all clinical and public health professions.
I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured that the spirit of the amendments is one which we have already grasped and which is reflected in the Bill and that they will therefore feel able not to press the amendments.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, as always, the noble Earl gave some very reassuring words on this topic. I am not absolutely convinced that we do not need to strengthen the Bill a little more to reflect what he has enunciated, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Government Communications Headquarters
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has just been making in the House of Commons. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I will make a Statement on the work of the Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, its legal framework and recent publicity about it. As Foreign Secretary, I am responsible for the work of GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service, SIS, under the overall authority of the Prime Minister. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the work of the Security Service, MI5.
Over the past few days there have been a series of media disclosures of classified US documents relating to the collection of intelligence by US agencies, and questions about the role of GCHQ. The US Administration has begun a review into the circumstances of these leaks in conjunction with the Justice Department and the US intelligence community.
President Obama has been clear that US work in this area is fully overseen and authorised by Congress and relevant judicial bodies, and that his Administration is committed to respecting the civil liberties and privacy of its citizens.
The Government deplore the leaking of any classified information wherever it occurs. Such leaks can make the work of maintaining the security of our country and that of our allies more difficult. By providing a partial and potentially misleading picture, they give rise to public concerns.
It has been the policy of successive British Governments not to comment on the detail of intelligence operations. The House will therefore understand that I will not be drawn into confirming or denying any aspect of leaked information. I will be as informative as possible to give reassurance to the public and Parliament. We want the British people to have confidence in the work of our intelligence agencies and in their adherence to the law and our democratic values. But I also wish to be very clear that I will take great care in this Statement and in answering questions to say nothing that gives any clue or comfort to terrorists, criminals and foreign intelligence services as they seek to do harm to this country and its people.
Three issues have arisen in recent days which I wish to address. First, I will describe the action the Government are taking in response to recent events; secondly, I will set out how our intelligence agencies work in accordance with UK law and subject to democratic oversight; and thirdly, I will describe how the law is upheld with respect to intelligence co-operation with the United States, and deal with specific questions that have been raised about the operation of GCHQ.
First, in respect of the action we have taken, the Intelligence and Security Committee has already received some information from GCHQ, and will receive a full report tomorrow. My right honourable friend the Member for Kensington, who chairs the ISC, is travelling to the United States on a long-planned visit with the rest of the committee, including Members of this House. As he has said, the Committee will be free to decide what, if any, further action it should take in the light of that report. The Government and the agencies will co-operate fully with the committee, and I pay tribute to its members and their predecessors on all sides of both Houses.
Secondly, the ISC’s work is one part of the strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight that governs the use of secret intelligence in the United Kingdom, which successive Governments have worked to strengthen. At its heart are two Acts of Parliament: the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Acts require GCHQ and the other agencies to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary.
As Foreign Secretary, I receive hundreds of operational proposals from SIS and GCHQ every year. The proposals are detailed. They set out the planned operation, the potential risks and the intended benefits of the intelligence. They include comprehensive legal advice describing the basis for the operation and comments from senior Foreign Office officials and lawyers. To intercept the content of any individual’s communications within the UK requires a warrant signed personally by me, by the Home Secretary or by another Secretary of State. This is no casual process. Every decision is based on extensive legal and policy advice. Warrants are legally required to be necessary, proportionate and carefully targeted, and we judge them on that basis.
Considerations of privacy are also at the forefront of our minds, as I believe they will have been in the minds of our predecessors. We take great care to balance individual privacy with our duty to safeguard the public and UK national security. These are often difficult and finely judged decisions, and we do not approve every proposal put before us by the agencies.
All the authorisations the Home Secretary and I do give are subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner, both of whom must have held high judicial office and who report directly to the Prime Minister. They review the way that these decisions are made to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law. They have full access to all the information they need to carry out their responsibilities, and their reports are publicly available.
It is vital that we have this framework of democratic accountability and scrutiny. But I also have nothing but praise for the professionalism, dedication and integrity of the men and women of GCHQ. I know from my work with them how seriously they take their obligations under UK and international law. Indeed, in his most recent report the Intelligence Services Commissioner said: ‘it is my belief that… GCHQ staff conduct themselves with the highest levels of integrity and legal compliance’.
This combination of needing a warrant from one of the most senior members of the Government, decided on the basis of detailed legal advice, with such decisions reviewed by independent commissioners and implemented by agencies with strong legal and ethical frameworks, with the addition of parliamentary scrutiny by the ISC, whose powers are being increased, provides one of the strongest systems of checks and balances and democratic accountability for secret intelligence anywhere in the world.
Thirdly, I want to set out how UK law is upheld in respect of information received from the United States and to address the specific questions about the role of GCHQ. Since the 1940s GCHQ and its American equivalent, now the National Security Agency, have had a relationship that is unique in the world. This relationship has been and remains essential to the security of both nations. It has stopped many terrorist and espionage plots against this country, and has saved many lives. The basic principles by which that co-operation operates have not changed over time. Indeed, I wish to emphasise to the House that while we have experienced an extremely busy period in intelligence and diplomacy in the last three years, the arrangements for oversight and the general framework for exchanging information with the United States are the same as under previous Governments.
The growing and diffuse nature of threats from terrorists, criminals or espionage has only increased the importance of the intelligence relationship with the United States. This was particularly the case in the run-up to the Olympics. The House will not be surprised that our activity to counter terrorism intensified and rose to a peak in the summer of last year. It has been suggested that GCHQ uses our partnership with the United States to get around UK law, obtaining information that it cannot legally obtain in the UK. I wish to be absolutely clear that this accusation is baseless. Any data obtained by us from the US involving UK nationals are subject to proper UK statutory controls and safeguards, including the relevant sections of the Intelligence Services Act, the Human Rights Act and RIPA. Our intelligence-sharing work with the United States is subject to ministerial and independent oversight and to scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Our agencies practise and uphold UK laws at all times, even when dealing with information from outside the UK.
The combination of a robust legal framework, ministerial responsibility, scrutiny by the Intelligence Services Commissioners and parliamentary accountability through the Intelligence and Security Committee, should give a high level of confidence that the system works as intended. This does not mean that we do not have to work to strengthen public confidence wherever we can, while maintaining the secrecy necessary to intelligence work. We have strengthened the role of the ISC through the Justice and Security Act 2013 to include oversight of the agencies’ operations as well as their policy, administration and finances, and we have introduced the National Security Council so that intelligence is weighed and assessed alongside all other sources of information available to us as a Government, including diplomatic reporting and the insights of other government departments, and so that all this information is judged carefully in deciding the Government’s overall strategy and objectives.
There is no doubt that secret intelligence, including the work of GCHQ, is vital to our country. It enables us to detect threats against our country ranging from nuclear proliferation to cyberattack. Our agencies work to prevent serious and organised crime, and to protect our economy against those trying to steal intellectual property. They disrupt complex plots against our country, such as when individuals travel abroad to gain terrorist training and prepare attacks. They support the work of our Armed Forces overseas and help to protect the lives of our men and women in uniform, and they work to help other countries lawfully to build the capacity and willingness to investigate and disrupt terrorists in their countries, before threats reach us within the United Kingdom. We should never forget that threats are launched at us secretly, that new weapons systems and tactics are developed secretly, and that countries or terrorist groups that plan attacks or operations against us do so in secrecy. So the methods we use to combat these threats must be secret, just as they must always be lawful.
If the citizens of this country could see the time and care taken in making these decisions, the carefully targeted nature of all our interventions and the strict controls in place to ensure that the law and our democratic values are upheld, and if they could witness the integrity and professionalism of the men and women of the intelligence agencies, who are among the very finest public servants our nation has, then I believe that they would be reassured by how we go about this difficult but essential work. The British people can be confident in the way that our agencies work to keep them safe, but would-be terrorists—those seeking to spy against this country or those who are the centre of organised crime—should be aware that this country has the capability and partnerships to protect its citizens against the full range of threats in the 21st century, and that we will always do so in accordance with our laws and values but with constant resolve and determination.”
My Lords, that concludes the statement.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. It is important to start with some clarity over the precise subject that we are discussing today and we do so on this side against a background of agreement that I think is shared in both Houses, and across all sides of both Houses, about the values that are expressed in the Statement and the importance of protecting the United Kingdom and those values. It is clear that that is absolutely common ground.
The Guardian newspaper has revealed information obtained from Mr Edward Snowden, a former CIA contractor, that the National Security Agency in the United States has, so far as we understand it, collected huge quantities of information on telephone calls, e-mails and other online information. Some, but by no means all, of this surveillance has been focused on United States citizens. Much is said to have come from Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Skype and other digital sources. It will therefore include surveillance of people who are not US citizens.
While the United States Administration have acknowledged the truth of the telephone surveillance, the technology companies have denied that any online information has been provided that was not covered by a federal court warrant before it was handed to the US Government.
I do not want, and it is not my place, to comment on United States policy on this matter or on the extent to which the Patriot Act makes such actions in the US legal. Those are matters for US politicians and US courts. However, I accept what the Foreign Secretary has said—that all the surveillance is directed not just against terrorists but against many different kinds of criminals, such as cybercriminals, paedophiles and people who wish to steal intellectual property.
We need to focus on the issues for the United Kingdom and to allay the plain anxieties of UK citizens and the UK media about the extent of UK involvement, its character and the legal basis for anything that has happened in our country. As Douglas Alexander put it on the “Today” programme this morning in response to Simon McCoy, “We need to be able to reassure the public ... there is an understandable level of public concern, given the reports in the newspapers over the last couple of days, and given how much we all rely on the intelligence agencies here in the United Kingdom to keep us safe”. There have been assertions and counterassertions. Today we begin the process of understanding what has happened from the United Kingdom’s point of view.
First, I will deal with what might be called the straw dogs. I want, for complete avoidance of doubt, to be clear about what we are not saying today. I do not doubt for one second that in the complex battle with terrorism or organised crime we need to collect data. It is an intrusive but entirely essential task for our security services. I will not accept from these Benches that we would ever willingly or knowingly put UK citizens or others at risk. We, too, will give no comfort or inadvertent assistance to terrorists, as the Foreign Secretary said.
Secondly, we have no doubt whatever that this means that there will be co-operation between friendly states trying to achieve the same objectives.
Thirdly, the balance between surveillance and privacy is a very hard one to strike. Perhaps it is impossible to get it entirely right as circumstances change. The Foreign Secretary said, in replying to questions on the Statement, that mistakes will always be made. I am not even saying that mistakes have been made, but this is obviously something that we will all want to keep in mind. Privacy will be compromised to some extent, whatever balance we agree. However, there has to be a proper balance if we regard the proper privacy of citizens as important—important not at the risk of their life and limb but important none the less in a democratic society where we enjoy private life within the law. The United Kingdom would never have settled for a Stasi-style state. This weekend, the Foreign Secretary described his approach as “necessary” and “proportionate”. That is a matter of the balance. We try to enshrine the balance as best we can in law, and I must return to this point in seeking clarification from the Minister. We need better to understand the terms that the Foreign Secretary has used.
Fourthly, every Minister who has dealt with the intelligence services, including GCHQ—and I am proud to have been one of them—knows that we are dealing with people of the greatest integrity, and it is not any part of my submission to your Lordships that we have grounds for suspicion. They are excellent as a group and are outstanding in their service to the United Kingdom. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made essentially the same point on television over the weekend, and it is a view that I share.
Fifthly, I hear the expression that law-abiding British citizens have “nothing to fear”. We have probably all used that kind of phrase on one occasion or another, but it often conceals more than it reveals. Of course those acting within the law should not fear oversight but most of us also value our privacy, at least to some extent, and can value it without wishing to commit any acts of terrorism. I am never happy about the extent to which search engines inspect my tastes, purchases, and whereabouts and so on in pursuit of business, even when I do not want them to. Prism is therefore a concern for honest reasons, not dishonest ones. How we use it or perhaps contribute to it is also a concern for honest reasons, not dishonest ones.
On the “Today” programme this morning, Sir Malcolm Rifkind said that no access surveillance data of the kinds that I have described could be collected without explicit ministerial approval. I think that that was reflected in the Statement but I want to check. As I understand it, Sir Malcolm was referring either to material that the UK’s intelligence agencies may wish to collect for themselves or to material collected by a foreign agency that the intelligence services here might wish to access. He said, “The law is actually quite clear. If the British intelligence agencies are seeking to know the content of e-mails about people living in the UK then they actually have to get lawful authority. Normally that means ministerial authority”. I understand that the foreign agency might offer material out of mutual friendship and concern for the well-being of our or other citizens, and I repeat that this has an unavoidable impact on privacy but is very important for our safety. However, Sir Malcolm’s point was that there is an explicit law on permissions. He was not making the point that we should never try to catch terrorists by such means—quite the contrary.
Therefore, none of my questions is intended to help any terrorist. I have thought carefully about these questions, which in the past I would have been able to answer or would have been inclined to say I could not answer before your Lordships in this House for security reasons. These questions are not hostile; rather, they are exploratory. I ask them against the clear background of saying that we want the criminals whose attacks may be directed towards this country and who are never constrained by the question of any international border to be prevented from causing us harm and brought to justice.
How many instances of data acquisition by our intelligence services have taken place in the past three years in the ways that have been alleged by the Guardian? What precisely is the legal framework, what are the procedures and what are the protocols under which a United Kingdom Minister could ask for information from American agencies?
Did Ministers authorise each and every one of these applications for data? I suspect that there will be a yes or no answer. The assurance of legality can be made clear today by answering that question. It will not aid a terrorist in any respect to know the answer but it should be a source of reassurance to honest, law-abiding citizens of the UK.
Would it be lawful for GCHQ to request information from Prism and for this to fall outside the scrutiny of any UK Act, including the Intelligence Services Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act? Mr Hague appears to have said in the Statement that that could not happen, but I would welcome confirmation.
What is the status of the request to search United States data? Would that be covered by a proper warrant just as would requests to obtain that information in this country?
Did the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner have oversight of the process that they exercised? I do not mean “Do they?” in a general sense but “Did they in these circumstances?”.
Will the Foreign Secretary be willing to discuss all these matters in detail in an appropriately confidential meeting of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Will the ISC be put in a position where it can add to the assurance that the public seeks without disclosing anything at all that may assist anybody who intends us harm? Will the Foreign Secretary set out for Parliament any concerns that he may have about the surveillance of United Kingdom citizens, or, if he has none, will he explain how he reaches a conclusion on that matter? He cannot regard this as something within the reach of the “nothing to fear” answer. How rapidly could the Government respond to these deeper questions which have been brought to the surface by these events?
I ask these questions in exactly the sense in which I started when responding to the Statement. We are as committed as anybody to the effectiveness of an intelligence service which, from experience, I know is among the best in the world, operated by the best civil servants this country could hope to have. The public are not often exposed to the nature of the service’s work—this is perhaps a necessary fact about that kind of work. However, some clarity on these questions will give real reassurance.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the general support he has given the Government and for his very constructive remarks on the necessary and excellent role of our agencies. He will understand that I cannot give him precise answers on some of the questions that he asked. As the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement, a preliminary report has already gone to the Intelligence and Security Committee, a fuller report will go to it and the committee will have the opportunity to examine the Foreign Secretary and a great many others on the reports that have come out. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to leave it at that.
I simply add that the transmission of global communications is part of the context in which we all have to operate, as is the transmission of human movement. Someone may have been in London yesterday, is in Lagos today and could be in Aleppo in three days’ time. That person might be a citizen of two or three countries, one of which might be the UK. That is part of the problem. When the noble Lord says “within the UK”, what is within the UK is a great deal less clear than it was a few years ago. For all I know, the server which might hold the noble Lord’s private information from his Facebook account could be in Washington state—possibly even in southern China. Therefore, we are moving away from the ability to handle some of these issues entirely within the framework of the single nation state.
There are some extremely large questions here on data-sharing and data protection, some of which we will have to return to. Clearly data protection has to be on a European and global scale and cannot be purely domestic. That is the context in which we face all these challenges. We need different ways of attempting to keep up with criminals, terrorists and others from those we see in television series about the 1930s and 1920s, when detectives and security agencies steamed open the envelopes of letters, which were the main means of communication in those days.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, do we not now face a much more dangerous world in which we know that certain organisations are determined to commit acts of terror against this country in a more positive and direct way than we have perhaps faced before? Combine that with an explosion in systems of communication which did not exist before, and the graphic illustration that the Minister just gave about London, Lagos and Aleppo, and there is a globalisation and dependence on other countries for intelligence. The front line in the defence of our country is intelligence. From my previous experience, I pay tribute—as has already been done—to those who serve in our intelligence agencies. However, the challenges they now face are very real, and protecting the rule of law and following the orders under which they operate against the threats that our country faces involve very high standards indeed.
The real core of this Statement is that we need the ISC. We have to have some impartial outside body, and it will not surprise the Minister when I say that we must preserve the credibility of the ISC. Sir Malcolm Rifkind and his colleagues, including two Members of this House, face a challenging job. A very serious accusation has been made and we must get to the truth about it. I have absolutely no criticism of Sir Malcolm Rifkind, and have fortunately been long enough out of post. In preserving that credibility, we have to watch that we do not appoint people who have just had ministerial responsibility for the areas that they may be asked to investigate. A continual challenge is ensuring that we have experienced people who can contribute to what is now a very important job for the ISC.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I am not sure that in some ways we are in a more dangerous world than we were in 100 or more years ago when international anarchist groups succeeded in assassinating the heads of state of two or three European countries. However, he is absolutely right about the explosion of communications and the speed of communications. The general increase in the educated population of the world means that, when you are looking for terrorist groups, you are not able to look for a small group within each city but are looking at a much larger number of possible suspects. That is why agencies have to adapt the way they look at these sources.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I understand extremely well that the Minister cannot at this stage tell us very much, but I hope that he can at least confirm what appears to be the case—that the 197 Prism reports said to have been passed on to GCHQ last year all relate to communications data and not to the contents of any intercepted communication. If he can give us that confirmation—I hope he can and can see no reason why he should not if it be the case—it would be much less serious and would allay certain anxieties that otherwise we must all feel. If it is the case that it relates solely to communications data, will he say who gave the authorisation under Section 21 of RIPA, which is the relevant section, not Chapter 1, and whether the authorisation was specific to this case or was a general authorisation?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble and learned Lord would like me to go into specifics on specific cases, and I am going to resist that for reasons he will fully understand, while recognising the importance of the distinction made between communications data and the details of communications, which is one that we all recognise.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, first, in all humility, I advise the Minister that it would be useful to distinguish between published opinion and public opinion. He may never be able to reassure some elements of published opinion that the security services are not being overzealous until there is some great incident, and it will then accuse the security services of not having done enough. That is the experience.
Secondly, to reassure public opinion, will he confirm that the regulatory legal framework is among the best, if not the strongest, among western democracies, not only the legal framework he mentioned of the Intelligence Services Act and RIPA but ministerial oversight, independent scrutiny and parliamentary accountability through the ISC? I tell him from my own interests—I declare them as registered—not only as a former Home Secretary but in the private sector and the academic sector that there is astonishment among many colleagues in Europe and the western democracies at just how far we go to ensure that oversight.
Will the Minister confirm the simple point that international terrorism is by definition international, that the means of communication in the world wide web is by definition worldwide and that therefore, if we are to protect the lives of the citizens of this country, we have to operate on an international basis? Almost every single plot that has threatened the public, many of which they have not heard about, has involved at least two or three countries, and in some cases more than 20. Therefore, within the legal framework, the security services, operating and sharing information on counterterrorism with our close allies throughout the world, have saved literally thousands of lives in this country over the past 15 years. The whole House should note that and congratulate our security services on it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble Lord for those very helpful words. However, it is not only all terrorism that is by definition international. When I was covering the Home Office brief and spent some time with the West Yorkshire Police I came to the conclusion that all serious organised crime is now international. We therefore operate in a world in which co-operation, not just with the United States but with our European partners and others, is nevertheless essential in order to combat this global phenomenon—and, of course, some of those with whom we have to co-operate are not the easiest of partners. The noble Lord will know well that some of the websites which those who have been radicalised in this country have had access to are operated out of very distant countries.
The difference between public opinion and published opinion is, of course, that public opinion very often wants different and contradictory things. The public want security and privacy, they want the state off their backs, but at the same time they want the state to protect them. That is part of what politicians have to deal with. It is one of the reasons why referendums are not always a terribly good idea, because the way public opinion flies depends on which week the referendum is held. Attitudes to privacy among the young are much more relaxed than among the old. Whether as the young get older they become more concerned about privacy is something we shall slowly discover as we go on.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary’s Statement will have gone far to reassure people that our very high standards of oversight are being upheld. However, the problem for people is not so much about our own legal standards and standards of oversight, but what happens internationally, in other countries, and whether their standards are as high. In light of that, will my noble friend tell us what attention Her Majesty’s Government are giving, in the borderless cyberworld, not just to the full implementation of the 2006 data retention directive, but also to aspiring to have high common standards as we go forward into negotiations with the United States on the transatlantic treaty? Will that subject be covered in those talks?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I understand the full transition to cloud computing. A very small number of people in this House understand it, and I run to them from time to time to ask for their advice. Certainly, we will find that the new global standards on attempts to regulate cloud computing will be thrashed out in negotiations between the United States and the European Union in the context of the transatlantic negotiations. So far we are a long way from discovering how those will turn out. I read in the New York Times the other day that one of the differences across the Atlantic is that in the United States most people distrust the state much more than they distrust companies, whereas in Europe more people trust the state and distrust companies. That raises implications for what sort of regulation people really want. Clearly there will be some extremely difficult negotiations, first on the EU data protection directive, and then within the transatlantic negotiations.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, in quoting the words of Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the chairman of the security committee, the Minister referred to a statement by him which said that normally only information which had been the subject of specific ministerial request would be used. The word “normally” suggests to me that there may be exceptional circumstances. Can the Minister, without embarrassment, suggest the sort of situation in which that might operate? It is a constructive and relevant question, which I am sure the House would wish to have an answer to, if possible.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord tempts me to go down a lane which I think that I would prefer not to go down. It is, of course, the case that, in moments of absolute crisis, a short cut may possibly be taken, but this country attempts in all circumstances to go through the correct procedures and hold to the legal framework.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Would my noble friend agree that one of the duties of the security services is to obtain relevant information in accordance with the constraints imposed by British law? Would he further agree that there is absolutely no evidence that GCHQ has deliberately circumvented British law to obtain information that might be available to the American authorities under quite different American law? Thirdly, would he agree that it is to be hoped that the free flow of important information between the United Kingdom’s security services and the Americans will continue, particularly if that information indicates that lives might be saved if the information is acted on? Would he further agree that it would be completely unacceptable for the British authorities to ignore information coming from abroad, wherever it comes from, if acting on that information might save lives?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I can confirm most of the questions asked by the noble Lord, but I had better not go into too much detail. An enormous amount of information is flowing into the United Kingdom on any day of the week from a range of other intelligence services. Naturally, we trust the Americans far more than we trust some other countries. But one has to listen to countries that may in many ways be hostile to the United Kingdom but with which we may share some real security interests. That is all part of the very delicate world in which we live and have to operate. None of this is easy, but maintaining British security and, at the same time, maintaining an open society is our underlying intention.
Lord West of Spithead
Would the Minister agree that it is somewhat ironic that the so-called whistleblower chose Hong Kong, which is close to and alongside China, as the place to make this statement, bearing in mind its systematic control of the internet within its own country, the way in which it looks intrusively at its own population, and the fact that it has probably been in among the computers of a large number of us here, let alone organisations in this country?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I confirm that, and congratulate the noble Lord on asking a question that did not mention the Royal Navy for the first time in some considerable period.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that at least one of the organisations with oversight over the security services would have it drawn to their attention if we started to get a large flow of communications content information from the United States, as opposed to communications data?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, lawyers have come in at a very early stage in this. I was briefed by FCO lawyers as well as by FCO officials this morning. Oversight is a continuing process, so any unusual change in pattern would naturally feed up towards the scrutiny and accountability process.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, I apologise for arriving during the reading of this Statement but, in my defence, I was late because I was listening to it from the horse’s mouth, from the Foreign Secretary in another place.
In the USA, it would seem that politicians have been asleep at the wheel while their security and intelligence services have helped themselves to anyone’s private data without any meaningful oversight. Happily, in this county we have much better checks and balances on our security services, and the Government to their credit have been much more robust in resisting calls for security at any cost from the proponents of the disproportionate and unnecessary communications data Bill, which was accurately given the soubriquet the “snoopers’ charter”.
My question has been asked already today, but I ask my noble friend to try to address it. On the 197 occasions in the past year when GCHQ has stated that it obtained data from the Prism system in the States, was the data acquisition authorised by a Minister on each occasion? That is not about the content or the cases involved but simply about the process and legality.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that is one of the issues which will be investigated by the ISC. The noble Lord and I may differ on what we think about the history and current role of the US agencies, but there is quite a large issue about US companies—Google and others—which we have assumed to be extremely benevolent but which are collecting a great deal of personal information on a very large number of people. That raises long-term issues which we will, no doubt, have to debate in future Sessions along with both domestic and international regulations to cope with them.
Defence: Better Defence Acquisition
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Lance Corporal Jamie Webb of 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, who died in hospital in Kandahar on Tuesday 26 March from wounds received in Afghanistan on Monday 25 March this year; Corporal William Savage and Fusilier Samuel Flint from the Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland; and Private Robert Hetherington, a Territorial Army soldier from 51st Highland, 7th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland—7 SCOTS—who were killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday 30 April this year; also, Drummer Lee Rigby of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, who was killed in Woolwich, south-east London, on 22 May this year. My thoughts are also with the wounded and I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude with which they face their rehabilitation.
I turn to the Statement, which is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, the defence of UK national interests is a priority for this Government. To secure that defence we must provide our Armed Forces with the equipment and capabilities they need to operate in a rapidly changing security environment. Without the right equipment, delivered on time, properly maintained and available for use, our Armed Forces cannot function effectively and our national interests are put at risk. Effective procurement and support of defence equipment is therefore not just desirable, but an essential part of maintaining flexible and effective Armed Forces.
For decades, there has been an acknowledgement that defence acquisition in this country can, and should, be done better. Despite numerous reviews and reorganisations, successive Governments have failed to embed the systemic changes necessary to achieve that objective. We owe it to the men and women of our Armed Forces, and to the long-suffering taxpayer, to do better.
Two separate independent studies carried out for the MoD have suggested that the costs arising from inefficiency in the procurement process are between £1.3 billion and £2.2 billion per annum. Waste on that scale is unacceptable at any time—more so at a time of acute pressure on the public finances. I am determined to drive a step change in the way we do our defence procurement business.
In April, I announced to the House that we had launched the assessment phase for the department’s materiel strategy programme, considering two options for the future of the Defence Equipment and Support organisation. The first is a public sector benchmark, which we call DE&S-plus, and the second is a Government-owned, contractor-operated entity, a GOCO.
Today, I am publishing a White Paper which sets out the materiel strategy proposals in more detail and provides more information about our intention to create a new statutory framework to drive better value in single-source procurement contracts, protecting the taxpayer in this significant area of MoD business.
We believe that a GOCO operating model is the solution which is most likely effectively to embed and sustain the significant change that is required to reform defence acquisition. But the decision will be based on an objective value-for-money comparison between the GOCO and DE&S-plus options. The assessment phase is designed to deliver specific, costed, contract-quality proposals from GOCO bidders and test them against the DE&S-plus benchmark.
There has been considerable speculation in the media and elsewhere about the scope of a GOCO. At the most extreme, I have seen it suggested that the proposal is simply to hand over £15 billion a year of taxpayers’ money to a private company and leave it to decide what kit to buy for our Armed Forces. Let me reassure the House that that is emphatically not the proposition.
If GOCO is the selected option, the GOCO partner will manage DE&S on behalf of the Secretary of State. It will act as his agent. All contracts will continue to be entered into in the name of the Secretary of State. Strategic direction will be provided by a governance function that will remain within the MoD. The GOCO’s customers will be the front-line commands and the MoD itself. The DE&S workforce will be transferred to the GOCO operating company under standard TUPE—transfer of undertaking, protection of employment—arrangements and we will expect the GOCO partner to inject a small number of senior managers and possibly some key technical staff. Crucially, the GOCO is assumed to be able to recruit and reward its staff at market rates—a critical freedom in a business which is required to deal with the private commercial sector on a daily basis.
The proposal set out in the White Paper is for a phased transfer of DE&S to a GOCO, with checks and break points to allow us to halt the process if it is not delivering the results we require. The legislation and the contract will include a transfer regime that will allow the Secretary of State to transfer the business to another contractor, or back to the MoD in extremis.
If, at the end of the assessment phase, a GOCO operating model is selected, then we need to be able to move quickly to conclude a contract with the successful bidder. The Government therefore intend to provide in the defence reform Bill the necessary authorities to let a GOCO contract in 2014, together with measures required to allow a GOCO, to operate effectively.
There are finely balanced arguments about whether primary legislation is strictly required to allow the establishment of a GOCO. The Government have, however, decided that it is right that we should legislate in this instance because of the importance of DE&S to our Armed Forces and in order to ensure that Members of both Houses, many of whom take a keen interest in defence matters, have a proper opportunity to explore and debate the issues.
The White Paper sets out the proposed model for a GOCO, its key features and our expectations with regard to the control that the department will continue to exercise and the freedoms that the GOCO will enjoy. Its purpose is to set in context the legislation that we are bringing forward in the defence reform Bill, including provisions to: ensure that the MoD Police have the appropriate jurisdiction to be able to operate within the GOCO environment; extend to the new body certain statutory immunities and exemptions enjoyed by the Crown, for example, in relation to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the Nuclear Installations Act; and allow the transfer of shares in the operating company and/or property rights and liabilities in the operating company or contracting entity at the direction of the Secretary of State
I turn to the single-source procurement reform. The White Paper also sets out reforms to how the MoD undertakes single-source procurement of defence equipment. Open competition is our preferred approach to getting value for money. But sometimes there is only a single provider of a capability that we require. The need to maintain critical national industrial capabilities or sovereign control of the intellectual property in equipment programmes sometimes requires us to place contracts with UK companies without a competitive process.
Single-source procurement accounts for about 45% of the total MoD spend on defence equipment and support, or around £6 billion per year, and it is likely to remain at those levels for the next decade or so. Without competition, suppliers can price, and perform, without being constrained by the disciplines of the marketplace. There is a clear risk to defence and to taxpayers, and ensuring that we get good value for money in single-source procurement is a key part of my programme to reform defence acquisition.
The MoD currently uses a framework for single-source procurement which has remained largely unchanged for the past 45 years, despite the far-reaching changes to the industrial landscape and to commercial procurement practices that have occurred in that time. Under this system, the profit that contractors can earn is fixed, but there are few incentives for them to reduce costs. Such a system does not serve the best interest of defence or of a competitive, export-focused defence industry.
In 2011, the MoD commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, to undertake an independent review of our existing approach and to make recommendations. He recommended a new framework: one that is based on transparency of contractor cost data, with much stronger supplier efficiency incentives, underpinned by stronger governance arrangements. Based on his recommendations, and extensive consultations with our major single-source suppliers, we have developed the new framework that I am proposing, details of which are set out in the White Paper.
At its heart is the principle that industry gets a fair profit in exchange for providing the MoD with the transparency and protections that we need to assure value for money. A statutory basis will ensure widespread coverage across our single-source suppliers and application of the regime throughout the single-source supply chain. The system will be policed by a stronger, independent, single-source regulations office to monitor adherence and to ensure that the regime is kept up to date. These changes will incentivise efficiency in operating costs and minimisation of overheads, supporting UK defence sector competitiveness, both at home and in export markets.
The proposals set out in this White Paper will deliver the real reform that our acquisition system needs to provide the support that our front-line forces deserve, to maximise the benefit of our £160 billion, 10-year defence equipment programme, and to deliver value for money for taxpayer. I commend the Statement to the House”.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the Minister has had the sombre duty of paying tribute to five members of our Armed Forces who have lost their lives while serving our country, and expressing condolences to their families and friends. We associate ourselves fully with the Minister’s words. Recent events have reminded us that it is not just when they are in action overseas that the lives of members of our Armed Forces can be at risk.
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. On these Benches we support defence procurement reform. We are open-minded about how this is achieved and we welcome a full and thorough examination of all possible options and a genuine comparison between the two options of the GOCO model and DE&S-plus. It is important that we should be able to move forward on this issue on a bipartisan basis. I have a number of questions and points to raise to which I would be grateful for a response either today or later.
Some argue that the GOCO principle is not entirely new, as the Atomic Weapons Establishment functions under this arrangement. Will the assessment of the GOCO model and DE&S-plus include an evaluation of the performance of the Atomic Weapons Establishment and the extent to which it has or has not performed better under the current structure?
The Government’s case for the GOCO appears in considerable part to be based on the view that the existing organisational structure of DE&S within the Civil Service acts as a deterrent to attracting some of the kind of people and expertise required because of the need to keep within Civil Service pay structures and cultures. There is, in the Government’s view, a need for behavioural change, and bringing in a few people from outside is insufficient. If that is the case, are the Government saying that it would not be possible to create the pay and incentive arrangements felt to be needed in respect of the DE&S without going down the path of a GOCO as envisaged in the Statement today?
If the issue is behavioural change then, in more specific terms, what is the change or changes that the Government wish to see, and how quickly do the Government believe that such changes could be achieved, since the staff working in the GOCO will come almost exclusively from staff transferred from the present DE&S with their existing conditions? Will the organisation running the GOCO be able to make decisions on staffing levels and other resources independently of the Secretary of State?
Obviously, the Government will have been sounding out outside organisations which might be interested in taking over the procurement operation. It may well be that no one company will have all the necessary skills or expertise to take over the procurement function and we may end up with a single consortium of companies. If that is the case, the Government will need to satisfy themselves that any consortium will not, in effect, become a monopoly provider of the service due to alternative individual companies or consortia with the same levels of knowledge and expertise not being available when the contract comes up again for tender. How do the Government intend to ensure that when the contract comes up for renewal, there will be competition? Can the Minister say how long it is envisaged that a contract to run the GOCO will last, and give the criteria for judging whether the contract has been successful?
There is a potential danger of the current expertise and knowledge within the military and civilian personnel of the Ministry of Defence on equipment issues, including cutting-edge equipment and technology, being diminished if a GOCO is established to take over the procurement function, with that knowledge resting more and more within the private sector. Would this mean that HMG’s sovereign ability to ensure the provision of battle-winning equipment could be diminished?
Will military personnel be seconded to work for a period in the GOCO, and will the current arrangements under which some Ministry of Defence staff work alongside private defence contractors, particularly on cutting-edge projects, continue under a GOCO? If a GOCO is established on the basis set out in the Statement and the White Paper, it does not look as though any meaningful risk will transfer away from the Ministry of Defence and thus the taxpayer. If I have misunderstood what is being proposed under the GOCO arrangement, perhaps the Minister could give some examples of the kind of risks that would be transferred from the public sector to the private sector.
What is anticipated would be the basis of a contract to take over the running of the GOCO? Would it be fixed-fee or performance-based? If the Government do not think too much of the performance or culture of the existing DE&S organisation and feel that there is a need for change, who is there in the Ministry of Defence who would be deemed competent to negotiate and supervise a contract with potential bidders that was in the taxpayer’s interests? Who will share the benefits of any improved efficiency in defence procurement as a result of the GOCO? Under the proposed GOCO, would Ministers have any powers to intervene in a contract negotiation or specific procurement decision?
Will the organisation running the GOCO have full knowledge of the UK’s defence equipment capability? If so, will this not be a potential security risk, and have any concerns on this issue been raised by the US and other allies? Would a GOCO model cover the whole of the equipment programme, including the nuclear deterrent? Would there be any requirement on a private company or consortium running a GOCO to ensure that defence manufacturers and suppliers in this country are given the sort of priority needed to ensure that a sovereign capability supporting a UK defence industrial strategy is retained?
Can the Minister give any assurances that a GOCO as envisaged in the Statement and the White Paper would not lead to a run-down in defence jobs in this country? Can he also give assurances that any changes made to the present DE&S organisation will be the subject of full and proper consultation with the staff and their trade union representatives, and that the rights of all existing staff will be protected? One would have thought that the staff and their representatives would also have a valuable input to make on the assessment of the options being considered.
I also ask the Minister for an assurance that the chosen model of procurement management will not lead to any diminution in accountability to Parliament for decision-making and that oversight and scrutiny of multibillion-pound contracts will not be hampered but enhanced. Can he also give an assurance that, at the very least, the same amount of information that is currently in the public domain in relation to the activities and working of DE&S will remain so under any different model of procurement management? We do not want to find that less information is in the public domain on grounds of commercial confidentiality.
We recognise the need for reform of defence procurement. We expect the Government to be open about the findings of the assessments that they will be undertaking on the chosen model for the future and that the two value-for-money assessments will be published and open to full scrutiny, including in this House, before a final decision is made. That is not only important for the need to ensure value for money but, equally significantly, is crucial to ensure that we get right the arrangements for supporting and equipping our Armed Forces who are serving, or ready to serve, on the front line on our behalf.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the general support given by Her Majesty’s Opposition for our defence procurement reform. We also want to approach this in a non-partisan way. There is general acceptance, including by the Opposition, of the problems in defence acquisition. Where we differ is perhaps in how we solve those problems. We have proposed a GOCO solution because we believe that incentivisation, the hard contract and the freedoms that GOCO would offer are the right way to deliver sustained improvement. Allowing the private sector, too, not only to share its expertise but to be held accountable for delivery will, we believe, deliver far greater effect than a wholly public sector set-up. We are testing that right now. This is very much the assessment phase—a decision will be made next year—and we are in listening and learning mode. There are a lot of experts in this House who know a great deal about this subject. We are very keen to hear any suggestions they may have and we are open to all their views.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. I was not able to write quickly enough to be able to answer them all but I will write to him and make sure that copies are also sent to noble Lords who ask questions afterwards. The first question was about the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is a GOCO organisation, established to deliver a nuclear weapons capability for the UK nuclear deterrent programme. AWE Management Ltd is currently performing at or under its targeted cost and budget and has successfully shifted the organisation’s culture towards a more commercially focused one. Since transformation, AWE has successfully delivered efficiencies while increasing its salaries, and has allowed access to the necessary calibre of talent from the nuclear markets. We recognise that the AWE model may not entirely map to DE&S needs but it is a useful model against which to test our thinking.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions about the workforce. The aim is to create an environment which supports more effective working at all levels across and between the interfaces of the new DE&S organisation and the wider department where our staff are more empowered and better able to carry out their jobs. This would allow DE&S better to support the Armed Forces and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer in a much more rewarding place to work. There would be more significant management freedom to run the organisation, increased opportunity to grow talent, develop the skills and the culture, and have the freedom and flexibility of management practices. The noble Lord asked about the role of military staff within the organisation. As is the case today, specialist military skills or expertise would be required in addition to recent operational experience to influence capability decision-making, delivery into service and support, and military staff would be seconded to the new organisation.
The noble Lord asked about the trade union position. We have been engaging with trade unions on our proposals throughout. Clearly, there are many questions that our workforce will wish to have answered as we develop both options through the assessment phase. But we would expect our workforce, and therefore the trade unions, to support our attempts to improve the environment in which our staff work, including the opportunity to improve skills, tools and processes. I have a lot of other information relating to the workforce on which I can perhaps write to the noble Lord. He asked how quickly we were planning to move. Taking the 2009 Gray report as a basis for change, we tested the thesis that the change we seek and the problems we are trying to solve could be made only by committing to a fundamental shift in approach. That detailed analysis led us to the two options: the GOCO model and DE&S plus. We have thoroughly analysed the business and the possible solutions and looked at the scope and capabilities of the organisation and what it is that we want. Now we need to assess who is out there who could actually deliver the proposition. That means running a competition which takes time, but we expect to make a decision next summer. I make no apology that it has taken some time. This is important, and it is important that we get it right.
The noble Lord said that we must be careful that we do not enter into a monopoly. I quite agree with him. We are in an assessment phase and a decision will be made next year. He asked about risks. Risks will be managed through the commercial contract. The MoD is taking forward plans to develop a customer construct that will be able to provide robust contract management. As with any major change programme, there are risks to its successful delivery. We will manage and mitigate these as the noble Lord would expect. The contract will be constructed with a number of break points, allowing the department to recompete the contract, or if necessary bring DE&S back in-house. A robust contract will be put in place between the GOCO provider and the MoD. The MoD governor function will monitor performance against the contract, and key performance indicators will be defined in the GOCO contract, covering the full spectrum of delivery, procurement, support, logistics and other services. Audits will be conducted as necessary to provide assurance that defence needs are being met.
I have done my best to answer as many of the noble Lord questions as possible but, as I said earlier, I will write to him on all the other ones.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, we on these Benches associate ourselves with the condolences and tributes from the Minister. I will be more direct and ask just one question, and it may be easier to give just one answer. I am worried about the GOCO proposals, as are many people, but I believe that the situation appertaining to procurement in the MoD cannot continue as it is and that something must change. GOCO seems to be the preferred solution and gives us many worries that were expounded during the debate on the Queen’s Speech. If GOCO proceeds, the question I want to focus on is the identity of the contractor—the CO part of GOCO. From Written Answers received from my noble friend the Minister, there is no reason why this contractor may not be a foreign company. We are apparently reassured that the foreign company’s UK arm will have a Chinese wall between it and its US or European parent company. With the experience in this country of industries such as water being sold to foreign companies and how they then control those companies, is the Minister not being over-optimistic in thinking that, if there were secrets in the UK arm of these overseas companies, those secrets would not somehow go—this sounds like the last question—to those overseas companies?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend and I have had a number of discussions about GOCO and I am well aware of his concerns. I look forward to continuing discussions in the future and to hearing any positive suggestions that he has. I agree that something has to change. We cannot carry on with the existing situation.
The noble Lord asked me about national security protection, a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which I should have answered. Our national security interests are a primary responsibility of the Government. The better delivery of our acquisition support needs will be of real benefit. We will ensure that DE&S will be suitably constructed to ensure the protection of UK national interests. In order to safeguard UK national security, the contracting entity and the operating company must be UK registered and the overwhelming majority of the contract shall be performed in the United Kingdom. In addition, there will be restrictions on passing information to parent companies. Potential contracting entities will need to satisfy the Ministry of Defence that they can meet the national security restrictions, which will include a number of areas where only UK nationals can have access to the information.
I hope that reassures my noble friend. I have several other pages of information on this issue. I do not want to labour the House with it but I am quite happy to discuss it with my noble friend in private.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I join in the tributes paid and the condolences offered to the servicemen and servicewomen who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country.
I welcome the publication of the White Paper, not least because it addresses in an open and discussive fashion a problem which, let us be honest, has bedevilled Government after Government of both political persuasions, although I suppose we must say now “all” political persuasions. I have one specific question only. It is not about the structure of the GOCO proposals, on which I am open minded, but about the underlying analysis. In doing so, I declare my interests, as registered, in the parliamentary, private and academic spheres.
The question is this: to what extent was the Government’s motivation based on the recognition that one of the key problems in procurement, giving rise to over-costs and over-runs in time, is the rapidity of cyclical innovation in cyber-related equipment? Put simply, 50 years ago, when we were dealing with the purchase of a platform, whether an armoured vehicle, an aeroplane or a battleship, the cycle of innovation of transformative and new products was 10, 15, 20 or 30 years. Now we are more concerned with what is on those platforms, not only the kinetics but the communication and the real-time analysis of situational awareness, and the cycle of innovation in that cyber-related procurement is something like 14 months. In other words, there is a cycle which occurs three times during the period of the normal procurement process. That on its own will not be solved by structural, managerial or contractual reformation. It would be interesting to know to what extent that was considered in the background thinking to the Government’s proposals.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot answer that question relating to cyber, although I am sure that it was a contributory factor.
We have set out clearly in the White Paper the reasons for how we got here. The noble Lord and his colleagues who have had responsibility for procurement in the past are well aware of the problems. He makes a good point about cyber and the complexities and cost of it now. It is very relevant to the subject.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I encourage noble Lords to keep their questions brief. We have only 20 minutes and quite a few people want to speak.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I very much welcome my noble friend’s Statement. GOCO will certainly introduce commercial disciplines and the incentives that can be provided by the private sector.
I have two questions for him. How long does he think these contracts will run for? How many years are we talking about? Will a GOCO address the question of the affordability of major projects? As we know, in the past we have seen enormous amounts of equipment ordered, particularly by the previous Government, although clearly there was not any money to pay for it. Will this introduction of a GOCO improve that situation in the future?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the answer to my noble friend’s first question is nine years. The answer to his second question is yes. We are determined. We feel that the discipline that will be brought in by a GOCO will make everything much more affordable and we will not have the kind of fantasy world that defence procurement has had in the past.
Lord Hutton
My Lords, like my noble friend, I warmly welcome the thinking behind the White Paper that has been published today and the way in which the Minister introduced it. We want to reach a bipartisan approach because these are problems that all Governments have shared and wrestled with.
I do not believe, however, that all the problems can be laid at the door of DE&S. A great deal of the sad and sorry history of defence procurement is as much to do with decision-making in the MoD as it is with the execution of those decisions. I am pleased that Ministers have now addressed the MoD decision-making part of this problem and it is appropriate that we now look at the DE&S part. I welcome what the Government have announced today.
I have two specific questions for the Minister and I should be grateful if he could respond to them. First, what proportion of the defence budget is it envisaged will initially be given either to a GOCO or to the reformed DE&S organisation? Are the Government planning a big bang, with all of the defence budget going in one go, or are they planning to release chunks of it at a time? Secondly, will the Minister specifically address the point about the United States Government? There have been reports in the press recently that the US Government have entered their objections to the process, particularly in regard to establishing a GOCO. Can he confirm whether any such representations have been made to Her Majesty’s Government by the US Government?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. I have read his excellent, well thought-through letter to the Economist. I share the noble Lord’s desire that this important subject should be above politics. The Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Procurement Minister are keen to brief Peers, individually or as a group, and to hear any suggestions, ideas or criticisms that anyone has. We want to get this right and, as the noble Lord said, it is above politics.
We have not yet decided the proportion of the defence budget but I will get back to the noble Lord when we have. As to the question about the United States, I have seen correspondence with our counterparts in Washington. There is a small amount of concern but they are approaching this issue in a positive way. They think that they could learn a lot from us. We will be the first country to do this. The noble Lord will be well aware of what happened down at Aldermaston. The United States feels that it has a lot to learn and has approached relations with us constructively. Again, I am quite happy to discuss outside the Chamber what the Americans have raised. On the whole, they have been very positive.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and thank him and his officials for replying to some of the detailed questions that I raised in the Queen’s Speech debate. I had two specific questions for my noble friend. I asked what restrictions would be placed on the GOCO’s freedom to operate, specifically between buying off the shelf and sustaining our national strategic capabilities. The reply that I received is:
“As now, MOD and HMT will continue to approve procurement business cases. As part of this, MOD will assess and agree the proposed procurement strategy, which will enable the department to take issues such as these into account”.
If the MoD and HMT are going to second-guess what the GOCO is doing all the time, it is difficult to discern what freedoms the GOCO will actually have. Indeed, that is the very fundamental point of the GOCO.
Secondly, I asked what cognisance the GOCO would take of regional employment issues and the need to encourage SMEs, rather than support our major national contractors. The reply was:
“We have no reason to believe a GOCO would need to move the new organisation to different sites so it is unlikely to have any major impact on regional employment”.
With respect, I must say that that was not my question. I was not suggesting that the sites of the GOCO organisation or operation would have to be moved. I was asking whether the GOCO would be able to take into account the regional employment situations that arise in defence procurement. Will it have that flexibility?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the outstanding questions that he asked during the Queen’s Speech debate. There were quite a lot of them and I was not able to answer them at the time or we would have been here even later than we were. However, I took them back to the department and the officials there were impressed by the depth of the questions. I thought it might be helpful to the House to make copies of the questions and the answers, so I have brought along copies which I am happy to distribute afterwards to any noble Lord because my noble friend’s questions were spot-on. I hope that, apart from the one question that was not properly answered, we have made a big effort to answer all the other questions accurately.
Taking my noble friend’s second question about regional employment issues first, the proposal will not address any specific issues of regional employment policy. The policy on this, as with other matters, will remain with central government and the Ministry of Defence.
As for second-guessing the GOCO, my noble friend will be aware that we will need to make decisions about what the Armed Forces need and then the GOCO will see them through.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Minister and I particularly welcome the bipartisan way in which he approached it. Does the Minister agree, however, that there is an internal tension in defence procurement because of the very length of time that any procurement takes? The aircraft carriers, for example, have been at the top of the agenda for about the past 14 years, so inevitably these issues go from one Government to another. However, the tension is between maintaining some competition in defence procurement and, at the same time, recognising the importance of protecting the jobs and skills that we wish to secure for the future.
I disagree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said about commercial discipline in the private sector. That may at times be important, but when the private sector concerned is a monopoly private sector, that rather undercuts the argument.
The Minister referred to briefings that he proposes to hold on this issue. Will those briefings be comprehensive in the way that we address this issue? If so, some of the very important issues that have arisen today can be treated not in the rather eclectic way that we are bound to see when we have this sort of discussion, but methodically, so that those of us who have some experience in this field can make a real contribution to the debate?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, on the last point, I arranged a briefing—I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was there—at which the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology briefed noble Lords. He was hugely impressed by the depth of experience on all sides. He came to see me afterwards and asked if it would be possible to brief either individually or as a group. He is very keen to hear any suggestions and observations, and is aware that I am looking at noble Lords who have had huge responsibilities on this very subject in the past and know a great deal about it—a great deal more than I do. We are in the assessment phase. We are listening and learning and want to hear any suggestions. No decision will be made until next summer, so there is still plenty of time to hear what any noble Lord tells us.
Picking up on what the noble Baroness said, we obviously want to keep skills as far as possible and we feel that the GOCO would do that. We feel that of all the disciplines that it would bring to this, it would help to cut down the time taken for procurement. Taking the carriers as an example, with all the disciplines that it could bring, and being able to employ higher-paid people, it may be able to do things quicker. I do not want to take anything away from what DE&S has done—the noble Lord mentioned that—and I pay tribute to all the very hard-working civil servants and members of the Armed Forces who have worked there. However, they are constrained by Civil Service restrictions and we need to get more discipline and more incentive to get equipment for the Armed Forces quicker and more efficiently.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said, we are proposing a GOCO that may or may not turn out to be a monopoly. If it did turn out to be a monopoly, does my noble friend not agree that you are better off with a private sector monopoly than with a Civil Service one? Also, the prospect of competition being introduced after nine years will always be there, whatever happens to that GOCO.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we are talking about two things. We are talking about the GOCO but also a single-source regulation situation. We feel that the disciplines that we would place on the GOCO would ensure that there is not a monopoly.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, could I add to my previous contribution lest noble Lords were confused by it? The innovation cycle of 14 months for digitally related equipment over a contract that may last, in the case of aircraft carriers, up to 14 years, means the constant demand for respecification of the initial contract to keep up with the latest and best. That, in my view, has contributed more than anything else to overruns and overcosts because they are a natural product of continual respecification.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. This is an area that the GOCO will have to struggle with—or if it is not GOCO, Civil Service-plus. I take on board everything the noble Lord said.
Care Bill [HL]
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) HEE has a responsibility to ensure that its duties under this section are also extended to the Local Education and Training Boards.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I wish to make sure that the House is aware of my interest as chair of a foundation trust and as a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections. This group concerns the objectives and priorities established for Health Education England in Clause 87 and that of the LETBs as set out in Clauses 90 to 93. My Amendments 22, 52 and Clause 90 stand part really go to the heart of the relationship between HEE and the LETBs. Past experience indicates that unless one has strong leadership at a national level on workforce issues, one can find that decisions are taken locally, without national consequences being thought through. In the past this has led to an unfortunate reduction in training commissions despite national exhortations not to do so. I want to avoid that happening with Health Education England. I appreciate that under Clause 90, LETBs are appointed by HEE and, I suppose, exercise functions on behalf of HEE. However, I would like to see it explicitly stated in the clause that LETBs will come under the firm direction of Health Education England.
I have to acknowledge that I have been taken to task for my amendments by the Foundation Trust Network for undermining local provider autonomy. I stand corrected. I sympathise, and understand that LETBs must have room to breathe and innovate. However, ultimately, the integrity of a national strategy must be maintained. I hope that the noble Earl’s response on this and, on the ability of HEE to amend the training plans of LETBs if they are considered to fall short, will be positive.
I turn to Clause 92 and my Amendment 47 on the co-operation required between LETBs and local providers. The clause ensures that commissioners must require providers to co-operate with the LETB in planning the provision of, and in providing, the education and training for healthcare workers. Who could disagree with the need for NHS trusts, foundation trusts and other providers to be called to co-operate with the LETBs. But why is this being done through the commissioning process?
I have frequently listened to Ministers, when asked to intervene in the NHS, say that it is a matter for commissioners. I do not want to argue the ideology of commissioning and providing, but I wonder whether that is the right approach in this case. If one thinks of the challenges facing clinical commissioning groups, with small staffs and little experience, can it be expected that they can devote time to ensuring that providers co-operate with each other and the LETBs over education and training? Realistically, I suspect they will have very little time indeed. Therefore, as a minimum the HEE should be required to give guidance on how commissioners are to undertake that responsibility. More substantively, why not lay a direct requirement in the Bill on NHS foundation trusts and trusts on the face of the Bill to co-operate with the LETBs? That would be a signal of intent that NHS bodies could not ignore. I hope the noble Earl might be prepared to give that some consideration.
My third and fourth amendments in the group concern the organisations that LETBs must involve in preparing their education and training plan as set out in Clause 93(4). Overall, this clause is welcome, but it could be improved by my Amendment 49, which adds local authorities to the list. I am sure that the noble Earl will argue that this is covered by Clause 93(4)(c), specifying that health and well-being boards must be involved. However, the importance of these plans goes wider than that. I am sure that the local authority in general in the area of the LETB would have much to offer.
Similarly, Amendment 51 seeks to have patients and carers involved. With all the debate about whether professionals trained to work in the health service are really ready to give clinical care—I go back to the debate we had recently about healthcare support workers—surely patients should have a place round the table, where decisions that have a crucial bearing on patient outcomes are made. Very similar amendments and arguments can be made in support of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which I support. However, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to come back positively on the need of patients or carers to have a place and be involved when the training plans of the LETB are being considered. I beg to move.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendments, which would ensure that local authorities and, in particular, patients and carers can be represented on the LETBs. I have three amendments in the group. Amendment 38 adds to the list of bodies from whom LETBs need to seek advice—namely, the local university medical and nursing schools. I know it is hardly likely that their advice will not be sought since they are so intimately involved in delivering educational programmes, but in case that message is not clear, we need to have it clarified somewhere in the Bill. I recognise that there has not always been unlimited delight felt by the trusts about the way the universities, particularly the nursing schools, have provided education suiting their products to the trusts’ needs. Nevertheless, it would be clearly wrong to ignore them.
Amendment 41 draws attention to the need to include postgraduate deans in the local education and training boards’ activities. It surprises me, to say the least, that the deans are not mentioned at all in the Bill, despite the fact that they are absolutely crucial to the oversight of education and training. I am sure they will be involved but we must have the comfort of knowing that their crucial role is acknowledged by seeing them clearly mentioned in the Bill.
Amendment 50 makes it a requirement for LETBs to include in their list of bodies from whom they need to take advice, the local universities in their patch. It is not enough to include these bodies in the catch-all phrase of subsection (4)(e),
“such other persons as the LETB considers appropriate”.
The medical schools need to be named in that list.
Baroness Pitkeathley
I speak in support of Amendment 51 on the patient and carer voice. I know that there is sometimes resistance to patient and carer representatives on bodies such as this. One often hears professionals say, “They only speak from their own experience”. Yes, they do speak from their own experience—and that is actually the powerful and most informative bit. That is not to say that patients and carers can only speak from their own personal experience; they speak from the wider experience too of other patients and carers with whom they are in contact. That is the most important voice and we should give it a hearing, because very often it is a way of approaching a situation entirely differently from the way in which the professionals would come at it. I am sure that there is a great deal that most professionals, either trained or in the process of being trained, could learn from that.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I wish to say a word about these issues. There is a danger, when we are setting up on the face of the Bill, the component parts of something like the LETB boards. As I understand it, the principle was that the majority of members of the board are local providers. That seems sensible because clearly they are the people who are going to have the knowledge and will inform the LETBs. Simply adding new members, each with a representative function, does not really aid the ability of a board to make decisions. It can become less effective and efficient, purely due to the numbers of people around the table.
There are many groups of workers and, indeed, patients who have got a case, but there are other ways of involving them. I very much accept what the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said about having due regard to universities and deans of medical schools. I am happy about the idea that one should have regard to advice that has been given, but I am not sure about having specific representatives that HEE decides are good for a local area on the board. Some areas want to do it differently. To me, that is fine. The size of the LETBs varies enormously; they can be the size of the whole of the north-west and the whole of the south-west, yet Wessex and Thames Valley are separate. These are to be local education and training boards; they need the freedom and flexibility to reflect the local area. Although I understand that people are anxious to ensure that the LETBs are efficient and represent local areas, views and constituent parts, it should be left to their flexibility and judgment.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I support Amendments 38 and 41 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. I slightly disagree, which is difficult to do, with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. In the new world, postgraduate deans are responsible not just for medical education, but for the whole of health education. If Health Education England is to be a body that influences education and training from the beginning to the end—we will come to another amendment relating to continuous professional development—postgraduate deans and deans of medical and nursing schools are crucial. If they are not to be represented on the local education and training boards, Health Education England cannot, through its committee, influence any of the innovations in education and training. That would be wrong.
There are examples where postgraduate deans and deans of medical and nursing schools are represented on education and training boards and they work fantastically well. I cannot see any reason why postgraduate deans and deans of nursing and medical schools could not be represented on local education and training boards, no matter what their size. I support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, this is a really useful short debate. I begin by saying that members of the Committee should not feel anxious; I feel that there is a degree of anxiety which needs to be allayed.
Local health providers and their clinical leaders have told us that they are well placed to understand the changing shape of services and the way in which their workforce must respond to deliver high-quality services to patients. They are able to link workforce planning to service and financial planning, something that has not always been done well in the past and which has contributed to failings in workforce planning.
Following consultation, we have chosen to give local education and training boards a statutory basis as committees of Health Education England. But the policy intent, reflected in the Bill, is that they are not mere local delivery arms of a national body. Rather, they are a key part of decentralising power, so for the first time, the providers of health services will have clear responsibility and accountability for the planning, commissioning and quality management of education and training for their workforce.
The mandate to the Health Education England special health authority includes a clear objective to support more autonomous local decision-making on behalf of local communities. A critical measure of the success of Health Education England at national level will be the effectiveness with which its engagement with the LETBs and employers results in greater responsibility and accountability for workforce development being taken by employers at local level.
At the same time, with localism comes accountability. HEE will need to hold LETBs to account for their investment in education and training and delivery against key priorities. Of course, there needs to be co-ordination in the approach to planning and delivering education and training. That is why the Government, and the vast majority of stakeholders, believe that we have got the balance right in establishing Health Education England as a national leadership organisation for education and training, with local providers securing greater autonomy and accountability through the LETBs. There will always be national level priorities and objectives for workforce development and, rightly, Ministers want reassurance through Health Education England that they are being addressed, but the policy intent is to do that in a way that strikes a balance between the national and the more local perspectives.
Amendment 22 is intended to ensure that duties under Clause 86 extend to the LETBs. I appreciated the balanced comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and wholeheartedly agree that local education and training boards, given a statutory basis as committees of Health Education England, should support Health Education England in the delivery of key national duties, including those in Clause 86. As commissioners of education and training, Health Education England and the LETBs will work with education partners, service providers and professional regulators to ensure that the education and training that is provided in education institutions and in health service settings continually improves and delivers health professionals who are fit for purpose and who meet the needs of employers, patients and service users.
We have already discussed the importance of research and the role that local education and training boards can play in supporting the diffusion of research and innovation. By promoting the NHS constitution through its workforce planning and education and training activities, HEE and the LETBs will help to ensure that staff develop the correct values and behaviours to practise in the NHS and the public health system.
Amendment 47 would amend Clause 92 to place an obligation on Health Education England to provide guidance on how it will ensure that providers of health services co-operate with local education and training boards. Clause 92 builds on an existing duty introduced by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which places a legal obligation on commissioners to make arrangements with providers to secure their co-operation with the Secretary of State on education and training. The purpose of that duty is to ensure co-operation with the local education and training board to support workforce planning activities, the provision of workforce information and the delivery of education and training to healthcare workers. That is an important step in ensuring that the system is well integrated and that all providers play their part in supporting essential education and training activity.
To emphasise that, and in answer to a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, Clause 92 provides that regulations,
“must require specified commissioners ... to include in the arrangements under the National Health Service Act 2006 ... terms to ensure that”,
providers co-operate with the LETB.
The Government have already put in place measures to deliver the duty in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which came into effect on 1 April 2013, by amending the commissioning contracts and supporting regulations for the delivery of services, so that they now require co-operation on education and training.
It will be the regulations rather than any guidance which will set out how the duty is to be implemented. The level of co-operation, the information requested and the obligations required may vary over time. It is therefore more appropriate to enable this level of administrative and procedural detail to be set by regulations rather than in the Bill.
Turning next to Amendments 38, 41 and 50, as we have previously discussed, it is important that Health Education England and the LETBs have access to people with expertise and knowledge on education and training matters. The postgraduate deans have great knowledge and expertise and, through the local education and training boards, they are now an integral part of the new system, working alongside other colleagues to strengthen the multidisciplinary approach to planning and developing the workforce. It is important to remember here that Health Education England and the LETBs have responsibility for the education and training of all the professions. Although medical training is a very important element of their functions, the LETBs have a much broader focus.
Lord Turnberg
The problem is that I suspect there to be a conflict. There is a desire to devolve responsibility for education to local education and training boards, which are dominated, of course quite reasonably, by local providers. Their desire is to see a trained workforce in the right numbers, and they will be very interested in workforce planning. There is also a drive at the centre to maintain standards across the country, and so there is tension between the two. The noble Earl set out a number of provisions which will help. The amendments we put down were meant to strengthen that capacity in order for the LETBs to inspire confidence that they fully take account of educational standards and all that sort of thing, as well as the need to provide numbers of doctors, nurses, trainees and everything else.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I would rather have a creative tension than a disconnect. If we get this right the tension will be there but it will be mutually reinforcing. You will have accountabilities running in both directions, essentially, from the national to the local and from the local to the national. In the past this has been a notoriously difficult area to get right. We hope and believe that the structure we are putting in place, in which the LETBs are committees of the national body but which have their own autonomy to a certain degree, will ensure that the tension that the noble Lord referred to really is creative, rather than the reverse.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that was a very useful exchange. I do not disagree with this architecture, in which national leadership comes from HEE but considerable autonomy is given to LETBs. When looking back at the history of the NHS I remain concerned, as does my noble friend, about failure to implement national strategies in relation to the workforce. This is because decisions are being taken locally which do not fit into the national strategy, particularly over training commissions. This afternoon the noble Earl said that HEE has enough powers to intervene if that were to happen. I think the question is whether HEE has enough national leadership and confidence to actually ensure that a national strategy is implemented. Of course, we will have to see.
On membership, I note the noble Earl’s statement about the number of different professional groups that will have to be covered by LETBs, which is why postgraduate deans are not listed on the face of the Bill. I think that my noble friend really was persuasive on this point. Doctors may not be the only profession, but they are a very important profession. I would have thought it quite extraordinary not to have a postgraduate dean among those around the table of the LETB. Equally, I do not think that the patient advisory forum is sufficient at national level. Considering the NHS record over the last few years, one of the areas causing most concern has been whether trained staff are fit for purpose when it comes to clinical areas. To have a representative of a patient or carer around the table at a LETB would have been very important. However, this has been a good debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Emerton
“Mandatory training for health and care support workers
(1) HEE must develop a mandatory training curriculum for health and care support workers who are delivering direct care to service users.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a health or care support worker shall be an individual who works in support of health or care professionals and delivers direct care to service users.
(3) In setting the training curriculum set out in subsection (1), HEE must seek to ensure that standards and competencies are developed in conjunction with the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other relevant organisations.
(4) Providers of health or care services must be responsible for ensuring that all health care support workers have completed the mandatory training curriculum in subsection (1).”
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, in her absence I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for introducing the debate earlier this afternoon on the regulation of healthcare support workers, which opened the discussion leading to the two amendments that are down here. The first is in my name and the second in that of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who unfortunately is unable to be with us. We wish him a speedy recovery.
I want to make one or two points by way of introduction. First, I would be remiss not to say that the Royal College of Nursing has long called for the mandatory registration and regulation of healthcare support workers. The RCN believes that it is an important part of the registration and regulation process because it has done a tremendous amount of work in talking to both registered nurses and healthcare support workers. It feels that this should be the way forward in the interests of patient safety. However, disappointed as they have been that we could not have regulation, they have moved on and are sympathetic to the amendments that we have laid down.
Mention was made of the disappearance from this setting of enrolled nurses. I went back to look at the case that was made for that disappearance and the end of enrolled nurse training. It happened because the enrolled nurses were being abused and misused by being left in charge of wards and being required to undertake tasks for which they had not been trained or were not being supervised. I have to say that the various skills currently being used by healthcare support workers far exceeds the definition of basic skills. They are doing things that might suggest that they are being abused and misused. I am sure that the House will agree that we need to do something about the situation. The Francis report requested that we look at the registration of support workers.
The question of standards leads into the amendments that we have put down. When a healthcare support worker is under the direction of a registered nurse, that nurse is working to care standards that have been determined by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. It seems sensible that the skills for care should be linked to care standards so that the registered nurse who delegates to the support worker can understand to which standards that support worker has been trained as well as the level of understanding that that support worker should have. I think that I used this example before in a debate on the health Bill, but instead of them just being taught how to carry out a skill such as taking a blood pressure, they should also understand the side effects of a raised or lowered blood pressure and what that means in terms of reporting it to the person who has delegated the task.
That brings me to the amendments we have tabled. If I may, I will move straight to Amendment 23A, which is a more succinct qualification of our first amendment and brings in all the points. It is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, and is supported by me and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The first point of the proposed new clause is that:
“Any individual working directly with patients or clients must be certified to have completed training in basic standards”.
In other words, they must go through training which equips them to have a certificate of qualification.
Secondly:
“The standards, in subsection (1), will be published by Nursing and Midwifery Council and approved by HEE”.
There should be some agreement between the NMC, which is the regulatory body, and Health Education England on subscribing to that.
Thirdly, the amendment states:
“Employers must retain a register”.
Once the support worker has been through the agreed LETB training, which would be delegated to a college of further education, they would reach the basic standard and be on a register and hold a certificate. The additional point in Amendment 23A is that it would be,
“an offence for any employer to employ an individual to work directly with patients or clients who is not registered as holding a certificate of training in basic standards”.
That would get over the point that people could go from one place to another without a valid certificate. We are interested to know how the Minister will respond to the amendment’s proposals on basic training certification in place of registration and regulation. I beg to move.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I have added my name to both these amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, and I strongly support the principles behind both. The key issue here is that a training curriculum should be developed by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, as the amendment says. In a way—to pre-empt the Minister regarding what the Cavendish review might recommend—whatever the review recommends will have to be taken on board by whoever develops the curriculum. Although the Cavendish review is not defunct, the principles of this amendment are not based on what it might say. Presumably the review will focus on the necessity for training and the kind of training that support and healthcare workers should have. These amendments put a duty on Health Education England to make sure that a curriculum is developed.
The other important point is that the training should be mandatory—not the training curriculum but the training—and the employers must ensure that they employ only those who, having been trained, hold a certificate showing that they have completed it. It is just the same as I would have to do when seeking employment at a hospital. I would have to produce a degree certificate from a university proving that I have been trained as a doctor before they will employ me. It would be an offence to do otherwise. The amendment does not provide for a penalty but that issue will have to be addressed. Although “register” might be the wrong word, the implication is that the employer should be obliged to keep a list of all the healthcare support workers in its employment who have completed the mandatory training and hold a certificate.
The completion of training and the holding of a certificate are the key issues. As nobody can be employed unless they have done that, the care for patients will be safer. The process will define the competencies of these people. It will define what further development they have to go through professionally to be able to do other tasks. It will also make the life of the supervisor easier as they will know what competencies these people have and they will not delegate to them tasks which are beyond their competencies. In that respect, these amendments fulfil all the requirements that the Francis report and several other reports have alluded to—the need to make sure that we have a fully trained and competent workforce which delivers front-line healthcare. I hope that the noble Earl takes the amendments in that spirit.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I want to add quickly to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. I very much support what they said. What I can add over and above that is that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Willis, Amendment 23A, refers to,
“working directly with patients or clients”,
so it works not only in a health context but in a care context.
I will declare my mother—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, did his—as an interest. She is a lady who I visit regularly and is well over 90. Somebody comes to see her in her home every day—for the most part they are very nice young women—but I have no idea where they come from or what training they have. Amendment 23A would give me confidence that they have been trained and are certificated. Furthermore, these people tend to be quite a mobile population. If their certificates were to follow them from one establishment to the next, it would give the next establishment confidence that their training had been delivered to the right standard and that, all other things being equal, it is appropriate to employ them. That adds weight to Amendment 23A.
Lord Campbell-Savours
In speaking to a previous amendment, my noble friend Lord Hunt produced the explanation, which I am sure is true, that the reason that the Government are being tardy in the area of registration, which is obviously linked to training, is money. I argue that it is actually more costly not to act in this area than to ignore the problems that inevitably arise where there is an untrained workforce in an area where life and death are of critical importance. I do not exaggerate.
I think I have said before in health debates that I probably spend more time in bed on hospital wards than a large number of noble Lords put together. I have seen all kinds of things in hospitals over the years. You never say a word because you are grateful that you are there. You cannot complain. You watch. When you are an MP or a Member of this place you watch with a view to one day perhaps being able to raise what you have seen in a forum where people might actually listen and deal with it. There are many people who leave hospitals today and do not say a word. If they are cured and feel better, they feel grateful, even though they have seen things that they know are wrong.
I argue that many of the problems that arise on hospital wards arise as a result of insufficient training of healthcare assistants. They are in the low-paid sector of the social care and the acute hospital worlds. Many are on the national minimum wage. I will have to do a little more work on vetting and barring. I must admit that I do not know a lot about that. However, it seems to me that somehow people are allowed to enter into this sector who should not be there. I have seen them at work over the years.
I will not name the hospital, but I remember being on a ward where they needed to put strapping across my chest to do an ECG. It was around 1 am or 2 am. A healthcare assistant brought five machines to my bed. The first four machines all appeared not to work. The healthcare assistant then found a junior doctor on the ward. It turned out that the healthcare assistant just did not know how to use the ECG machines. They had not been trained properly. Think of the loss of time involved; of my frustration at 2 am, or whatever time it was—it is several years back now—at having to wait while all this was going on. There was also disruption for the patients in the beds to each side. They could not sleep because of the commotion. They knew that something was happening. The lights were off. There was only a light at the end of the ward where the nurses sit. The curtains were pulled around the bed. People kept going back and forth trying to find out why this piece of equipment was not working. In the end the problem was solved.
I think that there are many areas not only in social care but also in the private social care sector where little things that are of immense importance to patients could be dealt with if only the healthcare assistants available actually knew what they were doing and understood the importance of what they were doing to an individual patient. I shall refer to just a few of these areas. We have heard of food out of reach. I have seen that repeatedly in hospitals. I have seen it in other settings as well. An elderly person may be trying to get hold of something but they cannot communicate. They can only wait for someone to turn up. That person will not be a nurse, because the nurses are invariably sitting behind a desk trying to sort out the huge amount of paperwork that they have to deal with, or a doctor, because the doctors are running back and forth. Their problem may be the jug of water, the uncomfortable bed, the extra pillow, the extra blanket to keep warm, the dirt on the floor, the fact that they have not been cleaned or, if they manage to get to the toilet, the toilet not being properly cleaned. Many people might say that that is down to ward management, but the fact is that everyone on the ward is under pressure and very often it is not the nurse or the ward leader who is held responsible, but the poor young woman or man who is paid very little money who is taking the brunt of the anger of the patient. I do not think that that is good enough. I very strongly support these amendments as their purpose is to tackle the problem of the quality of care that is given by people who are hands-on in the ward.
We have talked about standards. I think that communication is extremely important. I have been on wards where the patient could not talk to the healthcare assistant because the healthcare assistant could not speak English. Can you imagine the frustration of the ill patient who cannot communicate with the healthcare worker because they do not understand what the patient is saying? I think that it is essential that language, and the ability to communicate through language, is a part of the training programme, to ensure that we are not bringing in, particularly from the banks and agencies, people who should not be on the ward. Some of them are, in my view, a danger to patients.
I think that there should certainly be training for healthcare assistants in nutritional requirements and why nutrition is important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, said, it is necessary not just to say to someone that this is what they must do; they must also understand why they are doing it and the significance of that to the patient. There should also be training in ward hygiene and training in the use of equipment. There should be training in how to take blood pressure. On one occasion I had my blood pressure taken by a person who did not know where the tube had to come out of the arm strap. I had to tell that person that it was on the wrong way. I have been in Parliament; of course I could tell them. What about the patients who do not know how to take blood pressure and may well get a wrong reading? That must change.
There should be training in the need to ensure that bedding is fresh and clean and on the turning of patients. Patient turning is very important on a hospital ward, as the Minister must know. However, it is very often the case that healthcare assistants have not been adequately trained in the way that a patient is turned on the bed. There must also be training in ward hygiene and in the standards required of a hospital loo. I have been in hospitals where the loos have been filthy. You would not think that there would be such filth in a hospital in the British National Health Service—things still in the bowl, floors not cleaned. I am not exaggerating. It is going on within the NHS.
A colleague and good friend in the House of Commons, Ann Clwyd, is doing some work on complaints, as the Minister will know. I go to her office regularly as we work in some of the same areas. I obviously cannot be involved in the work that she is doing on behalf of the Executive, but I do know about the speeches that she is giving in the House of Commons, involving personal testimony coming in from all over the country. She has read to the Commons from some of the letters she has received—not hundreds but, as the Minister will be aware, thousands—underlining all the complaints about the NHS. She has almost become the national clearing house for complaints. Many of those complaints are not about sophisticated areas of healthcare in hospitals. They are about very elementary things with which, with a little bit of thought, a healthcare assistant or a nurse could deal if only they had been properly trained in that area.
We know that the trade unions, particularly Unison, have made their voice very clear on this issue. They want training and registration. I understand that that is the position of the RCN. Most of the health service organisations want it and many healthcare assistants recognise the value of it. The Minister may not concede today but I plead with him to go back to his department and tell some of the civil servants who work with him on these matters that something has to change. I do not believe that this sort of laissez-faire attitude to this sector of healthcare is the answer. It is for Ministers in this Government to take action now and resolve the problem. There is a crisis and it has to be resolved.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, after that tour de force by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, there can be hardly anyone who does not believe that the training of healthcare assistants should be mandatory. Indeed, most of the public would be surprised to know that they are not trained or may at least get through without any training whatever.
I strongly support the amendments. They are a slightly less strict version of Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in that it focuses heavily on the mandatory nature of the training, and that is of course the basic requirement. It omits the need for statutory registration, but the case for mandatory training is incontrovertible; I cannot see anyone believing that it is not.
I hope that the Government are open to this proposal. It is a valuable step in the right direction, even if we cannot have registration at the moment. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be open at least to this proposal, which has such merit and such strong support from almost everyone; I do not know of anyone who argues against it. I do hope that he might see this sympathetically.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, my interest is as the parent of two adult disabled children who receive publicly funded care. I did not speak to the earlier amendment on the need for the regulation of health and social care assistants, but I strongly believe that some such staff are currently poorly served by the lack of an adequate professional framework. Many have poor pay and variable conditions of work, and perhaps poor protection for themselves. They also have varying access to training, supervision and education.
To give one example, a care assistant was employed to work with an autistic person without receiving any autism-specific training, even though it was specified in a support plan. One would hope for some basic mandatory training that also specified what future training might be needed to support specific people with specific needs. That seems to be common sense.
My noble friend asked clearly for mandatory training in basic standards of care, and that these candidates should then be registered as suitably trained. It is a neat solution to the problems that we are facing and it makes very good sense. I have one more example: in the interests of more integrated health and social care, care assistants are often required to support disabled or elderly people to access healthcare, but they are not very good at doing that. The confidential inquiry into the premature deaths of people with learning disabilities found that it was often the lack of persistence of people who were supposed to be supporting learning-disabled people that led to a failure in follow-through of their healthcare investigations and treatment.
I have a question about how personal assistants employed directly by people who are in receipt of direct payments would fare under such a system. Disabled people would need assurance that the personal assistant applying to work with them also had basic skills. One would hope that disabled people employing personal assistants would be reassured by the knowledge that someone had been registered as having a certificate of basic standards of care. I add my support to these very good amendments, particularly Amendment 23A.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I support these amendments on mandatory training. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has fought and fought for this. I served with her on the United Kingdom central council for nursing, midwifery and whatever it was. She pioneered the whole idea of improving nurse training, and it was very successful.
To follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, it is interesting that we now have two different parts to the arguments. One concerns the benefit to patients and the public, while the other concerns the benefit to the workers themselves, which I thought was a very interesting angle. It was Terry Leahy who said that he built his empire just by ensuring that all who worked for him felt good about themselves, and I thought that that was very interesting.
I am concerned about how the amendments are fashioned because I am not quite sure what we are talking about. Perhaps the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will clarify that for me. We talked about healthcare support workers, and I understand that such workers predominantly work in the NHS. However, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause refers to,
“a health or care support worker”.
I am not sure what a care support worker is, as opposed to a healthcare support worker. Does the support worker work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said, in people’s homes? Do they work in residential care? Are they covered by this or not?
The noble Baroness made another point, which I was also going to raise and on which I would like some clarification: what about the people who work for others who need care, through direct payments or personal budgets? Will this rule out those volunteers who often come in and sit with someone, who may do some minor tasks and may even do some relatively nursing-style tasks, such as putting in eye drops, which a member of the family would do? I should like to clarify who we are talking about.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I remain puzzled by the Government’s approach. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, for setting out a number of persuasive arguments for why there ought to be mandatory training for health and care support workers. There seems to be a general consensus around the House and no doubt the Minister will agree with it. My reason for supporting the amendment is that mandatory training is clearly very important, but it is inevitable that if you have mandatory training you have regulation; the two run together. Those who are proposing these amendments ought to recognise that there is an inevitability that if you have training then you must have a list of people who are trained; action has to be taken against those people who have been trained but are then found to be unsafe in dealing with vulnerable people; and there has to be a way of removing them from the list of those who have been trained that has been published. If you go down this route, one way or another you are clearly signing up to mandatory regulation, and a jolly good thing too.
Amendment 23A puts forward an eminently sensible suggestion for healthcare support workers to be certified to show that they have been trained in basic standards, with employers to register individuals who hold such certificates. We need to go back to the Francis report. Mr Francis is widely reported to be disappointed with the Government’s response to his report, and it is not hard to see why. His report commented on the absence of minimum standards in training and competence. This is compounded by huge variations in the approach of employers to job specifications, supervision and training requirements. That is why my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has come across so many instances of poor-quality healthcare support.
The Prime Minister’s Commission on the Future of Nursing and Midwifery noted that training for support workers was very variable and recommended that they should be better trained. In response, as the noble Earl told us earlier, the Government have commissioned Skills for Health and Skills for Care to work together to develop a code of conduct and minimum induction and training standards. We now know from the mandate issued by the Secretary of State to Health Education England that it is obliged to establish minimum training standards for healthcare assistants by spring 2014. At this point, I ask the noble Earl: how far does that go? Will it be mandatory for all entrants to the role of healthcare assistant to undertake such training? If that is so, will this extend to care assistants? What about existing health and care support workers? Will this training extend to them, or will it apply only to new people coming into the healthcare profession?
Under the proposals, how will employers know if their support workers have undertaken the minimum standard of training? Will a nationally recognised certificate be issued? Will a national list be established, indicating those who have undertaken such training? If there is not a list, does that not leave a big burden on employers seeking to check whether prospective staff have undertaken the minimum training requirement under the mandate? I come back to the point I made at the beginning: if a list is established, would that, in essence, not amount to a register? If there is such a list or register and it becomes clear that a support worker is unsuitable to care for vulnerable people, is there a way in which an organisation or employer could then apply to have such an individual removed from the list of people who have received the minimum level of training?
Having a certificate showing that someone has achieved a minimum level of training will be generally regarded as a certificate of an ability to practise. If there is such a certificate, there must be a way to remove that certificate if people are found to be wanting. In effect, once one begins to lay down minimum standards and to specify mandatory training, will there not be an inevitable step towards regulation? Amendment 23A poses those questions to the noble Earl. I hope that he will answer sympathetically.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, for an interesting set of proposals and I am grateful for her thoughtful introductory remarks. I agree that ensuring the capability of the health and care support workforce is vital to delivering high-quality care to patients and service users across both health and social care settings. The issue is how we achieve this. Key requirements for delivering high-quality care can best be achieved by providers having the right processes in place to ensure they have the right staff with the right skills and the right training to deliver the right care in the right way to patients and service users.
The idea of statutory requirements can seem an attractive means of ensuring patient safety, yet Robert Francis’s report demonstrates amply that this in itself does not prevent poor care. I confess that I was a little surprised by the vehement support of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the idea of statutory regulation because it was an idea that his Government resisted for some time. I suggest that they resisted it for a number of reasons and they came to the conclusion that it is not as self-evident as some like to make out. That is certainly this Government’s position. This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested, a laissez-faire attitude on the part of the Government. As we made clear in Patients First and Foremost, the initial response to the Francis inquiry, the Chief Inspector of Hospitals will ensure that all hospitals act to make sure that all healthcare assistants are properly trained and inducted before they care for people. I suggest that this is an important step forward.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Has anyone in the department ever sat down to work out the annual cost to the health service of paying for litigation defence and compensation to people who have made complaints successfully? What proportion of those complaints stem from failures on wards arising simply from a lack of training? Would that not be a useful exercise for the department? Although I know it is difficult to introduce this principle of candour, it might well be that if someone were to look at this and some honest assessments were made in hospitals, we might find out that a lot of it has to do with people simply not being trained properly.
Earl Howe
I agree with the noble Lord. It would be an interesting exercise. If I can glean relevant facts from the National Health Service Litigation Authority, which is the holder of the corpus of information in this area, I would be glad to share it with noble Lords. We do not dispute that skills are an issue. They clearly are. That is why we have instigated the Cavendish review, but it is important that we set about this in the right way.
The Secretary of State has clearly stated in his mandate to Health Education England that it should work with employers to improve the capability of healthcare assistants. That will include the standards of training that they receive. In developing a strategy and implementation plan to achieve this, Health Education England will build on the Cavendish review, when it is before us, and the work of Skills for Health and Skills for Care on minimum training standards for health and care support workers.
The Government accept that the arrangements for induction, training and performance management of this workforce vary between providers. We do not duck the importance of training and I want to stress that. The Cavendish review has been tasked with reviewing how the training and support of healthcare and care assistants can be strengthened so that they provide safe and compassionate care to all people using health and social care services. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is right that Amendment 23A and whatever recommendations emerge from the Cavendish review may not necessarily be mutually exclusive. At the same time, it surely makes sense for the Government to look at all these issues in the round before pronouncing one way or the other on prescribing specific arrangements around certification, new criminal offences or whatever the case may be.
I hope the noble Baroness will agree that the Government should be afforded the time to consider any recommendations from the Cavendish review and the respective roles of employers, commissioners, regulators and other bodies before taking further steps. At the same time, I hope that she will feel reassured by what I have said today and that Health Education England and the Government have taken sufficient steps in committing to the training and development of this workforce, and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his summary and noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think there is no doubt in anybody’s mind that this is a very important subject, which we cannot ignore. In his summary, the Minister suggested that the Government need to take this away and look at it. I think that we, too, need to take it away and look at it, and at what the Minister said. Will the Minister tell us when the Cavendish report is to be published? We understood that it was signed off two or three weeks ago, and we need to understand where it fits into the picture with the CQC. I thank the Minister for his comments. I will withdraw the amendment tonight on the basis that I will return to it later in the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rea
My Lords, I must apologise for not moving this amendment in its proper place on the first day in Committee. That was due to a misunderstanding on my part, and I apologise.
I put down this probing amendment to draw attention to the importance and relevance of interprofessional education in preparing different health and social care staff to work well together. It is recognised across the board that caring for the increasing proportion of the population with long-term problems requires teamwork. This will be more effective and economically efficient if the different members of the team understand the role and approach of other members of the team with whom they need to collaborate, be they social workers, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists or doctors. At present, each healthcare worker may have no proper conception of the abilities and skills of those in another discipline, and that may lead to inefficient working, inappropriate decisions and learning by trial and error, if at all. One thinks perhaps of Stafford.
The duty to promote integration is much used in legislation but is mainly directed to administrators at a high level. For example, in last year’s Health and Social Care Act the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups were directed to take note of the need for integration, and in this Bill promoting integration is a requirement on local authorities. In Clause 88, in which this amendment sits,
“HEE must have regard to … the desirability of promoting the integration of health provision with health-related provision”.
The detail of how integration is to be achieved is left to the bodies concerned, although there may well be, and certainly should be, guidance, which I have not seen but which is perhaps to be published later. Perhaps the Minister can fill me in here. My amendment could perhaps be considered when formulating such guidance.
Interprofessional education needs to be carried out at educational or training institutions for clinical and social care professionals but also in continuing postgraduate education. Therefore, it is not only to Health Education England but to the General Medical Council, other professional bodies, royal colleges, universities, postgraduate deans and LETBs that this amendment is directed.
I do not have much time to describe the details of how IPE works, and this is not the right place to do so. Suffice it to say that it is not something I have invented off the top of my head but is a recognised discipline, led in this country by CAIPE, the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education. It has branches in several countries on both sides of the Atlantic and has produced a number of publications describing the method and the institutions that have adopted it. It has also commissioned several evaluative studies which have confirmed its effectiveness. CAIPE is in touch with the Department of Health, and positive discussions have taken place. The Minister will probably know about them. In fact, I understand that CAIPE is due to meet Health Education England to discuss possible future collaboration. Interprofessional education is up and running in at least five universities, including Leicester, De Montfort, Bristol, Sheffield Hallam and Aberdeen.
I am aware that there are plenty of problems involved in getting different professions to receive co-ordinated education, not least logistics and timetabling. Students may not at first appreciate the need for understanding and co-operation, so do not always take kindly to what they may see as a diversion from their task of learning the skills needed for their chosen profession. However, once they meet each other, understanding can grow. Directors of education need to be convinced of the benefits of IPE. Its benefits are summarised well in a recent WHO task force report:
“After almost 50 years of inquiry, there is now sufficient evidence to indicate that interprofessional education enables effective collaborative practice which in turn optimizes health-services, strengthens health systems and improves health outcomes ... In both acute and primary care settings, patients report higher levels of satisfaction, better acceptance of care and improved health outcomes following treatment by a collaborative team”.
I shall be most interested to hear the Minister’s views on IPE and whether he agrees that it deserves to be more widely used in the National Health Service. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I shall make a brief intervention in support of the desire of my noble friend Lord Rea to draw our attention to the importance of interprofessional education if we are to develop health and social care staff’s mutual respect, understanding and knowledge of each other’s professions that will bring about the collaboration, joint working and integration of care and support that we need. My noble friend describes this as staff knowing “how the other half lives”—in other words, staff knowing about each other’s services and how they operate, and being aware of boundaries, interdependence on achieving outcomes and competing agendas. He commends IPE because it provides an established model of collaboration and co-operation on the ground.
The amendment refers back to our earlier debate on integration and the need for multidisciplinary teamworking, and it will also be relevant to the debate that we will come to shortly on the importance of continuing professional development for healthcare workers. It adds promoting the use of joint IPE for clinical and social care staff as a matter that HEE must have regard to in relation to its responsibility for promoting the integration of healthcare and health-related provision.
My noble friend helpfully sent me a considerable amount of background information on his amendment in which, as a former HR professional, I was genuinely interested. It included extensive research by the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education, which my noble friend referred to, supporting the effectiveness of interprofessional education and training. My noble friend also referred to discussions between CAIPE and Health Education England to explore HEE’s role in taking IPE forward and embedding it in professional curricula. This is to be welcomed. Two-thirds of UK universities with two or more undergraduate programmes in health and social care include IPE, so these discussions will be helpful. These programmes cover a wide range of professions, including nursing, social work, physiotherapy, pharmacy, clinical psychology and radiography—all professions that are increasingly required to work flexibly across different care settings as part of multidisciplinary teams.
The Nuffield Trust evaluation of the first year of the inner north-west London integrated pilot that I referred to earlier underlined the importance of staff in multiprofessional teams having a high level of commitment to the pilot as a key factor in improving collaboration across different parts of the local health and care system. However, the evaluation also reminds us of the international evidence that integrated care takes years to develop and that a minimum of three to five years is needed to show impact in relation to patient experience and outcomes. Culture change, moving from silo to collaborative working among professionals, is a slow process, however committed we are to trying to make it work. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has explained his amendment in a very compelling way. Amendment 31 seeks to amend Clause 88(1)(h) so that Health Education England must have regard to the promotion of joint interprofessional education of clinical and social care staff where appropriate. As he is aware, much of the ground on these issues was covered in our earlier debates, when I hope I was able to reassure noble Lords that the Government take this issue very seriously. Clause 88 of the Bill, in listing the matters that Health Education England must have regard to in exercising its functions, is clear that Health Education England must support integration between health and care, and support staff so that they are able to work across different settings in health and social care.
In establishing Health Education England with a multiprofessional remit with responsibility for the development of all the professions, the Government have reinforced the importance of planning and developing staff in an interprofessional manner. As I mentioned, this approach is reinforced further in the Government’s mandate to Health Education England, which places a clear requirement on Health Education England, where appropriate, to develop multidisciplinary education and training programmes. I hope the noble Lord will agree that that is very much consonant with the principles that he was propounding in his contribution.
We entirely appreciate the importance of close working between the professions. I am sure that that is something Health Education England will consider carefully. I will write to the noble Lord if I can add any useful detail once I have had a chance to investigate further the issues that he raised and once I have discussed them with my officials.
However, I point out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, did in our earlier debate, the importance of the recent commitment entered into by 12 of the national leaders of health and care, who signed up to a series of undertakings on how they will help local areas to integrate services. This was the document Integrated Care and Support: Our Shared Commitment—the first ever system-wide shared commitment. That document set out how local areas can use existing structures such as health and well-being boards to bring together local authorities, the NHS, social care providers, education, housing services, public health and others to make further steps towards integration. The ambition here is to make joined-up and co-ordinated health and care the norm. It works towards the first ever agreed definition of what people say good integrated care and support looks and feels like. That will be developed by national voices. There will be new pioneer areas around the country, to be announced in September of this year. One of the 12 partners of that shared commitment is Health Education England.
I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by what I have said. I am entirely in tune with the spirit of his remarks. I will be happy to write to him if I have further and better particulars to impart, but for now I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rea
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for a very full reply and for the sentiments that he expressed. I shall read with interest his reply in Hansard, and I look forward to any further information that he may send me. I am sure that CAIPE will be very interested to read his remarks, too. I thank the Minister very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
EU: Advocates-General of the Court of Justice
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7013/13, the draft Council Decision increasing the number of Advocates-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and, in accordance with Section 10 of the European Union Act 2011, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of that draft Council Decision.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the draft Council decision increasing the number of advocates-general at the Court of Justice of the European Union from eight to 11. As the House will be aware, this proposal is subject to the EU Act 2011 and, before Ministers can take a position in Council, parliamentary approval must be secured for the UK’s position. That is the purpose of our debate today.
The Lords European Union Committee has reported on this subject twice, in 2011 and again in April this year. An increase in the number of advocates-general at the Court of Justice of the European Union will be of benefit to British businesses, which will gain from the increased capacity of the Court. The proposal is to increase the number of advocates-general to nine from 1 July 2013 and to 11 from 7 October 2015. The first additional advocate-general will be a permanent Polish advocate-general. Under Declaration 38 on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, member states agreed in 2007 that, if there was an increase in the number of advocates-general, Poland would have a permanent advocate-general and no longer take part in the rotation of advocates-general. This will bring Poland in to line with the other “Big Six” member states, including the UK, which all have permanent advocates-general. The other two additional advocates-general will increase the existing rotation system from three to five. Under the current arrangements, we expect that the first two additional advocates-general appointed in October 2015 will be Czech and Danish.
The Government believe that this reform will help to maximise the efficiency of the Court and promote the effective passage of justice, as it will allow the Court to increase the speed at which it handles cases and improve the quality of its decision-making. However, more efficient operation of the Court will require more than the appointment of these three additional advocates-general to the Court of Justice. Peers will already be familiar with the reforms that the Court has introduced in the last two years, which include: increasing the number of judges in the Grand Chamber from 13 to 15; abolishing unnecessary procedural elements, such as the requirement to read the report for the hearing in full, and thus the need to produce the report; providing for the appointment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal; and establishing a new office of vice-president in the Court of Justice and the General Court. Today’s debate focuses on the latest of these wider reforms, but it will not be the last.
The Government share the eagerness of the European Union Committee for the question of additional judges at the General Court to be resolved. Negotiations on that reform have been ongoing since March 2011 and currently are at an impasse. In common with many other member states, the UK had concerns about the proposals that have been made so far. However, the Government are keen to work with other member states to agree a way forward. With that in mind, we look forward to receiving new proposals to consider. In addition to negotiations on extra judges at the General Court, the Government will continue to work closely with the Court, the Commission and other member states to identify and take forward both long-term and short-term solutions to the General Court’s backlog. We will continue to explore the full range of options for structural reform to identify a solution that meets the needs of all concerned.
To return to the specific issue today, the Government broadly support this proposal. In particular, it meets three key goals of our policy towards Court reform. Those goals are to promote the effective passage of justice, for there to be a clear need for any reform, in this case the additional advocates-general, and for costs to be contained. The role of advocates-general is to produce non-legally binding opinions for the Court of Justice to assist it in reaching its judgment. They do this in more than 50% of cases, particularly in cases that raise a new point of law. As there is no appeals process in the Court of Justice, their additional reasoned submissions help the Court to provide effective justice. As the number of cases before the Court of Justice continues to rise, by 4.5% in 2012, the Government are satisfied that there is a need for additional advocates-general to manage the workload of the Court of Justice.
I turn now to the particular issues that the EU Committee has raised with the Minister for Europe: the timetable for appointments and Council decisions, and funding. To take the timetable for appointments and Council decisions first, the Court would like to have the first additional advocate-general, the Polish one, in post from 1 July 2013 and the other two from 7 October 2015, when there will be a partial replacement of the members of the Court. Given that this request was made by the Court only on 16 January 2013, the 1 July date was always an ambitious timetable for the first advocate-general. In addition to our requirement for an affirmative debate in both Houses before Ministers can take a position in Council, Poland also estimates that the appointment process will take four months. However, the Government are still hopeful that, if parliamentary approval is secured today in the House of Lords and tomorrow in the House of Commons, the Council will be able to approve the decision under the Irish presidency, which ends at the end of June. If the 1 July deadline is missed, member states can appoint the first advocate-general at any point from then onwards and do not need to wait until October 2015. We know that the Court and other member states are keen to have the Polish advocate-general in post as soon as possible, so we anticipate that happening quickly.
Lord Bowness
My Lords, I am extremely pleased to see this Motion before the House tonight, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very full explanation. Indeed, he has pre-empted and answered a number of the questions that I would have sought to put to him.
The Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee has taken a close interest in this matter since its report on the work of the European Court of Justice. Among its recommendations was one that additional advocates-general should be appointed. They play an important part in complex cases, delivering a non-binding opinion on the legal issues involved and a recommendation as to how it should be decided. The figures that we had for our report suggested that a report from an advocate-general was produced in about half the cases brought to trial. It was a recommendation in the report that the number of advocates-general be increased. Before any noble Lords go away with the idea that perhaps that request was made prematurely or without thought, it is worth pointing out that there are still only eight advocates-general for 27 judges, and there were only eight for 15 judges.
In the committee’s follow-up report, published just before I relinquished membership and chairmanship of the Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee, we repeated the recommendation and urged the early appointment of the new advocates-general. I am delighted that the Government have now been satisfied that the appointment of the advocates-general should go ahead. I welcome that, and the assurances from my noble friend that the first appointment of the Polish advocate-general should be made during the course of the Irish presidency.
With regard to Declaration 38 on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I ask my noble friend whether he can clarify the position. It states unambiguously in a declaration annexe to the treaty of Lisbon that the advocates-general will be increased by three if that request is received from the Court. It says that,
“the Council will, acting unanimously, agree”,
such a request. Out of interest, I would like to know what happens if the Council does not agree unanimously. What prevails—the absence of unanimity or the declaration annexe to the treaty? Closer to home and more domestically, what would happen if your Lordships’ House or the other place did not agree? What would then take precedence: the treaty declaration or the provisions of the European Union Act? Dare I ask if we would have to seek the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union?
The Government have agreed in principle for some time, subject to the additional costs being found from the Court’s own resources, and they are now satisfied that this is the case. There are similar concerns about another recommendation of the committee: the appointment of additional judges of the General Court. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, will pursue this in the debate this evening and I am delighted that the sub-committee is fortunate in having her as its new chairman. I had the privilege of serving under her when she chaired the Joint Committee on Human Rights when she was a member of the other place. I know that she will be an excellent chairman and advocate of the committee’s views. I am sure she will be pursuing the cause of additional judges with considerable diligence.
As I said, I am very pleased the Government have been able to overcome their financial reservations about expenditure in respect of the advocates-general. I understand that they are keen to restrict expenditure and I also understand that it is very easy to say that new expenditure should be found from within existing resources. However, with great respect to my noble friend, it is important, when that argument is advanced, to ensure that it is possible for these important things to be met from existing resources. Preserving the quality and effectiveness of the European Court system is important and we need to remember that expenditure on the courts represented only 0.26% of the whole budget of the European Union in 2011.
The Minister warned the committee that the issue of judges was unlikely to be pressed by the nearly ended Irish presidency and the forthcoming Lithuanian presidency. I hope that the Minister will see what the Government can do to bring the question back to the table. The administration and dispensing of justice, like the democratic process, has elements that make pure efficiency hard to achieve. Tonight’s procedure under the European Union Act 2011 does not exactly streamline the decision-making process in EU matters. It was an Act strongly advocated by some who are equally strong advocates for efficiency in the decision-making process, so to obtain the best of both cannot always be done in ways that are the most efficient. This is the price we pay for justice and democracy, and a failure to appreciate this leads, I fear, to a situation where you know the cost of everything and the value of not very much.
Baroness Corston
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in this important debate. I should like to place on record the committee’s appreciation of the fact that he served the committee with distinction and, in the post of chairman, conducted himself with absolute consideration for members and with great diligence.
This debate follows on from that on 23 July last year, under Section 10 of the European Union Act 2011. It requires a positive vote in both Houses before the Government can support any decisions in council. In July last year, the House debated a motion to approve amendments to the statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the appointment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, which together comprise the Court of Justice of the European Union, play a fundamental role in the effective functioning of the single market and the European Union. The Court of Justice and the General Court rule in matters of freedom of movement, of persons, goods and services, equal treatment and social rights, fundamental rights, European citizenship and trademark and competition cases. It therefore follows that their decisions have a direct impact on the functioning and operation of the single market and on the lives of the citizens of the European Union. So an efficient and effective court system capable of delivering justice in a timely manner in matters of EU law is essential for the rule of law within the EU.
The function of advocates-general is to support the work of 27 judges. They produce written opinions for the Court, setting out their understanding of the applicable law in each case and recommending how, in their view, cases ought to be decided. Their origins lie in the French legal system. Although their opinions are not legally binding, they tend to offer more comprehensive discussions of the EU law governing each case than the judgments themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, in 2010 the EU Committee conducted an inquiry under his chairmanship into the workload of the Court, prompted by concerns about the Court’s ability to fulfil its functions effectively and in a timely manner. It noted that the ratio of judges to advocates-general was 15:8 in 2003, but 27:8 by 2011, following enlargement of the European Union. The committee therefore recommended that the number of advocates-general should be increased as soon as possible in order for the Court to increase the speed with which cases could be dealt with while improving the quality of decision-making.
In January this year, the committee was pleased to learn that the Court had requested an increase in the number of advocates-general. It is proposed that the first additional advocate-general would be appointed as soon as possible this year, with the other two taking up their posts in October 2015. It was very gratifying to hear the Minister informing the House that the Government were entirely happy with those proposals. The appointment is a welcome step and it can be achieved without the significant difficulties posed by treaty reform. It is to be hoped that people in another place take the same view.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the equally important issue of tackling the backlog of cases in the General Court by increasing the number of judges. In 2011, the committee commented on the backlog of cases and delays in the General Court, and recommended that the number of judges appointed to that court be increased by one-third. Indeed, some organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, had expressed concerns about delay and the effect on business within the European Union. Shortly after the report was published, the Court asked the Council to increase the number of judges by 12 which, in the view of the president of the Court of Justice, was the only solution to afford the necessary flexibility to tackle the increase in the number of cases pending before the General Court and the time needed to deal with them. During the debate on 23 July last year, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said:
“The delay resulting from this backlog of cases is bad for British businesses, which wait months or years for their own case or cases of relevance to them to be heard and determined”.—[Official Report, 23/7/12; col. 564.]
The Commission agreed and commented on the Court’s request by stating that,
“an urgent solution is needed for the considerable number of cases currently pending at the General Court. Only by immediately increasing the number of judges … will it be possible to stem the flow of new cases and effectively tackle the backlog”.
In July 2012, the Council established a Friends of the Presidency group, which included representatives from all member states to facilitate examination of the case for increasing the number of judges in the General Court. The group met regularly but failed to reach agreement. In December 2012, the Cypriot presidency put forward a proposal for consideration at the General Affairs Council, whereby nine additional judges would be appointed to the General Court under a rotation system. Although it appears that there is agreement on the need to increase the number of judges, there is evident disagreement over the rotation system, and the proposals were rejected.
Lord Rowlands
My Lords, I associate myself fully with my noble friend’s observations about the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I have had the privilege of serving under him for more than three years, and if anyone wanted to find a way to be a model chairman, they should follow him. We have been a disparate group over these past three or four years. Europe encourages lots of disparate views but he somehow managed, throughout the whole of his chairmanship, to achieve a consensus through persuasive patience. I, too, acknowledge his importance and he has been a marvellous chairman.
I welcome, too, the acceptance by the Minister of our recommendation to increase the number of advocates-general. Whatever one’s views about the court’s broader role—it has been controversial and previously I have made observations about its role and said that it might have been on a mission to drive ever closer union and so on—we know simply that we need a fully functioning Court of Justice if we are to remain in the single market and if it is to be effective. It is not just in the interests of some European ideal, it is strongly in British interests that the Court of Justice works effectively, and produces quality and timely justice.
Given the new role that the court will be playing in the field of justice and home affairs, there is a potential time bomb. It is not just the fact of the number of cases but the relationship between the work that the court will play in the new area of the administration of justice, which has to take priority because judgments have to made quickly, and, more broadly, the court’s other cases and judgments that could be displaced. Interesting figures are quoted in the report. Table 1 reveals that the number of preliminary rulings that have come before the Court of Justice concerning freedom, security and justice, was 17 in 2009, 38 in 2010, and 44 in 2011. That represents a considerable increase, both in terms of numbers and proportion. If that were to continue, the relationship between the work of the Court of Justice in its role as regards freedom, security and justice and its more general role could have an important and serious effect.
When this matter was raised with the Minister, David Lidington, he accepted in his oral evidence that there was a considerable proportionate increase but argued that only 10% of preliminary references in 2001 came from justice and home affairs. However, that 10% figure is increasing. The Minister admitted in his evidence that we really do not know the potential. The figures are beginning to show, and I believe that they will show, that as the Court of Justice increasingly becomes involved in freedom and security issues there will be more urgent cases and, therefore, delays to cases in the broader work of the court could occur.
We wanted to raise this matter and are glad that after initial hesitation the Government have accepted our recommendations on advocates-general. As the noble Lord said, they were actually written into the Lisbon treaty, but the Minister should also be aware that sooner or later we will have to address again the issue of the number of judges. I understand the impasse and the complications among all the member states on who should be appointed, who should appoint and which country should be given the appointments. Mr Lidington at least accepted that advocates-general do not raise those sorts of issues.
I was particularly interested in the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, which was very different from that of his predecessor. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was very chary of the whole idea of new judges, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has said that the Government have in principle accepted that concept. If that is the case, we as members of the committee are very pleased.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, this is the third debate in which I have spoken on the European Court of Justice from the Opposition Front Bench. We support the strengthening of the system; it is essential to the effectiveness and quality of justice in the European Union. We seem to be getting there at least step by step. The proposal for additional advocates-general has our support. The idea that Poland should have a permanent position seems to be in accord with the acceptance that that country is one of the major member states of the Union. It grants Poland the equality of status that it has long sought.
It is significant that the Government have moved to support this proposal. It shows that at least they accept the pragmatism of the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, whereby if you are going to have an effective single market you have to have an effective form of justice. I have to say, however, that there are many people not present tonight but who occupy the government Benches and talk about renegotiating a relationship between Britain and the European Union, which, in essence, boils down to free trade and political co-operation. If that is the vision of the modern Conservative Party about Britain’s relationship with the EU, it is not one in which you would have this system of law which upholds the single market. We need clarification from the Government as to what they envisage the role of the system of law in the European Union to be. I very much hope that what they are doing now, on a case-by-case basis, demonstrates that they accept pooled sovereignty in areas where we have chosen to accept it, and that part of this involves a form of supranational decision-making and supranational law.
My second point is that I support those noble Lords who have raised the question of why progress is limited, so far, to the issue of additional judges for the general court. That is clearly an important part of the reform package. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about the Government broadly supporting this proposal. Do they support it or do they not? Do they regard the requirement to keep within the existing budget of the court as a binding constraint in all circumstances, or do they not? Is it a binding constraint or is it not? If they say it is a binding constraint, what efficiency proposals are the Government putting forward to the court in order that the cost of the additional judges could be met from within the budget?
I suspect that we are seeing a divided Whitehall here, with some departments recognising the need for additional judges, while others are trying to argue that the cost has to be kept within the existing budget. It is all very well making these declarations but how will it be done?
I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said about not differentiating between cost and value. It should be obvious to everyone that the value of more efficient decision-making on issues of central concern to our economy, such as the single market, would greatly exceed the cost. Where do the Government stand on this point?
I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said about the value not just of greater efficiency of justice in terms of the single market, but also in terms of the basic rights of European citizens. We welcome the limited steps that have been taken. Of course, one should search for efficiency and cost saving all the time, but can the Government give us an assurance that they will not block a proposal to increase the number of judges purely on cost grounds alone?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this debate has moved more widely than the decision to appoint another three advocates-general. I take it that we are all agreed that we have no objections to the appointment of three additional advocates-general, so I therefore trust that we may agree the Motion—which is the trigger for this debate—at the end of the debate.
On that point, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked about the exact meaning of Article 252 of the TFEU. Many of these things require juristes-linguistes to play around with the words a great deal. I am told that the Council, acting unanimously, can decide, in effect, to increase the number of advocates-general. Declaration 38 is a declaration of intent but the Council has nevertheless to act unanimously to approve a decision. If the British Government, having failed to achieve the agreement of both Houses of Parliament, were to block it, it would not go forward and that would have a damaging effect on UK relations with Poland. The Poles are very much looking forward to joining the other big five, so to speak, in appointing their own advocate-general.
Care Bill [HL]
(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
“(e) support the continuing professional development of medical professionals in its area.”
Lord Patel
My Lords, one often feels during any legislation that by the time it finishes the Minister—in this case, the noble Earl—must wish that he had included in the Bill something that he had forgotten. This amendment is it and I hope that he will see it in that light, particularly as continuing professional development was a part of the original draft Care and Support Bill. However, it was taken out of this Bill and I wonder why. I am sure that the Minister knows why and will tell us. I feel that somehow the page got turned and it was left out, rather than being deliberately not included. None the less, I will make a case that it should be included because it is one part of education that should be part of HEE and LETBs.
The amendment requires the local education and training boards to set out in their education and training plans how they will support continuing professional development. The NHS constitution commits all employers supplying NHS-funded services to provide staff with personal development and access to appropriate training for their jobs. Continuing professional development is important for healthcare professionals to maintain and improve their professional skills. While you might go to medical school for five years and undertake postgraduate study to be a specialist or a GP for six or seven years or even longer, continuing professional development is for the rest of your professional life. For many specialties, without continuing professional development you cannot provide up-to-date care.
Continuing professional development is particularly important for those working in medicine but it is also important for all other clinicians. Doctors and nurses need constantly to update their skills and keep abreast of the latest developments. Good CPD is therefore vital for improving patient care and spreading innovation throughout the NHS.
Evidence of participation in CPD activities is a compulsory requirement for the revalidation of doctors in order to demonstrate continuous fitness to practice. In April 2013, the General Medical Council published the results of a study that aimed to assess the impact of CPD on doctors’ performance and patient and service outcomes. The study underlined the importance of CPD in maintaining competence and identified a lack of funding and a lack of allocated time as key barriers to undertaking CPD.
CPD used to be funded through the national multi-professional education and training budget—I remember because I used to be given an annual budget. If you did not spend it, initially you could not carry it over but latterly you could. Lots of other doctors did not take advantage of it, so those like me who did benefited even more. However, it is no longer funded in that way. Currently, the funding is tight and there is a risk that CPD funding for medicine and other clinicians will be cut at the expense of other areas. The Council of Deans of Health, for example, says that reductions in education and training budgets are most likely to impact on CPD compared with other areas of education and training.
I saw that as part of its strategic intent document, Health Education England recently announced that it would ensure greater investment in CPD for staff currently in post, but I feel that further clarification is needed about what this will mean in practice. It is presently unclear what level of funding is provided for CPD across the NHS. In their response to the Future Forum report on developing the NHS workforce in June 2011, the Government said that they would,
“explore ways to provide greater transparency about the overall level of investment across the [education and training] system, including for continuing professional development”.
I am sure that the Government are taking steps to make sure that this happens and I am keen to know what the noble Earl has to say.
At present CPD is a responsibility for healthcare providers, but there is no requirement in the Bill on HEE or LETBs to support this or to monitor how providers are supporting CPD. Again, the GMC-commissioned report, The Effectiveness of Continuing Professional Development, found that trusts varied from being “generous” to “not interested” in providing CPD opportunities for staff. While both Health Education England and the local education and training boards have a clear role to support training more broadly, it is unclear to me how they will currently support CPD for all clinicians as distinct from other types of training that apply to other healthcare workers. My amendment would therefore place a clear requirement on local education and training boards to set out how they would support CPD for clinical professions. I hope that the Minister will find in favour of it, particularly as I feel it is something that got left out, having been included in the original draft Care and Support Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ribeiro
My Lords, following the disruption of medical education that followed on from the MTAS debacle in 2007, one of the outcomes, which was a positive one, was the development of schools of surgery—a concept that we took on from the anaesthetists. This required personnel from the Royal College of Surgeons and the deaneries to take responsibility for the delivery and planning of training and education. However, this was very much confined to trainees. There was no requirement to extend it to consultants in terms of CPD.
However, we all know that health education does not end with certification; it is a continuum that occurs throughout one’s career as a professional doctor. It is a requirement to keep up to date. It is a requirement by the GMC to ensure that one knows what is happening within the wider medical field. One of the problems for doctors is having the time to go away and attend courses to improve one’s CPD. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, places an obligation on HEE and the LETBs to support CPD and, in doing so, to allow the release of NHS staff, as he quite rightly said, to attend courses and educational programmes. It is also important to provide consultants and medical personnel of all disciplines with the opportunity to work in the wider NHS. It has been one of the basic tenets of the NHS that contributions in the wider NHS benefit not only the NHS but the participants, who learn a lot more about its workings. That, too, can improve and enhance one’s continuing development.
In that context, I welcome the suggestion made today several times by speakers—certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in that he made reference to the Francis report. One thing that came out of the Francis report was a clear statement that he would recommend that the GMC and the royal colleges work together in providing visits to educational centres. That was stopped some time ago. I think that there is a real opportunity to reintroduce that and I hope that the Minister, in responding, will address that issue. Here again is an opportunity, because in the past lessons were learnt by consultants visiting hospitals and looking at the education provision.
The very presence of peer groups in a hospital often helps to raise standards. Therefore, not only would CPD provide another training opportunity for those who participate but it would improve local education provision. The quality assurance of the training it would provide would ensure that, in the long term, patients benefited from such visits. For that, if nothing else, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We need to include something on continuing professional development because the whole emphasis of HEE is very much on training and trainees and it has very little to do with those who continue right through to retirement.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I, too, strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Like him, I am concerned and rather surprised that there is no mention in the Bill about the need for trusts and other providers to support their staff in continuing professional development. We really cannot afford to have any staff working in front-line clinical services not keeping up to date when we know that clinical practice changes rapidly from month to month.
New tests, new diagnostic methods and new treatments are coming along fast and furious. Unless members of staff are given the time and facilities to keep abreast of all of those, we will get poorer and more out-of-date care. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, it is unfortunately the case that when health budgets are stretched, as they almost always are, CPD budgets are the first to go. Time off to attend courses or to engage in appraisals disappears quickly, as everyone in the service is rushed off their feet.
It is in just those circumstances that a stand should be made. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, makes it clear that the LETBs must include the need for employers to allow the time for CPD development of their staff. How else will doctors, for example, be able to comply with the mandatory requirement of the GMC to revalidate at regular intervals? We have struggled both long and hard to get revalidation mandated and we cannot afford to see it eroded now at the same time as the responsibility for funding CPD is falling to employers. LETBs must be given the teeth to insist that time and support for CPD are included in their educational contracts with trusts.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, I support the amendment but I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, about CPD being extended to other healthcare professionals. One thing that has emerged as a barometer from the questionnaires is that, often, the culture of an organisation is affected by the fact that there has been no appraisal system and no continuing professional education built into the programme for other healthcare professionals—nurses, physiotherapists and radiographers. There is an important issue here: all staff delivering care need to have regular appraisals and regular updating of their continuing professional education.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, we support the amendment. Our amendment on this issue relating to Health Education England’s national role in planning education and training for healthcare workers was considered last week. We were, in particular, keen to probe the role that LETBs will play in that important area.
The amendment would ensure that the annual reports of LETBs specify how they propose to support continuing professional development in that area. We strongly support that. The amendment specifies the medical professions, but it is applicable across the healthcare workforce. CPD is about ensuring that structured learning continues throughout one’s career, with clear objectives set and progress logged and regularly reviewed. CPD complements formal training and enables practitioners and other staff to acquire new knowledge and skills, as well as to maintain and improve their standards across all areas of their practice.
The HEE mandate has a small subsection on supporting the professional and personal development of the existing workforce, underlining the importance of HEE leadership and work with LETBs, but that aspect is far from being given the importance that it needs in the mandate—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. There is of course emphasis elsewhere in the document on the workforce needing to be flexible and receptive to research and innovation, but CPD is wider than just keeping up to date and applies to values, behaviours and the ability to understand how one’s working role relates to the wider service, as we heard during our earlier debate on integration.
I could not see CPD addressed in any depth on the HEE website, although we join other noble Lords in welcoming the general, across-the-board progress that HEE has made in its new role so far. HEE recognises that providing leadership and ensuring greater transparency in the investment that employers make in their workforce and in supporting and championing multidisciplinary and professional CPD is a strategic priority. Does the Minister agree that HEE needs to step up and develop its CPD strategy as a major priority, and does he accept that the mandate needs better to reflect the importance of CPD?
The HEE website also mentions that it will be allocating a limited amount of central funding for LETBs to invest in CPD, particularly for staff employed at Agenda for Change bands 1 to 4 and equivalent staff employed as part of primary care teams in general practice, community pharmacy and other community-based employers.Does the Minister have any further information on how the Government expect HEE to take this forward with LETBs?
Last week I mentioned the recent member survey by the Royal College of Nursing on CPD, showing how varied the time allocated by NHS trusts is. It is worth going into the findings in a little more detail today. The survey found that in the past 12 months almost a third of respondents had received no CPD that was provided or paid for by their employer. By sector, just a third of respondents in the NHS received no training in the past 12 months, compared to just under a quarter of those working in the independent or voluntary sectors. Just over a third said that the amount of CPD provided had decreased in comparison to the previous year, while 45% said that it had stayed the same.
Interestingly, overall, members working in the NHS were more likely than those working in the independent and voluntary sectors to report that the amount of CPD undertaken had decreased. Obviously, CPD is a mix of both employer-supported and resourced training and personal development learning resourced by the individual, either in their own time or with their own money. However, the RCN survey shows a very worrying trend in the importance employers place on providing CPD. Can the Minister comment on this and on how the problem can be addressed in the future? Is he confident that HEE or LETBs will have the resources to address this problem?
Our earlier amendment was similar to the wording that the Government included in the original Bill but subsequently deleted. I am sure the Minister will explain his thinking behind this and, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, fully expects, delight us all by announcing that he has decided to put the CPD wording back in.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I make no apology for repeating my firm belief that the staff working in our NHS and public health system are the health service’s most precious resource. We must do all we can to ensure that staff have and continue to have the right values, training and skills to deliver the very highest quality of care for patients.
Clause 93 requires local education and training boards to publish an education and training plan for each financial year. The education and training plan must set out the local education and training board’s proposed investment in its current and future workforce for the following year. Note the word “current” in this context. In developing an education and training plan, the Bill makes clear that a local education and training board must consult with and have regard to the local priorities of, among others, the NHS and health providers and the commissioners that it represents.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked what level of funding is attached to CPD in the NHS. The answer is that investment in CPD is really a decision to be taken locally. As I indicated, local providers and commissioners are best placed to decide what ongoing professional development their staff need. It will be their job to feed that in to the LETB as the local education and training plan is developed. I have already spoken in reply to an earlier group of amendments about the importance of continuing professional development, and the leadership role that Health Education England and local education and training boards can play in supporting this.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked what happened to the reference to CPD in the draft Bill. The answer is that we widened the description in Clause 84(6) so that the Bill states that:
“HEE may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, carry out other activities relating to … education and training for health care workers”.
This still very much includes CPD. I emphasise that we consider this to be an important part of the way HEE may exercise this power. The NHS constitution sets out that staff can expect employers to invest in their development, and that all healthcare providers must take this issue seriously. Employers have a clear responsibility to provide their staff with the support and personal development they need, as well as access to appropriate training to enable them to fulfil their duties. However, Health Education England will play a crucial role in providing leadership in supporting employers in this area. The mandate sets out that Health Education England will work with LETBs and healthcare providers and commissioners to ensure that professional and personal development continues beyond the end of formal training to enable staff to deliver safe and high-quality health and public health services, for now and in the future.
Lord Turnberg
I am sorry to interrupt again. I think the noble Earl said that we should leave it to the local providers to decide what or how much CPD individuals should have. We know, however, that at the moment local providers are very variable in how far they are willing to go along that route. The problem is that leaving it where it is certainly does not give any great confidence that CPD will be uniformly available in the service. Hence the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which tries to give a little force and pressure to local providers so that they could indeed be sure that CPD was being provided. The noble Earl is full of good intentions, quite rightly, but we need a little more than that.
Earl Howe
I probably expressed the position less than well because I was seeking to indicate that CPD is inescapable. There are a whole host of reasons why providers and the LETBs cannot avoid a focus on continuing professional development. Equally, we do not want to prescribe any kind of ring-fenced budget for CPD, for the reasons we debated earlier: we are clear that we must leave it to LETBs to exercise autonomy in the way that they work out their local education and training plans. They will have to prioritise, inevitably, in certain cases and from year to year. It may be that they will have to make hard choices. The great thing about Health Education England is that, as a non-departmental public body separate from NHS England, it will have a dedicated budget which cannot be eroded by those who might wish to siphon money off to patient care, for example. I hope that, in that sense, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, can take some comfort. We are very clear that the prescription is there and that local providers cannot avoid addressing the needs of their employees for CPD, but at the same time we do not want to dictate to them how much to spend on this in any one year.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have no doubt whatever that he speaks with conviction and is full of good intentions. However, the way in which he spoke makes me feel that he, too, has some doubt that local providers and employers will deliver on this. If LETBs do not have any duty even to collect information about continuing professional development, local providers may not take any notice of the issue; there will be that variability in their reactions to which the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, referred. However, I have no doubt that the Minister and the department have the intention that this will be delivered. We will reflect on that. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we now come to the tariffs to be imposed in respect of education and training. Clause 95 establishes a tariff-based system for funding clinical education and training, whereby providers receive the same payment for the same activity. This is intended to enable a national approach to the funding of clinical payments and to provide for equality of treatment between different providers. What the clause does not do is to provide for equality of treatment between the public and private sectors. The noble Earl will be aware of Monitor’s fair playing field review that looked at a number of different activities and the impact on different providers, including public sector providers, private sector providers and the third sector. On education and training it remarked:
“Many stakeholders voiced concern that the private or charitable sectors are able to employ clinical staff without facing the cost of training them”.
It has been reported recently that surveys show an increase in the use of the private sector by the NHS in recent years and enforced marketisation. The Section 75 regulations are likely to increase that. The question that I put to the Minister is, if the NHS is developing much more into a mixed economy, what is the provision for the private sector to contribute to education and training?
Lord Campbell-Savours
As a layman among all these very professional people, I raise a very simple point. Returning to the private care home paying workers something like £7 an hour, I presume that that care home, if it so wished, could use the LETB.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps that answers the question, but from the way in which the Bill is written I understood that it went wider than that and included care home staff. What about nursing homes? Nursing home workers are healthcare workers, are they not? I suppose that they are covered by both areas.
Earl Howe
My Lords, in so far as nursing homes are staffed by healthcare staff, those staff are certainly eligible to benefit from the education and training budget. Indeed, I should have clarified that in privately run care homes you might well find a nurse who is healthcare trained, and therefore is in a position to receive the benefit of the healthcare budget if they are an employee funded by the NHS.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Then let us take it to the next statement. What about the healthcare assistant working in a nursing home—in other words, in this particular sector, where I presume the LETB applies? Would that worker also be trainable under the system established under the Bill, or does that nursing home healthcare assistant also have access to other training facilities outside the provision being made here? In other words, does the employer have the option?
Earl Howe
My Lords, training can be delivered in a variety of ways. It can be delivered onsite and on the job within the healthcare or care setting. It can be delivered outside as part of a higher education course. Who funds that will depend on the status of the worker. If he or she is a healthcare worker, it is possible, as I said, that they are funded by the NHS. It is also possible that he or she is privately employed by the organisation concerned, and that organisation will therefore fund the course of education. So it depends. I suggest that in a care home it is more likely that the person would be designated as a care worker rather than a healthcare worker if they do not have a recognised qualification to their name. I do not think that there is any generic answer to the noble Lord’s question. I hope that I have been helpful in explaining the various situations that can arise.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
There are various definitions relating to LETBs. For instance, Clause 90(3) says:
“In carrying out its main function, an LETB must represent the interests of all the persons who provide health services in the area for which the LETB is appointed”.
However, the general interpretation on page 89 defines not “health services” but rather “the health service” as,
“the comprehensive health service in England continued under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006”.
My question is: does “health services” in Clause 90 equate to “the health service” in Clause 110, or is “health services” in Clause 90 a wider interpretation that embraces the argument of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours?
Earl Howe
It may be convenient for the Committee if I take together the questions of the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hunt, because the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about the role of the independent sector in participating in training and indeed in funding it. Perhaps I may clarify that.
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure an effective education and training system, as I mentioned earlier. The Act also placed a duty on commissioners of health services to ensure that providers support the Secretary of State in this duty when contracting with them. The Government have already put into place measures to deliver the Secretary of State’s education and training duty by amending the commissioning contracts and supporting regulations for the delivery of services, so they now require co-operation on education and training. This means that all providers of NHS services are expected to co-operate and, where appropriate, this co-operation will involve them providing education and training.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have one final question. How can a person placing a relative in a care home know that the standard of care provided in that home by presumably trained healthcare assistants will be of a similar standard to that available under the arrangements proposed in the Bill for those who work directly in the healthcare sector of the National Health Service?
Earl Howe
The answer is twofold. First, the Care Quality Commission inspects every care home to a uniform standard. One of its duties is to ensure that the staff in a care home are sufficiently capable and trained to deliver care in the right way to the patients and service users who live there, taking into account the acuity of need of those people. Secondly, as the noble Lord may be aware, the Government have proposed that a system of star ratings should be reintroduced for both healthcare settings and adult social care settings. In that way the general public may have a much closer and more detailed sense of the quality of care provided in the care home, as assessed by the Care Quality Commission. Again, this is work in progress. The Care Quality Commission is working out its methodologies for delivering those star ratings, but if we get this right, I believe it will take us several steps forward in transparency of quality and the ability of members of the public to choose, in a much more meaningful way, the setting that they wish to see either themselves or their families benefiting from.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that has been extremely useful. The intervention of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has been particularly useful. Reading Clause 86 (5) together with Clause 93 and the interpretation in Clause 110, it becomes clear that many nursing homes will receive some funding from the NHS in providing continuing healthcare for some residents. That seems to me to be very helpful indeed because, given that there is a great deal of concern about the quality of staff in nursing homes and the training of those staff, it gives local education and training boards a clear remit to concern themselves with the staff in a lot of nursing homes in their area. I hope that it will be possible for a message to be sent to Health Education England from this debate that, if it is looking at the most vulnerable areas in terms of vulnerable people, that ought to be where the priority should be. My noble friend has teased out a very important indicator of the way in which LETBs should work in future. I hope we will see in their plans that a major effort will be devoted to the staff in those homes.
On the more general question, I noted that the Minister had been urged to be cautious by various bodies in relation to whether there should be a levy on private sector providers. It is a bit rich of the Future Forum to worry about the third sector contribution since it is the Future Forum that has tried to open the door to a competitive market in the NHS. The third sector and Sir Stephen Bubb cannot have it all ways. If he wants to have a competitive market, as he seems to, then the third sector can jolly well make a contribution alongside the NHS. They cannot have it both ways.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord has said on this. In practice, as he knows, most education and training take place in the public sector, but we expect Health Education England and the LETBs to seek advice from a range of stakeholders. Indeed, HEE has reinforced the importance of this in the appointment criteria that it has set for LETBs which state that they should demonstrate meaningful collaborative working relationships with stakeholders, including third and independent sector providers. This will help to establish stronger links with the independent sector so that it can deliver clinical placements and perhaps also postgraduate training programmes where appropriate.
“(A1) The HRA must appoint a committee for the purpose of giving advice—
(a) to the HRA in connection with the exercise of the HRA’s function under regulation 5(1)(a) of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/1438) (approval for processing confidential patient information);(b) to the Secretary of State in connection with the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions under regulations 2, 3(4) and 5 of those Regulations (processing of confidential patient information).”
Earl Howe
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 53, and at this point it will be convenient to consider government Amendments 54 to 57 as well.
The importance of balancing a person’s right to confidentiality with the benefits of using information to improve the current and future health and care of the population cannot be underestimated. The NHS constitution sets out a number of rights and commitments in this regard.
Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations that modify the common law obligations of confidentiality so as to allow researchers, public health staff and other medical practitioners to access information where there is no reasonably practicable way of obtaining consent to use such information for the purposes of medical research; that is, in the interest of improving patient care or in the public interest.
The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 made under Section 251 of the NHS Act make provision for public health surveillance and risk management, work associated with cancer registration and approvals for the processing of confidential patient information for medical purposes in certain circumstances, provided that the processing has been approved by the Secretary of State.
These amendments provide continuity for the functions of advising on the approval of processing of confidential patient information for medical purposes, other than direct patient care. These functions were previously carried out by the national information governance board and its ethics and confidentiality committee. The special health authority has been directed to undertake these functions since 1 April this year, and so the provisions would ensure continuity.
I turn to the detail of this group of amendments. The amendments would require the Health Research Authority to appoint an independent committee to provide advice on applications to process confidential patient information. The committee would advise on approvals to process confidential patient information for medical research purposes and for other medical purposes. As the Bill is currently drafted, the Health Research Authority would have the power to appoint such a committee under its proposed functions in Schedule 7 to the Bill, but this would be discretionary.
This group of amendments would ensure that such a committee is established and that it is independent. This is important to ensure that the arrangements that are currently in place will continue, maintaining public confidence in the decisions made. In the interests of consistency across the system, these amendments would require a single, independent committee to advise both the Health Research Authority itself on approval for medical research purposes, and the Secretary of State on all other approvals for medical purposes.
The Health Research Authority special health authority has established an independent committee, known as the Confidentiality Advisory Group, to advise the existing Health Research Authority and the Secretary of State on approvals. The provision of transparent, expert and independent advice to support approvals for processing of confidential patient information is vital. It protects and promotes the interests of the patient while facilitating the appropriate use of confidential patient information beyond direct patient care. It ensures that each application for approval is carefully considered and that there is consistent, expert advice to inform approval decisions.
I hope noble Lords will accept that these amendments will ensure that there continues to be independent advice on applications to process confidential patient information for medical purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that the amendments will be welcome, and that access to confidential patient information needs to be accompanied by full safeguards for the protection of individual patient privacy. However, will the noble Earl also confirm the importance of access to this information for the purposes of legitimate research? Can he also confirm that by transferring these functions to the HRA, we can look forward to a more transparent, consistent and streamlined process in the future?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I indicated, we have always needed to strike a balance—reflected in the 2002 regulations which the noble Lord brought forward in that year—between protecting the rights of the individual and ensuring that ethical approved research can take place using confidential patient data only where appropriate. I agree with the noble Lord that we should not place any undue barriers in the way of research, but there are clear rules around this which we need to honour and protect. We will be reaching a group of amendments around the issue of transparency, and if the noble Lord will allow it, I will reserve my remarks on that until we reach that group of amendments.
“(1A) The committee appointed under sub-paragraph (A1) must consist of persons who are not members or employees of the HRA.”
Lord Warner
Lord Warner
My Lords, I suspect that the amendment has a similar purpose to Amendment 63, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Patel. The purpose is to ensure that in exercising its functions the HRA not only promotes the interests of research participants and those of the wider public in facilitating research but, in doing so, has to ensure that the publication of research findings takes place fairly and frankly. I tabled the amendment because there was concern in the Joint Select Committee, of which I was a member, about whether those responsible for conducting research were tempted on occasion to shield from public view the downside findings of a piece of research, for commercial or even professional, reputational reasons.
The Joint Committee’s discussions of that issue are set out in paragraphs 328 to 336 of its report to the Government. There was a lot of support in principle for greater transparency around research findings, and particularly clinical trials data, but there was some ambivalence in the discussions of witnesses in front of us, including the Minister, about prescribing this requirement in primary legislation. Tucked away in the discussion was a concern that this kind of approach would cause pharmaceutical companies to take clinical trials away from the UK. That was the implication, I think, of some of the remarks passed to the Joint Committee, which rightly in my view took a more robust view. In paragraph 335 of its report, it recommended that the Bill should be amended,
“so that promoting transparency in research and ensuring full publication of the results of research, consistently with preservation of patient confidentiality, becomes a statutory objective of the HRA”.
That is what my amendment aims to do.
My views on this issue have been shaped over time, but particularly by my experience as the Department of Health Minister responsible for the pharmaceutical industry and its regulation as well as for NHS R&D. In those roles, I did my bit to promote that industry and secure UK jobs in it, and I know the arguments about securing clinical trials. However, they have to be balanced with other considerations, when deliberate concealment of adverse research data has taken place. This is in nobody’s interests, including those of the company where it has taken place, because eventually it usually gets found out.
To illustrate my concerns, I want to detain the House a little longer with a brief account of what came up in my time as a Minister, when there was concealment. “Panorama” revealed, in 2003, what was happening with an anti-depressant called Seroxat, which was being given to about half a million people a year. Some of the people taking higher doses of the drug experienced suicidal feelings, and there were a number of cases of younger patients committing suicide. There was widespread concern among patient groups, and the MHRA had to launch a review, which included a small subset of younger patients under 18, for whom Seroxat was not licensed but for whom it was being prescribed by doctors. At that time, about 8,000 young people a year were being prescribed this drug, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines advised me that children taking this drug were more likely to self-harm or have suicidal thoughts. That finding was not then available to the regulators, but the public fuss caused by the media caused the company—and I want to mention it; it was GSK—to end up passing the information in its files to the regulators in the UK, Europe and the US. I took the view, in 2004, that there was a respectable case for prosecuting GSK, because it had failed to inform the MHRA in a timely fashion of the information on adverse reactions in juveniles.
The whole affair limped on after my time as a Minister and became the largest investigation of its kind. Over 1 million pages of evidence were scrutinised, with GSK challenging matters all the way. Matters were only concluded in March 2008 when the decision was taken not to prosecute GSK, which received a slap on the wrist. The then MHRA chief executive said in a press release:
“I remain concerned that GSK could and should have reported this information earlier than they did”.
This case—and there are others which I know of—illustrates why we should put in the Bill a clear requirement that research information is put into the public arena in a timely way when there is a downside as well as when there is an upside so that people can have a fuller picture of what is actually going on. If noble Lords want a fuller account of the Seroxat saga, they can find it in my book, A Suitable Case for Treatment, which is available in the Library. I beg to move.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, the point of Amendment 63, which is in my name, is the need for the HRA to emphasise transparency in the reporting of clinical trials because patients and the public must have confidence that research in which they have been involved will be used in the best way to spread the message for the good of other sufferers. They have to know that results, whether negative or positive, are published. As my noble friend Lord Warner has said, it is particularly important if they are negative, for at least two reasons. First, it is to stop the unnecessary, wasteful repetition of the research by others who are unaware that it has already been done. Equally important is to prevent a bias in reports towards research that shows only that a new drug works when other, unpublished, research shows that it does not. This is particularly important when we consider what is called meta-analysis, whereby an analysis is made of all relevant published reports, brought together to provide a large database on whether a drug works or does not. If only the positive results are reported, we have a biased result at the end, which could result in all sorts of problems.
Open access to research data provides researchers with a much better picture of their field than if research results are held too closely to the chest, perhaps by researchers jealous of their findings or by drug companies fearful of rivals gaining an advantage. It is heartening to know that GSK seems to have learnt the lesson: it is the first pharmaceutical company to lead the way in transparency. Members of the Association of Medical Research Charities make it a condition of their grants that results are published. We are pushing on an open door and we just need the HRA to have some capacity to ensure transparency in NHS research.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I support Amendments 58 and 63. It is right for my noble friends Lord Warner and Lord Turnberg and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to press the Government on this important issue. As we have heard, the Joint Committee proposed including the promotion of transparency in research and ensuring full publication of the results of research—consistent with the preservation of patient confidentiality—in the Bill and we strongly support this.
This is our first opportunity to welcome the establishment of the Health Research Authority as a statutory body and we do so wholeheartedly. We recognise the vital importance of research and innovation to the NHS, the very real progress that is being made in these areas and the scale and pace of change in medical science. The HRA’s objectives not only promote and protect the interests of patients and the public in health and social care research but ensure that it is ethical and safe research, which inspires the public confidence that my noble friend Lord Turnberg spoke about.
Alongside other bodies, the HRA has a key role in promoting transparency, and we acknowledge that its recent guidance on how it will undertake this role sets out important measures that will go some way towards underlining that it takes its duty seriously. These include: gaining approval from research ethics committees before clinical trials can go ahead; a new timescale for registrations; the commitment to work with research funders and sponsors to set the standards for the publication and dissemination of research outcomes; taking steps to facilitate further analysis of detailed data; and plans to look at how patient consent forms can be amended to provide early consent and understanding on how data will be used, as well as how the HRA will be informed of the outcome of study findings.
There is no doubt that the HRA is committed to working with others to overcome barriers to transparency and create a culture of openness. The amendment and Amendment 63, which provide for the publication of research findings “fairly and frankly” and transparency in the reporting of clinical trials, would enshrine the HRA’s commitment in statute, and ensure that clinical research benefits patients and that the findings are available for others to learn and benefit from. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Turnberg, the advice of the Association of Medical Research Charities to its members to ensure that there is a requirement to publish in the terms and conditions of all their research awards has played an important role in providing greater transparency and would be reinforced by greater HRA authority in this matter.
Finally, like other noble Lords, I received a valuable briefing from the National Advisory Council to the Thalidomide Trust on the need for transparency and a change in the law for the disclosure of clinical and healthy volunteer trial data in relation to the drugs available on the market. The briefing states:
“Adverse effects caused by drugs that are designed to lead to a health improvement can be difficult to prove, and easy for the pharmaceutical companies to dismiss ... At the core of the problem is the fact that the safety assessments of a drug, undertaken in clinical trials done prior to the drug’s launch, remain hidden once the drug is on the market. A patient experiencing adverse effects therefore has no access to data that could be used to prove their claim … the onus is on patients to prove it was a drug that harmed them rather than the company that already holds that evidence”.
The Thalidomide Trust proposes changes to the informed consent form to allow sharing of anonymised data and making data from clinical trials available and accessible to the public once a drug has been released on the market. The trust acknowledges that this is a difficult issue. Have the Government had any discussions with the trust on this matter? I should be grateful if the noble Earl would comment on this, either today or in a written response.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will tolerate a short intervention. I was for 30 years a trustee of the charity the Public Interest Research Centre. I think I am correct in saying that in the 1970s and 1980s it was the only independent charity carrying out extensive research on the matters under discussion here. I agree with every word said by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Turnberg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. There is, to some extent, a disparity of arms between the huge pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory authorities. Frankly, I see no harm and some potential good in the amendments to try to rectify the balance of power and to avoid a repetition of the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, which is extremely sobering but by no means unique. A number of instances that we confronted in the 1970s and 1980s mirrored that example, if not on quite the same scale.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I want briefly to intervene with a thought to which the Minister may have a response. When you have medicines prescribed under the National Health Service—indeed, when you buy medicines—there is a leaflet inside the package setting out the need for the product and the circumstances in which it can be taken. However, there is also a section that deals with risk. I have often wondered whether that section on risk assessments, which lays down varying levels of risk, dependent on the incidence of conditions that might arise under use of the medicine, is based on the original clinical trials carried out by the manufacturer. If it is, it may well be that there is an argument for more frank information to be made available. If the element of risk is linked to the original research, it would obviously be very interesting to the wider public. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to help us there. Is there a connection?
Lord Winston
My Lords, I entered the Chamber expecting to speak not to this amendment but, as the Minister may recognise, on the issue of human fertilisation. However, I am feeling drawn into the argument. I find it difficult to agree with my noble friends on this side of the House. The wording of the amendment would not really fulfil the laudable purpose set out by my noble friends. There are many examples where this information would be very important. The case of Seroxat is a fine example of where there was a real need to have better regulation of the negative results of a drug trial.
There are many examples where the negative effects of a drug trial may not be of relevance in the same sort of way. In the area of reproductive medicine, for example, clomiphene citrate was first given as a contraceptive. The surprise was that people got pregnant on it, so the drug was shelved as a contraceptive. A great deal later, however, a drug company suddenly recognised that it had something that might stimulate pregnancy in women who had been infertile. The problem is that a drug company sponsors, pays for and organises research, so to some extent it has a commercial value in that research. We have to strike a very careful balance between when there is an important commercial angle which requires proper legislation and, equally, when there is a chance for drug companies to do a good job—as they did eventually with clomiphene citrate when it was launched as one of the most successful drugs in my area of medicine.
With all due respect to my noble friend Lord Warner, that makes the wording of this amendment difficult. I do not think that frank and fair reporting of a drug trial would be sufficient to meet the needs of what he is arguing in this case.
Lord Warner
Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend. I was arguing the case on behalf of the Joint Committee as much as anything else. The committee heard a lot of evidence on this, and across the parties, and across the Commons and the Lords, the conclusions were drawn up in its report to the Government.
I say to my noble friend that most of these clinical trials look at a product which is being tried for a particular purpose. If that product happens to fulfil some other purpose, a different set of issues arises. Seroxat was actually trialled as an anti-depressant, but it failed that test in so far as it was applied in a dangerous way to juveniles. The information about it failing that test was concealed from the public and the regulator. My wording might not be perfect but I am not arguing for my wording. I am trying to get the Government to engage with the issue so that they can find a wording that meets my concerns—and, I suspect, those of my noble friend Lord Turnberg—in the way that the Joint Committee proposed, to engage the HRA in ensuring proper transparency when there are downsides to research. That is in no way stopping a pharmaceutical company from using a drug or trialling a drug for a different set of purposes from that for which it was originally constructed.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I say straight away that I sympathise with the intention behind the noble Lords’ amendments. These two amendments seek to make an explicit statement about the Health Research Authority’s role in encouraging transparency in health and social care research findings and clinical trial results.
We are all keenly aware of how topical the issue of transparency in health research is. The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into clinical trials. Last week I gave evidence to that committee along with my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Universities and Science. I look forward with interest to the committee’s report. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, rightly pointed out, maintaining trust in research is crucial to its success, and the way in which we respond to the mounting calls for greater transparency has consequences for how the integrity of research conducted in this country is perceived not just on a national level but on the international stage.
However, in reaching answers to these pressing questions, we must be careful not to create perverse incentives that simply result in people choosing not to carry out research in the UK and invest elsewhere. Promoting transparency in research is a core part of facilitating the conduct of safe, ethical research. People enrol in trials because they want to contribute to medical knowledge and advances. In considering the ethics of research proposals, ethics committees have to be assured that any anticipated risks, burdens or intrusions will be minimised for the people taking part in research and will be justified by the expected benefits for participants, or for science and society. Knowing what research has already been undertaken or is under way and the results of that research is therefore essential in order to minimise risks and burdens by not repeating research that has already been conducted.
Here, I come to the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in debate on the previous group of amendments. Promoting transparency in research is inextricably part of facilitating the conduct of safe and ethical research, which is the Health Research Authority’s main objective in Clause 97(2)(b). As Dr Wisely, the Health Research Authority chief executive, said in evidence to the Joint Committee which scrutinised the draft Bill, promoting transparency is absolutely fundamental to protecting patients and the public in health research. As a special health authority, the Health Research Authority is already doing a number of things with regard to transparency in research. First, research ethics committees already consider an applicant’s proposals for the registration and publication of research, for dissemination of its findings, including to those who took part, and for making available any data or tissue collected as part of the research.
Secondly, since April 2013, the Health Research Authority has been undertaking checks of research ethics committee applicants’ end-of-study reports to see whether they registered and published research as they declared they would to the ethics committee. Thirdly, as noble Lords may be aware, the Health Research Authority recently published a position statement setting out its plans for promoting transparency in research. This statement has received widespread support from stakeholders, including the AllTrials campaign, the James Lind initiative, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and INVOLVE.
I turn specifically to Amendment 63, which would specify that one way in which the Health Research Authority, the bodies listed in Clause 98(1)—for example, the Human Tissue Authority—and the devolved Administrations would be able to fulfil their respective duties to co-operate would be through encouraging transparency in the reporting of clinical trials results. The intention behind these duties of co-operation is to encourage co-ordination and standardisation of practice so as to streamline regulation and remove duplication. The aim is that through these duties the people and bodies listed will work collaboratively with the Health Research Authority to create a unified approval process for research applications and to put in place consistent and proportionate standards for compliance and inspection. Streamlining the approval process for research will make initiating research faster for researchers, funders and sponsors, and ultimately enable people who use health and care services to benefit from research more quickly.
Noble Lords will be aware that clinical trials in this country are governed by EU law. The EU Commission’s current proposals for a new clinical trials regulation look likely to enshrine the principle of transparency in the rules governing clinical trials at every stage, including, as the current proposals set out, mandatory publication of clinical trials summaries, not only in their technical form but in a form that ordinary members of the public will understand. We believe that that is the right direction of travel.
Given the focus of these duties on streamlining the regulatory system that the HRA has, I hope that noble Lords understand why it is not necessary to make encouraging transparency in reporting clinical trials a fundamental part of co-ordinating and standardising the regulatory practices of the persons and bodies listed and the devolved authorities. I hope that noble Lords are reassured by the fact that promoting transparency is a core part of the Health Research Authority’s main objective in facilitating safe and ethical research.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked about discussions with the national advisory council on health improvement drugs. Perhaps I may write to her on that topic. I hope she will forgive me for not answering now.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked about the patient information leaflet that is now mandatory within packs of medicines. The risks that are set out typically on the patient information leaflets can be derived in several ways: first, from the original clinical trials data—the noble Lord is quite right about that—but also from any data that may have subsequently arisen from the reporting system that exists. Pharmacovigilance legislation, which came into force last year, now enables the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Authority to require pharmaceutical manufacturers to report safety and efficacy data where either concerns arise or where the evidence for a medicine was perhaps less than it might have been in the first instance. So transparency can be promoted in that sense as well. The noble Lord may already be aware that the MHRA regards its pharmacovigilance responsibilities extremely seriously.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is the Minister therefore saying that, in the event that adverse effects arose during the course of the clinical trial, there is now a requirement that the risk factors, as set out in the leaflet to which he referred, will reflect those adverse effects?
Earl Howe
There is a requirement that the patient information leaflet should contain warnings about the possible adverse side-effects of the medicine. The noble Lord is quite right that data may well have arisen from the clinical trials, but also from the yellow card reporting system, as it is called, and any other data that emerge from across the world. The point is to ensure that the patient is properly informed. No medicine is risk-free. All medicines carry some kind of risk of a side-effect and one has to recognise that that is part and parcel of the benefit that we get from medicines. The benefit-risk equation has of course to be positive, but these things need to be kept under scrutiny.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Earl said that it “may well reflect”, which is different from “shall reflect”.
Earl Howe
The MHRA, in granting a marketing authorisation to any medicine will have access to all the clinical trial data that the company has at its disposal. That is mandatory. Therefore, if the MHRA decides to issue a licence for a medicine, it will require that the full range of adverse effects is reflected in the patient information leaflet. The answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes, but he will not necessarily see a whole lot of technical data in the patient information leaflet. It will be translated into language that the ordinary patient can understand.
I believe that the Bill as drafted already gives the HRA a clear objective which requires it to take an active role in promoting transparency in research. I hope that I have given enough reassurance on these issues to all noble Lords to enable the proposers of Amendments 58 and 63 not to press them.
Lord Warner
My Lords, that was an interesting and rather complicated set of assurances from the noble Earl. I would like to consider it carefully and talk to my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, before considering whether to go any further.
As an observation, if the EU directives are going in the direction of this amendment and there is a lot of concern to make sure that patients are left in no doubt that a full, frank publication of reports including the adverse consequences of that research is a prime consideration, I still cannot see why we cannot put something—whether my wording or something equivalent to my noble friend's wording—on the face of the Bill. I would like to think about that a little further and I certainly do not promise not to bring this issue back after talking to my noble friends. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.