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, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth of the level of bank lending to businesses.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth of the level of bank lending to businesses.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Government are committed to creating a banking system that supports the British economy, rather than being supported by it. Two months ago, the Government and the Bank of England extended the funding for lending scheme, with a particular focus on small business lending. Last week, the Office of Fair Trading announced its review into how to make that lending more competitive, and at the Mansion House, I announced a plan for taxpayer shareholdings in RBS and Lloyds that will return these banks fully to the private sector, get value for the taxpayer and support the economy.
Simon Danczuk
Last Monday, I met businesses at Greater Manchester chamber of commerce and heard how banks were often failing them, thereby having an adverse impact on business performance. Does the Chancellor accept that bank lending to businesses has fallen over the past year and that the Government’s funding for lending scheme has totally failed businesses in Greater Manchester and the United Kingdom?
Mr Osborne
Gross lending to businesses is up under the scheme, but I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an issue—let us be honest, there has been an issue since 2008-09—with the contraction of bank lending to businesses in our communities. That is why we are taking further steps in two respects. First, with the Bank of England, we are extending the scope of the funding for lending scheme. It has proved very effective at getting mortgage rates down, and now we need to reduce the rates for small businesses. Secondly, we are sorting out the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is the largest lender to small businesses in our country.
Mr Osborne
The business bank, which was established last year, is now making loans to the funds that will lend to small businesses, creating non-bank lending channels. [Interruption.] There was no business bank under the Labour Government. I will tell the House what we had instead: we had a socking great banking crash under the Labour Government, and the person sitting opposite, the shadow Chancellor, was City Minister when it happened. We are cleaning up the mess from one of the biggest financial crises in the country’s history by ensuring that it never happens again.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that after a lifetime as a stockbroker and fund manager, my instinct, as bond yields rise all over the world, is that we are heading for another banking crisis that will certainly choke off the already inadequate lending of banks to small businesses? May I put on the record my dismay that he has not yet committed himself to the total separation of investment from commercial banks, which I have been urging on him ever since he became Chancellor? I am absolutely convinced that if we do not go back to something approaching Glass-Steagall, it will be an absolute disaster when the next banking crisis hits us.
Mr Osborne
Of course, I respect my right hon. Friend’s experience. A powerful argument has been made that we should completely separate and split up retail banks from investment banks. We asked John Vickers to convene a commission to look at this specific subject, and he came forward with proposals to ring-fence retail banking, as he thought that that would be a better approach. We also set up a cross-party parliamentary commission to consider the ring fence, and it thinks that the ring fence is the best approach. It made a specific recommendation that we should give the regulator the power to split up a bank that had refused to comply with the ring fence, and we are giving the regulator—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor shakes his head, but again not one of these things was done when he was City Minister. Let me say to him again, because he obviously does not understand, that we are giving the regulator a specific power to split retail from investment banking in a bank that is ignoring the ring fence. I think that that is the right way forward.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
In the Treasury Committee this morning, the Governor of the Bank of England expressed considerable concern that unacceptable pressure had been brought to bear on the Prudential Regulation Authority from within Government, both from No. 10 and from No. 11, at the behest of the banks, putting at risk the regulator’s independence. Will the Chancellor reassure the House that he knew nothing about this, that he was not personally involved, that he will investigate the allegation that others did bring unacceptable pressure to bear, and that he will report to Parliament?
Mr Osborne
Of course, if there is unacceptable pressure, I absolutely say that that is not acceptable—if that is the right way to put it. The PRA, which we created, is completely independent and it has made its independent decisions on capital in our banks. We also have the Financial Policy Committee, which again is completely independent and able to make these recommendations. We empower our regulators to do their job. Of course, banks, consumer groups and anyone else can make their case, but this is ultimately an independent body, an independent regulator, that makes the judgment. That is the system we have created.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The whole House agrees that we need to see more lending to small businesses and a return of RBS and Lloyds to the private sector so that taxpayers can get their money back, yet two weeks since the Chancellor helped to remove Stephen Hester from RBS, the taxpayers’ stake in the bank has fallen in value by £4 billion. Was that part of the plan?
Mr Osborne
In case the hon. Lady had not noticed, stock markets around the world are down. Bank stocks are down—
Mr Osborne
RBS: the world’s largest bail-out, under a Government who completely failed to regulate it. How dare the right hon. Gentleman have the audacity to come here and complain about the Royal Bank of Scotland? We are fixing the problems in the Royal Bank of Scotland. We are looking at the case for establishing a “bad bank”, which, as I said at the Mansion House, should have been done in 2008. We are going to fix the mess in the banking system that Labour left behind.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on setting up the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Does he believe that implementing some of its recommendations will help banks to lend? Will he urge the Leader of the House to allocate time for a debate on this subject?
Mr Osborne
We will have plenty of time to debate the recommendations of the parliamentary commission, which I think has done an absolutely excellent job for the House, by the way. We will shortly have the Report stage of the Banking Bill, at which the Government will say how we intend to respond to those recommendations. If there is more work to be done on the drafting of specific amendments, those amendments can be tabled in the House of Lords and they will of course come back to the House of Commons as well. The whole purpose of the parliamentary commission was to enable us to get on with this. If we had created a public inquiry, as Labour recommended, it would only just be getting going now. Instead, Parliament has done what it is supposed to do, which is to investigate a problem and provide recommendations, and we are going to debate those recommendations here.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the effect of the pensions triple lock on pensioners.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The triple lock means that the level of the full basic state pension is now £6.85 a week higher than it would have been if it had been uprated only by earnings since 2011-12. That equates to about £356 a year. The average person reaching state pension age in 2013 with a full basic state pension can expect to receive an additional £12,000 in basic state pension over their retirement, thanks to the triple lock.
Jason McCartney
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the triple lock will prevent a repeat of the disgraceful situation in which pensioners received a pension increase of only 75p?
Danny Alexander
I certainly can confirm that. Putting in a floor of a 2.5% increase in the basic state pension will prevent that disgraceful situation, and I can tell my hon. Friend that, thanks to the triple lock, the basic state pension now represents a higher share of average earnings than at any time since 1992.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me be clear that we on the Opposition Benches do support the triple lock on pensions. However, at a time when our NHS and social care are under such pressure, why do the Government think it is a priority to continue to pay the winter fuel allowance to the richest 5% of pensioners?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Lady says that Opposition Members support the triple lock, but they did not introduce it when they were in office. The shadow Chancellor wishes to include the basic state pension in his short-term cap of welfare spending. Let me tell the Labour party what that might mean. Last year, the welfare forecast increased by £2.3 billion; if the pension had been included in the welfare cap, as the shadow Chancellor suggests, it would have meant freezing the basic state pension this year, not increasing it as planned. That is what Labour really means on pensions. I am certainly willing to look at the payment of winter allowance to wealthy pensioners; I am sure it will be a matter to discuss at the next election.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
3. What recent fiscal steps he has taken to support small businesses.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
8. What recent fiscal steps he has taken to support small businesses.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
Three years ago, I cut the small companies tax rate; this year, I have taken a number of further steps to support small businesses, including the new £2,000 employment allowance, which will reduce small businesses’ tax bill. Up to 1.25 million businesses will benefit, with about a third of all employers taken out of paying employer national insurance contributions altogether. We have also increased the annual investment allowance tenfold this year from £25,000 to £250,000. This directly helps small and medium-sized businesses looking to invest in the future.
Sheryll Murray
Small businesses in South East Cornwall welcome the measures that the Chancellor has already introduced. It has taken some of them to a position where they can expand, but they have been applying and waiting for grant funding for a considerable time. Will my right hon. Friend speak to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that decisions are taken as soon as possible to allow these businesses to grow and to avoid missed opportunities?
Mr Osborne
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the Finance Bill, which she put huge effort into. I know she is passionate about her constituents and the businesses of Cornwall. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already given £7 million in rural development grants to her constituency. She has raised some specific cases; a company that makes Cornish Blue has been waiting for what I think is an unacceptable period for an answer from another Government Department about a grant. I will personally look into this matter and see if we can speed the award.
George Freeman
In the £50 billion UK life science industry, the Chancellor’s support for the patent box, the research and development tax credits and a globally competitive corporation tax rate are helping to secure global companies here, as evidenced by Johnson & Johnson’s recent announcement of a global innovation centre here in the UK. Does he also agree that we need to support insurgent small and medium-sized enterprises emerging into the sector? I would like to highlight the role of the biomedical catalyst fund in securing over 50 projects for the UK and £1 billion in venture capital funding.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend’s knowledge in this area is well known, and he has applied it as a Member of Parliament to promoting schemes that help the life sciences industry—and not just the big companies, although we welcome the Johnson & Johnson announcement, but the small companies, too. The biomedical catalyst fund has been very successful at supporting small businesses in this sector. Without giving too much away about tomorrow’s announcements, I can tell him that we will go on funding this scheme.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Can the Chancellor tell us how many firms have been helped by his small firms national insurance holiday since it started three years ago, given that he claimed it would help 400,000 firms?
Mr Osborne
About 20,000 firms have been helped—[Interruption.] Well, 20,000 firms have been helped, small business creation is at the highest level since the 1980s and there are over 1 million new jobs in the private sector. And we will bring before Parliament new legislation to make sure that the first few thousand pounds of their national insurance bill is completely wiped out—they will not have to pay it at all. That is a real success story, and if the Opposition want to vote against it, they can be my guest.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Finance and credit are the lifeblood of small businesses. The Government have been pumping money into the banking sector, so what is the Chancellor doing to ensure that that money goes to small businesses rather than to repair bank balance sheets?
Mr Osborne
Of course, as we discussed earlier, the capital position of the banks is important, but the funding for lending scheme is now focused on small business lending. I know that there is a particular issue with the very tough situation that the banking sector faces in Northern Ireland and the problems from the Irish Republic that have spilled over into Northern Ireland. One thing we are doing with the Royal Bank of Scotland is looking specifically at Ulster and the issues surrounding some of the bad loans made in the past, and at how we can help that bank to make good loans in the future to help the businesses of Northern Ireland. We are specifically supporting the Northern Irish economy and we are aware of its problems.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that extending rate relief to a further half a million small businesses will help many of them in the constituencies of Southend West and Rochford and Southend East?
Mr Osborne
Small business rate relief has helped many small firms to cope with the cost of rates, and we have been able to extend it year after year. We will have to make a decision later in this Parliament about a further extension, but there is clear evidence that the current extension is doing a great deal of good.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
The main complaint from businesses throughout the country, both small and large, is that they do not feel they are receiving the support that they need from the banking sector. Given that state-owned banks are among the poorest in terms of lending, what is Jeffrey—sorry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—doing about it?
Mr Osborne
As I said earlier, the Royal Bank of Scotland is the largest lender to small businesses in our country. That is why it is such an important support for the economy. We are taking a serious look at how we can enable it to move on from all the bad loans—all the bad bets that it laid—during the middle years of the last decade, when, by the way, the shadow Chancellor, who is still muttering from a sedentary position, was City Minister.
Surely it is in all our interests to try to sort out the banking problem, but I have no idea whether Labour Members support our proposal on the Royal Bank of Scotland. We have heard absolutely nothing from them. However, what we are doing shows that we are actually confronting the problems that we inherited.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the effect on living costs of changes to the personal allowance.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It was announced in Budget 2013 that the Government would increase the annual personal allowance by a further £560 to £10,000 in April 2014, thus meeting a key coalition commitment a year ahead of schedule. By that date, as a result of the combined effects of all personal allowance increases under this Government, a typical basic-rate taxpayer will have gained by more than £700 a year in cash terms.
John Howell
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way of tackling this issue is to put cash into people’s pockets, and that taking 2.7 million people out of tax altogether is an excellent way in which to proceed?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
If everything is better for the average family, why did the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that the average family was £891 worse off? Was the IFS wrong?
Mr Gauke
We do not accept those figures. What I will say is that we have been prepared to tackle the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. We have taken measures to put the public finances back on a sustainable footing, with no help from the Labour party, which has opposed every measure that we have taken to do that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have taken 3,000 low-income people out of tax altogether in my constituency, and have cut taxes for 40,000 low-income residents? Is this not a Government who are on the side of the poor?
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Money in people’s pockets is one thing, but since the financial crash, food prices have increased by 18% compared with inflation of 13%. It is not just a question of the money in people’s pockets; it is also a question of what they have to pay when they go to the shops. Does the Minister really believe that families in my constituency feel that they are better off?
Mr Gauke
It is because of the need to deal with the cost of living that we have taken measures such as controlling increases in council tax. That is why fuel duty is lower than it was in the plans that we inherited, and why we have taken the measures that we have taken in regard to the personal allowance. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is muttering about VAT. Let us be clear about this. Labour Members did not vote against VAT; then they said they were against VAT. Last week they said that they would not change VAT; now the shadow Chancellor is complaining about VAT. It is just chaos and confusion from the Labour party.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
5. What recent steps he has taken to increase the level of infrastructure investment.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
In a difficult economic climate the Government are committed to investing in infrastructure. We have increased our infrastructure spending plans in this Parliament and have committed to a further £3 billion a year from 2015-16. We are using this country’s hard-won fiscal credibility to support and offer up to £40 billion in guarantees for infrastructure projects, and I will set out our plans for further investment in infrastructure on Thursday.
Mark Menzies
As an MP for the north-west, may I ask whether the Government can give assurances to the House that large-scale infrastructure projects such as HS2 will proceed under this Government?
Danny Alexander
Yes I can, and the House will be considering High Speed 2 tomorrow. I hope my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House will give the project very strong support, because it is a massive project that has the capacity completely to transform the regional economic geography of this country. This Government are totally committed to delivering it, and we will do so.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Can the Chief Secretary confirm that only seven of the Treasury’s infrastructure projects in the pipeline have been completed? In view of its overall conversion finally to the need for infrastructure investment, is that not a disgraceful record?
Danny Alexander
I do not accept that figure, and I tell the hon. Gentleman a very large number of projects are completed or under way that we have announced. There are national road schemes, motorway schemes around the country, local transport schemes around the country, Crossrail under way—tunnelling started in May 2012—and major improvements to over 134 railway stations since May 2010. There is a great deal of investment in infrastructure going on, and he should welcome it.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
23. Ahead of tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review, can I make yet another plea about the importance of the M4 around Newport? It is the gateway to the south Wales economy and it needs to be upgraded. That is long overdue; it was ignored by the last Government for so many years.
Danny Alexander
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that I am very well aware of the importance of that project. We have been in discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government about the matter, and it is very much tied up with the Silk report, and together those two things will help that project go forward.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
20. Why have 80% of the projects in the Treasury’s infrastructure pipeline not even started construction yet?
Danny Alexander
A vast number of projects are under way, and a vast number of projects are in the pipeline to start, where work and planning permission are going on. These projects are being delivered up and down the country, and I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he should show a little humility in this matter. After all, this Government are investing a greater share of our nation’s income in infrastructure during this Parliament than his party managed during its 13 years in office.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I look forward to my right hon. Friend’s announcements about infrastructure on Thursday, but already on my weekly journeys from Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington I can see the gantries going up around Reading to provide the electrification of the great western main line. Is it not the case that this Government are already presiding over the greatest investment in railways since the Victorian era, providing a stimulus to the economy in Bristol and all stations between there and London?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and rather than laughing, the shadow Chancellor should welcome the fact that there is the largest investment in our railways since Victorian times. Electrification is under way, ahead of schedule as my hon. Friend suggests; the intercity express programme train purchase programme will help to improve journey times yet further; what was in our announcements in the autumn statement last year will allow direct western rail access to Heathrow from his constituency and other communities served by that line.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
If it is all so wonderful, can the Chief Secretary explain why, two years after he published the national infrastructure plan, according to the Office for National Statistics the level of infrastructure investment in our economy has plummeted by a staggering 50% in the first quarter of this year, its lowest level since he came to office? Why?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman should remember that the capital investment we are putting into infrastructure in this economy is much greater than in the plans his party set out before the last election. As the former Foreign Secretary said, Labour was going to halve the share of national income going into capital spending. We have added to that, and by using the fiscal credibility that this Government’s tough approach to the deficit has secured to offer infrastructure guarantees, we are enabling infrastructure projects in the private sector to come forward that would not be doing so otherwise.
Chris Leslie
What planet is the Chief Secretary living on? A year ago, the director general of the CBI was asking:
“Where are the diggers on the ground?”
A year later, the diggers are still gathering dust. I realise that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor are busy focusing on headlines for the next general election, two years away, but why are they not taking the advice of the International Monetary Fund and bringing forward capital investment now, in 2013, to make up for their lamentable incompetence on this infrastructure plan?
Danny Alexander
We are investing more in infrastructure this year than the hon. Gentleman’s party planned during its period in government. We are supporting the private sector to bring forward further investment in infrastructure, thanks to our infrastructure guarantee programme. We are supporting the construction of more affordable homes than his party managed; after all, his party presided over a decline of 421,000 affordable homes in this country. We are increasing investment in that. He should welcome this Government’s infrastructure programme, not criticise it from the position of weakness that he is in.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
6. What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage job creation in the private sector.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
14. How many jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Private sector employment has been growing robustly, with 1.3 million jobs created in the sector since the start of 2010. At Budget 2013, we announced the £2,000 employment allowance, which will support businesses aspiring to grow by hiring their first employee or expanding their work force. Businesses will be able to employ four adults or 10 18 to 20-year-olds full time on the national minimum wage without paying any employer national insurance contributions at all.
Laura Sandys
Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of an enterprise zone and a regional growth fund that has been supporting jobs in my area following the Pfizer closure, and which the Chancellor very kindly opened, has delivered 750 new jobs in one year? We hope to be announcing a further 200 jobs in the next couple of weeks. Does that sound like a private sector success?
Simon Wright
The 2010 autumn statement confirmed the dualling of the A11, raising investor confidence in Norwich as a destination for growth. May I urge Treasury Ministers to be similarly bold in their spending review in relation to the A47, where investment has the potential to create up to 10,000 more jobs for the region?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful for that question, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be listening attentively to any announcements made later on in the week. His constituency is another example of where private sector growth has been very strong, reflecting the national pattern.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
How many jobs will high-speed rail create?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Following the success of last week’s G8 summit, Northern Ireland is now looking forward to the international investment conference in October. Will the Treasury work closely with the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that we maximise private sector investment in Northern Ireland, both in 2013 and 2014?
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
9. What his Department’s estimate is of the likely level of public sector net debt as a share of GDP in 2015-16.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
Public sector net debt is forecast to be 85% of GDP in 2015-16, compared with 94% of GDP and accelerating had the policies of the previous Government continued to be pursued.
Steve McCabe
Let us hope that that estimate proves more reliable than previous efforts. In the interests of transparency, and given tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review, is the Minister now ready to admit that the national debt has risen from £828.7 billion to £1.19 trillion under his watch? If we eliminate the Royal Mail pension fund, as we have been advised to do, and the Bank of England gilts from quantitative easing, is it not true that borrowing in 2012-13 is up, and not down as the Chancellor told this Chamber?
Greg Clark
Like you, Mr Speaker, I take a great interest in the hon. Gentleman’s speeches in this House, and I know that he is deeply interested in fiscal policy. Since the beginning of the year, he has spoken 102 times on the subject of public spending cuts, but in each and every intervention he has opposed spending cuts. To cut the debt, we have to cut spending. He should learn that, and the Labour party should as well.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one reason why our debt is such an issue is that the previous Government ran budget deficits in the good times as well as the bad and that the only way to reduce debt is to get the deficit down?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that between 2001 and the time they left office, the previous Government trebled the national debt, yet when the shadow Chancellor was asked whether they were too profligate and had too much national debt, he said no. Labour’s new policy is the old policy: more spending, more borrowing, more debt. It is time they learned.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister assured us that by 2015 the books would be balanced. Is it not a fact that as a consequence of the Chancellor’s abject economic failure we are now looking at the deficit reaching £96 billion by 2015? What does the Financial Secretary have to say about that?
Greg Clark
I have followed the hon. Gentleman’s interventions over time and he should be familiar, as we all are, with the study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that made it very clear that if the policies of his party had continued, the debt would be £200 billion higher.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we look across the channel to countries such as Italy, we see what can easily happen if a Government lose control of public spending?
Greg Clark
The channel is not very far from my hon. Friend’s constituency, so it is possible to look across. He will know that the UK cut its structural deficit by more than any other G7 country over the past three years, whereas Labour racked up the largest structural deficit in the G7. The shadow Chancellor confirmed on Sunday that he would borrow more money in 2013, 2014 and 2015. Labour says it has a new policy, but it is the old policy—to borrow more and to go further into debt.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
10. What progress he has made on implementing the housing market measures announced in Budget 2013.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Government have made excellent progress in implementing the measures. For example, the Help to Buy equity loan scheme has helped 4,000 individuals and families reserve a new build home already and the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme will be in place by January 2014.
Andrew George
In high house price and low wage areas such as mine, where four times more properties are sold to second home buyers than to first-time buyers, intermediate market solutions—shared equity and affordable homes with section 106 planning restrictions—are often the only way for local families to get a toe on the housing ladder, yet the equity loan scheme does not have the rules to enable them to take advantage of it. Will the Government reconsider the rules to help local people in such circumstances?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. He will have upmost in his mind the fact that under Labour, house building fell to its lowest levels since the 1920s. The Government are supporting hard-working households who have saved but who do not have a large deposit from the bank of mum and dad to help in buying their own home. The Help to Buy equity loan scheme he mentioned will help 74,000 families and has already helped 4,000. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that 20% of the £1.8 billion of additional funding we have promised for affordable homes will go to shared ownership.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the Help to Buy scheme help to increase the supply of housing? I am not talking about buying capacity; will it specifically increase the supply of housing?
Sajid Javid
The short answer is that it most certainly will, and it has been welcomed by the Home Builders Federation. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is now concerned about the issue. House building fell to its lowest levels since the 1920s under the previous Government. The number of affordable homes decreased by 421,000 over 13 years and local authority waiting lists almost doubled from 1 million to 1.8 million under Labour—a shameful record.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
12. What recent estimate he has made of the rate of increase of average earnings compared to the rate of consumer price inflation.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The best way to deal with today’s cost of living challenges is to have paid employment. In 2012, the number of people employed in the UK has risen faster than most of our competitors, including the US, France, Germany and Japan. As a result, household income has risen by 2.1% more than consumer prices over the past year.
Ian Mearns
Despite what the Minister has just said, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that living standards for many will be lower in 2015 than they were in 2010. Is it not the case that, while the rich and super-rich benefit from tax cuts, working people and their families are worse off? Is not the truth that we are not all in it together?
Sajid Javid
No, certainly not. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this issue. The hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament in 2010, and he will know that in the last term of the stewardship of the previous Government, his constituency saw paid employment fall, and unemployment rise by a staggering 67%. Paid employment is the best way to raise living standards, and 1.3 million new private sector jobs have been created in the past three years. More people are in employment than at any other time in the history of this country.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
On living costs and standards, can my hon. Friend tell me how much more my constituents would have to pay to fill a tank with petrol if we had adopted the previous Government’s fuel price rises?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend highlights an important point. We scrapped Labour’s fuel duty escalator; we have frozen their escalator. Petrol prices are 13p per litre lower than if we had kept the policies of the previous Government.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Does the Minister see any correlation between wages being £1,300 a year less than they were at the time of the election and the number of people who are in work turning up at food banks?
Sajid Javid
What I see is jobs being created in the private sector at a record rate in this country—1.3 million jobs in the past three years; a faster rate of job creation than any other G7 country last year. If the hon. Gentleman really cared about his constituents, he would welcome that.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
What has the effect been of Government policies not just on petrol but on keeping interest rates low, freezing council tax, cutting income tax and helping pensioners?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend has raised the issue of interest rates. If we had not had a credible policy to deal with the record budget deficit that the previous Government left behind, interest rates would be a lot higher. In fact, in the last Budget delivered by them, interest payments on Government debt would have been £30 billion higher in this Parliament. If interest rates were just 1% higher, mortgages would rise by almost £1,000 a year for the average household.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
13. What assessment he has made of the role of community budgets in improving the efficiency of public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I am a strong supporter of community budgets because, by joining up public services locally, we can save money and get better outcomes for our constituents. The troubled families programme is using the community budgets approach to turn around the lives of 120,000 families by 2015. Building on its success, I announced yesterday that the Government would put £200 million towards expanding the programme to work with a further 400,000 families from 2015.
Danny Alexander
Yes, it certainly should, and I urge my hon. Friend to listen carefully to the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
16. What progress he has made on his policy to withdraw child benefit payments from higher earners.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
In January 2013 a new income tax charge was introduced to reduce or remove the financial benefit of receiving child benefit for those on high incomes. For taxpayers with incomes between £50,000 and £60,000, the amount of the charge is a proportion of the child benefit received. For taxpayers with income above £60,000, the amount of the charge is equal to the amount of child benefit received. Eighty-five per cent. of families with children continue to benefit in full from child benefit. Entitlement to child benefit payments remains universal and will continue to be paid to all those who claim it.
Richard Graham
I am delighted to hear about the savings that will be achieved, especially given that those of us who supported them were told by the Labour party that they would destroy the universal principle, and that they were complicated, unfair and unworkable. It now appears that they are workable, and the Opposition have accepted that they will not change the policy. Will my hon. Friend share with us what vital provision of services those savings can achieve, and will he also consider means-testing the winter fuel allowance?
Mr Gauke
There is a substantial saving to the Exchequer through child benefit. It was not that long ago when the Leader of the Opposition said that millionaires should receive child benefit because
“it’s a cornerstone of our system to have universal benefits”.
It appears that that is no longer the case, although all we have is briefing. On winter fuel payments, the Prime Minister made it clear that they would continue in the course of this Parliament and we will fulfil that commitment.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.
Simon Danczuk
In his March Budget, the Chancellor boasted that Government borrowing fell last year. Will he confirm that figures published by the Office for National Statistics on Friday show that Government borrowing last year actually did not go down, but went up?
Mr Osborne
The Office for National Statistics revised down borrowing for 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14; that is actually good news.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
T2. The quality of schools in my constituency is very high. Will my right hon. Friend outline the Government’s intentions on school funding?
Mr Osborne
Everyone knows that Britain needs to live within its means, and tomorrow I shall set out the next phase of the economic plan to move Britain from rescue to recovery. However, I can confirm that we will offer real protection for our national health service and our schools. Those vital public services are an investment in our economic future, and they are all about doing what we need to do to win that global race.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
The whole House will have heard the Chancellor not answer the topical question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). The reason is that, despite all the Budget speech bluster, borrowing last year went not down, but up.
Let me ask the Chancellor another question. The bonuses paid in the financial services sector this April, the first month of the new tax year, were 65% higher than in the same month last year—up by a total of £1.3 billion. Can the Chancellor tell the House why bank bonuses rose by £1.3 billion this April?
Mr Osborne
First, on borrowing, the Labour Government were borrowing £157 billion a year. This Government borrowed £118 billion last year, which represents a fall in borrowing. The deficit is down by a third because we are taking the tough decisions to ensure that Britain lives within its means. On bonuses, they are 85% lower than when the right hon. Gentleman was City Minister.
Ed Balls
The fact is that the Chancellor promised to get the deficit down, but it is rising, and that month-on-month rise in bonuses is the highest since records began in 2000. There is a simple reason why that happened: thousands of very highly paid people deferred their bonuses into the new tax year to take advantage of the Chancellor’s top rate tax cut, which has cost the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost tax revenue. How can the Chancellor still say, “We’re all in this together,” when living standards are falling for everyone else and the economy has flatlined for three years? Is not this economic failure the reason why the Chancellor will not balance the books in 2015 and why he will be coming back to the House tomorrow to ask for more cuts to public services? He is unfair and out of touch, and he is now revealed as totally incompetent.
Mr Osborne
Getting a lesson from the shadow Chancellor on how to balance the books is like getting a lesson from Dracula on how to look after a blood bank. He finds himself in a most extraordinary situation. On Saturday, the Labour leader said that Labour was going to rule out borrowing more. On Sunday, when the shadow Chancellor was asked whether Labour could borrow more, he said, “Yes, yes, of course,” and then, on Monday, the Labour party committed itself to higher welfare spending—it is a complete shambles. On the eve of the spending review, Labour finds itself in the extraordinary situation in which it has completely abandoned the economic argument that it has been making for the past three years, but kept the disastrous economic policy. That is a hopeless position. The shadow Chancellor has led Labour Members up a cul-de-sac and they have to find their way out of it.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
T4. In the last Budget the Chancellor announced a video games tax relief to help support UK publishers and developers, which was a very welcome step. However, the European Commission has launched an investigation into this tax relief. Will my right hon. Friend join me and industry representatives such as TIGA so that we may make the best case possible for this vital policy?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We remain committed to introducing video games tax relief as soon as possible and we are working with the industry to provide the Commission with the evidence that it needs to conclude its investigation quickly. These things can take a little time, but we have a history of succeeding in implementing new and innovative forms of state aid.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
T3. Since the Chancellor’s last spending review the US economy has grown four times faster than the UK’s. Is this not further evidence of the Chancellor’s failed policies?
Mr George Osborne
The US fiscal consolidation is faster this year than the UK consolidation. The structural deficit in the UK has fallen by more than in the US. But look at the UK—we have created over a million new jobs in the private sector. That is one of the most impressive employment records anywhere in the world.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
T6. Devolution is a continuing process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the National Assembly for Wales is to develop into a fiscally responsible governing institution, it must have responsibility for raising a significant part of its own budget?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I do agree with that. The Government established the Commission on Devolution in Wales to consider, as part of its remit, how to increase the fiscal accountability and autonomy of the Welsh Assembly Government. We are carefully considering the commission’s recommendations and we will respond in due course, having discussed the matter with the Welsh Assembly Government.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
T5. May I take the Chancellor back to the question posed by the shadow Chancellor and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)? Did Government borrowing rise in 2012-13, as compared to 2011-12?
Mr George Osborne
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the deficit fell from 7.8% to 7.7%, so it came down.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
T7. In the light of the Chancellor’s assiduous commitment to deficit reduction, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the Opposition’s spending plans, which appear to consist of more borrowing, more debt and a return to Labour’s failed policy of boom and bust?
Mr Speaker
Order. The Chancellor is not responsible for Labour policy. A very short one-sentence reply will suffice, then we must move on. Members must ask questions that are orderly, not disorderly.
Mr Osborne
My short answer is thank God I am not responsible for Opposition policy.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
T8. Why does the Office for Budget Responsibility say that the deficit this year will be the same as it was last year and the year before? Is not the truth that the Government’s stalled plan on jobs and growth has led to this appalling situation?
Mr Osborne
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the appalling situation. It was an 11% budget deficit that the Opposition left us when they left office—11%. It is now going to be 7.7%. Borrowing—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) asks how much money. I will tell him. The Opposition were borrowing £157 billion. We are now borrowing £118 billion. Borrowing is not going up. It came down from £157 billion to £118 billion, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that maths, no wonder he left the country in such a mess.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The A14 Cambridge toll road is strategically vital for the golden economic triangle that is Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich—
Mr Ruffley
And indeed Colchester. Can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm that he will have that at the forefront of his mind when the Treasury makes its capital allocations?
Mr Osborne
The A14 is a strategically important road, not just for my hon. Friend’s constituents, but for the whole country. It links ports to many of our largest cities. It is at the forefront of our mind. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will set out on Thursday not just the capital plans for 2015-16, important as they are, but our long-term plans for road investment. Central to that is making sure that Britain has the economic infrastructure that we need to succeed in the modern world, and the A14 is part of that infrastructure.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
T9. The Chancellor must be concerned about the spiralling costs of air travel, with fares currently up by 22%. Does he agree that we need to increase competition by making better use of spare capacity at regional airports? To that end, will he agree to look again at reforming air passenger duty in order to promote growth at airports such as Manchester airport?
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman and I represent both ends of the runway at Manchester airport and know how important it is to our constituents and to economic growth in the north-west. We looked specifically at whether to split APD into a tax for hub airports and a tax for regional airports, but we ruled that out because we do not think that it would be fair. We have stuck with the APD rates we inherited from the previous Government. With regard to the campaign being run on the subject, it is important to recognise that airlines often refer to charges and taxes, and many of the charges are those, such as fuel charges, that they have chosen to put on. I understand the argument, because we have collectively—it was the previous Government’s decision—taken a tough decision on APD rates, but I think that people should read the small print of the campaign.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, notwithstanding the Alice in Wonderland economic world of the shadow Chancellor, a plan to borrow more will not actually bring borrowing down?
Mr Osborne
I completely agree that Labour’s plan to borrow more to borrow less is completely nonsensical. It really is extraordinary that a day after the Labour leader said that Labour had ruled out borrowing more, the shadow Chancellor committed the party to doing just that. It is a catastrophic position for his party to hold. Frankly, I do not think that the country will ever adopt it.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Given that the Chancellor appears unwilling to give us the answer that dare not speak its name on last year’s borrowing, I will ask him about the time available to debate the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. A number of those recommendations require legislation before they can be given effect. The Government have allocated only one day on Report for the banking Bill. Although I respect their lordships, surely it should be the elected House that is given a chance to debate the recommendations. Will he reconsider and allow two days on Report?
Mr Osborne
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, along with all Members of this House and the other House who took part in it. The very fact that the Commission has done its work speedily means that we can consider its recommendations for the banking Bill going before Parliament. Of course, allocation of time is a matter for the Leader of the House to make clear in his statement. The right hon. Gentleman has my commitment that over the course of the Bill’s scrutiny—it will go to the Lords and then come back to the Commons—there will be proper time to consider all the Commission’s recommendations and, if necessary, for the Government to draft changes in order to implement them. It is a parliamentary commission, which is what I wanted it to be, and it is of course right that Parliament should consider its report in detail.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
In 2007, 50% of UK gilts were purchased by insurance companies and pension funds. Last year the figure had fallen to 22%, the lion’s share of UK gilts now being bought by the Bank of England. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that we are funding public sector overspend by having one branch of the state write out IOUs for another? Can that be sustained?
Mr Osborne
The arrangements for quantitative easing are well established, and the decisions on whether to increase asset purchases are within the envelope that I set for the independent Monetary Policy Committee. I think that an active monetary policy has helped sustain demand over the past few years. It is anchored in a credible fiscal policy, the next stage of which we will set out tomorrow.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is six months since the Banking Commission’s first report warned against a delay in ring-fencing, so it is disappointing that the ring-fencing of the banks might not be fully implemented until 2019. Can the Chancellor give one guarantee today—that the markets division of RBS, and comparable departments in other large banks, will be outside the retail ring fence and not liable to taxpayer assistance when the new rules are in place?
Mr Osborne
First, the timetable is one that John Vickers and his commission themselves proposed. Secondly, it is not for me to make individual decisions about individual banks; that is for the boards of those banks and, of course, the regulator. But the whole purpose is to insulate the retail bank from things that go wrong in the investment bank and, above all, to make it possible for the person doing my job to be able to resolve the retail bank and keep the retail operations going without having to bail out the investment banking arm. Indeed, that whole problem of “too big to fail” is something we need to deal with.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
It is the Government’s policy that, to cover cutting the Army to its smallest size since the battle of Waterloo, people should be encouraged to join the reserves. Leading by example, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say how many members of his staff have joined the Territorial Army since January this year?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the answer is none. He is passionate about the issue, which he has raised before. I can also confirm that the Treasury implements the policy of the Government—to make sure that all reservists who request a 10-day special leave on a paid basis get it.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
On infrastructure investment, there is widespread disquiet—including in the National Audit Office, it seems—about the management of the Government’s broadband investment programme. Does the Chancellor agree that it is essential to harness competition effectively in delivering infrastructure investment?
Danny Alexander
Our programme of investment in rural broadband is being delivered in every part of the United Kingdom, and it is on track for delivery. We continue to look at the capability of Government Departments to deliver infrastructure projects effectively. My noble Friend the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury has been undertaking a review of these matters and will set out the conclusions shortly.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
This morning, it was Labour party policy to cut pensions to spend more on welfare. We have just heard that the party now supports the triple lock. Is the Chancellor optimistic that by tea time it might support our policy on controlled welfare spending? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady was very difficult to hear because there was so much noise from the Opposition Benches, but fewer than 10 minutes ago I stressed that questions should be about the policies of the Government, not the Opposition. It is a pity to finish on a bad note, but Members really ought to establish the right habit early in their parliamentary careers. We will, I am afraid, have to leave it there. This is a box office occasion, and demand tends to exceed supply.
Points of Order
Mr Speaker
Mr Balls, I can always see and hear you. Fear not: your point of order will now be heard.
Ed Balls
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The figures produced on Friday by the independent Office for National Statistics show that borrowing rose from £118.5 billion in 2011-12 up to £118.7 billion in 2012-13. Is there a danger that the Chancellor may have inadvertently misled the House in claiming that the deficit had fallen? Would it be appropriate for him to correct the record now or should he make a statement today correcting the record and saying that borrowing has not gone down but up?
Mr Speaker
Every right hon. and hon. Member is responsible for the content, including the accuracy, of his or her answers. I know that neither the shadow Chancellor nor the Chancellor would seek to draw me into a debate on substantive matters. That would be unworthy, and neither of them is an unworthy individual.
The shadow Chancellor has raised his point of order. There is an opportunity for the Chancellor to respond if he wishes—[Interruption.] Order. But he is under no obligation to do so. I have a suspicion that these matters will be aired further in the course of the week, and perhaps in weeks, months and indeed years to come. We will leave it there for now.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week I received a response from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to my written question on how many occasions Ministers have signed off special severance payments for NHS employees in the past year. He said that it would cost too much to give me that information. How can the Government possibly claim to want an end to the culture of secrecy in the NHS if they are covering up their complicity in these pay-offs? Is there anything you can do to intervene, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. The first is the point that I have just made—that all Members, including Ministers, must take responsibility for the content of their answers. My second point is that if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the answer because he thinks that it is uninformative or in some way lacks credibility or plausibility, it is open to him to take up his concern with the Procedure Committee. The House will doubtless be aware that the Procedure Committee, under the auspices of its indefatigable Chairman, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), is looking at the whole issue of answers to parliamentary questions, and I feel sure that he and his colleagues on the Committee will be happy to hear representations from the hon. Gentleman. That response is intended to be helpful to all Members of the House.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you will have noticed that I was trying to catch your eye during Treasury questions. On 12 March, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me that the case of my constituent, Mr James Boyle, with Clydesdale bank was being looked into. Clydesdale bank has since written to me saying that, no, it has not been reviewed or looked into. Could the Speaker tell me whether the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps inadvertently misled the House?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman’s use of the point of order procedure is ingenious, but perhaps a tad cheeky. He is seeking to ask now the question that he did not have the opportunity to ask earlier. If we were to proceed on that basis, Treasury questions would, in effect, be at least doubled in length. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I have no idea whether the Minister in any way feels that his reply to him requires revision or reconsideration in the light of the verdict of the bank. It has to be said that the expression “looked into” is a commonly deployed term that has about it a certain vagueness, and it therefore lends itself to a number of different interpretations. It would be inappropriate for me to suggest that anyone has misled the House, and I am certainly not doing so. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take the matter up, he must correspond further with the Minister or hope to be luckier at Treasury questions in future.
Opposition Day
Lobbying
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the absence of a Bill to provide for a statutory register of lobbyists in the Queen’s Speech; expresses its concern at the damage which may be inflicted on the reputation of the House in the absence of statutory regulation; and calls on the Government to immediately begin cross-party negotiations with a view to introducing a Bill before the summer recess, which would provide for the creation of a register for all professional lobbyists, with a clear code of conduct which is backed by sanctions in the event of egregious breaches of the code.
Let me start by entirely accepting that lobbying is a normal part—in fact, an essential part—of an active democracy, and that includes commercial lobbying. However, it has been clear for some time that the professional sector of the industry needs to be properly regulated. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said that lobbying is
“an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long”
and that it is
“an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.”
We agree with him.
Jon Trickett
I will give way, but not yet.
The subject of today’s debate could not be more important for the reputation of the House of Commons, for every single right hon. and hon. Member knows in their heart of hearts that the perceived integrity of politicians is at an all-time low. The Prime Minister’s prediction that lobbying was the
“next big scandal waiting to happen”
has sadly proved to be all too correct. [Interruption.] It may be one of the few things he did get right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) says. Knowing that this was going to happen, we ought to have moved rigorously and rapidly to ensure that our democracy emerged cleaner and with a higher reputation than it currently has.
If we can, we ought to handle these matters in a non-partisan manner. It is therefore with some regret that we raise lobbying reform on an Opposition day, which is usually a political knockabout. It is particularly disappointing because it appeared that a cross-party consensus had begun to emerge that something needed to be done. In fact, by the time the coalition agreement had been signed, all three main parties had agreed to legislation and to the creation of a statutory register, but that was more than three years ago. Unfortunately, all the Government have done since then is to have a long, slow consultation followed by a White Paper, and then another long, slow consultation.
When the reshuffle took place in September 2012, formal responsibility for lobbying reform had been totally removed from ministerial responsibilities. The Government simply forgot about lobbying reform.
Jon Trickett
I will give way in a moment.
After the reshuffle, not a single Minister was left with a formal duty to bring forward the reform to which the Government had committed themselves. When we called this Opposition debate, we could therefore have had a sweepstake in the office on which Minister would speak on behalf of the Government, because none of them had formal responsibility for lobbying after the reshuffle. At the top of our guess list was the Deputy Prime Minister, but he was not too keen. In fact, he is nowhere to be seen this afternoon. We then thought that it might be my opposite number, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, because that is where the Bill is supposedly being drafted. He is nowhere to be seen either. We then thought that it would have to be the Minister for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith). She is in the Chamber, but I see that she will not be speaking. None of the above will be responding. Very unusually, the Leader of the House will be speaking on this Opposition day. It seems that he was the last one standing when the music stopped.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Getting back to the subject of the debate, which is lobbying, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not right for parliamentary passes to be given to lobbyists?
Jon Trickett
The funding of political parties is being discussed—[Interruption.] Let me come to the point. That matter is being discussed in another place on a cross-party basis. Financial relationships between political parties and lobbyists clearly ought to be a matter for regulation. I believe that financial relationships between individual Members of Parliament and lobbyists should be outlawed, but I will come to that point in a minute.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I chair the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which has looked into this matter at length. It must surely be of concern to all parliamentarians and to Members from all parts of the House that the Government have failed to respond to a report that was published almost a year ago. Rather than legislate in haste, should we not look at this matter in a parliamentary way, with pre-legislative scrutiny and a proper response to a Select Committee that was elected by Members from all parts of the House?
Jon Trickett
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and all the members of his Select Committee. They have produced important recommendations. It would be helpful if we had sight of the Bill that it appears will emerge in due course, so that there could be pre-legislative scrutiny. It is time that we saw some progress on this matter.
I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House will speak this afternoon because, although he is not listening to me, he is a decent parliamentarian. His duty as the Leader of the House is to protect all hon. Members, as well as the reputation of the House as a whole. I hope he will drive through the necessary process of lobbying reform.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. With all deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Public Administration Committee published a report several years ago in the previous Parliament recommending a register of lobbyists. Also in the previous Parliament, I tabled an early-day motion that received more than 120 signatures from all parts of the House. The Government cannot forget these things.
Jon Trickett
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There has been pressure for something to be done on lobbying for many years.
In the three years since the coalition agreement was signed, we have had nothing but delay, obfuscation and prevarication, and the Government are at it again today. The Government’s amendment does not clearly indicate that they will produce a lobbying Bill, and that is shabby politics.
Jon Trickett
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but when he rises to his feet I invite him to say whether a lobbying Bill should be introduced, without any further obfuscation or prevarication of the type we have seen in the past three years—yes or no?
James Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. He talks about obfuscation and delay, but I happen to remember that there was a Labour Government for 13 years. Will he tell me what happened to the idea of a lobbying register in those 13 years?
Jon Trickett
The hon. Gentleman would have a powerful argument about the previous Administration but for the fact that throughout the whole of that period the Conservative party argued for a voluntary register. Even as late as September 2009, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who became my opposite number, was arguing in the trade press that there should be a voluntary register. In March 2010, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the deputy leader of our party, said that we had tried a voluntary register but it did not work, so we now needed to move towards legislation. In its manifesto, the Labour party clearly committed itself to a statutory register, but what did the Conservative party manifesto say? It said that the Conservative party wanted to persevere with a voluntary register. For the whole of the 13 years we were in office, it is clear that the Conservatives were pressing us not to legislate, and the fact is that in the past three years they have done nothing whatever to legislate.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Of course, what he is telling the House is that the Labour Government did nothing for 13 years. Two months before the general election, when they no longer expecting to be in power, they said that they might do something in the future. He said that the Government’s amendment was not clear about our commitment, but it
“welcomes the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation before the summer recess”—
Mr Lansley
I am about to say when: before this summer recess. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman that is 18 July, not next summer recess:
“before the summer recess to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists”
within three years. That was in the coalition Government’s programme. His Government did not do anything.
Jon Trickett
The amendment goes on to talk about all kinds of other extraneous matters. The truth is that the Government are seeking to obscure the nature of the debate that we need to have this afternoon. This debate is about lobbying reform. Will there or will there not be a lobbying Bill that will create a serious register with a code of conduct?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He earlier quoted the Prime Minister on the “next big scandal”. Does he agree that it will be a scandal with planning permission, for both Government and Parliament, if we fail to legislate and to legislate robustly—not a light-touch statutory register, but robust legislation?
Jon Trickett
My hon. Friend makes an important point and does so more succinctly than I have been doing.
The Government’s strategy has been clear: to kick the whole issue into the long grass for as long as possible and then to try to confuse and obscure the true issues. Only last month, we had the Queen’s Speech in which there was no mention of lobbying reform. It is only now, because of recent unfavourable headlines, that my opposite number finally said that he wanted to see some lobbying reform. We shall have a look later at what sort of lobbying reform that might be.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jon Trickett
I will, but will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether there will be a lobbying Bill before the summer recess?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to read Hansard, he would have noticed that a lobbying Bill was introduced yesterday, so there is already a lobbying Bill on the Order Paper from his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). However, if this issue was so pressing at the time of the Queen’s Speech, why did the Labour party not raise it then or table an amendment to that effect? Or has it just jumped on a bandwagon?
Jon Trickett
If there are any more interventions of that poor quality, I will not take any more.
I wrote an article in The Guardian in January 2012, using those three words: delay, prevarication and so on. It is simply not good enough to pretend that we have not been demanding some form of legislation for at least three years. The truth is that the Government have delayed and even this afternoon, as we shall see, they are attempting to obfuscate the true issues. A Bill was introduced yesterday but it was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), a Member on this side of the House.
I hoped—obviously it was a vain hope—that this could be a non-partisan debate. Our reputation as a political class is now at an all-time low. Lobbyists needs to be made to operate in the clear light of day, so that every citizen can see and know how and why decisions are taken. They also need to see how much is being spent behind the scenes by commercial lobbyists to influence decision makers, and they need to see how that money is being spent. Nothing less will do. Let me illustrate the point with a case.
I said that I would not be too partisan so I will not name the individual. Someone may work out who it is; some might be quicker than others. I shall refer to an Australian gentleman. In an Ashes summer, one would have thought that the Government would be on the British side rather than that of the Australians. He shall be nameless, but he is a highly paid adviser to the Prime Minister. Reportedly, he had discussions at Chequers prior to the Queen’s Speech with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. [Hon. Members: “Patricia Hewitt?”] I do not think that she was a gentleman, although she was many things.
When the Queen’s Speech was delivered, it transpired that the Government had dropped all reference not only to lobbying legislation but to plain tobacco packaging and minimum alcohol pricing, all of which had been promised. The problem arises when the public find out that this very same Australian is also and at the same time the chairman and managing director of an active lobbying company with an office here in London. The company has actively lobbied in Australia against plain tobacco packaging and against minimum alcohol pricing.
I do not wish to accuse this gentleman of having behaved with any impropriety. Arguably—I do not know—he may have excused himself from the discussions with the Prime Minister at Chequers when the matter of a lobbying register came up. He might also have left the room when tobacco packaging was mentioned and done so once more when alcohol pricing was discussed. I do not know. But his company failed to register itself on the voluntary register of lobbyists in Australia and his company is not on the voluntary register in the UK. Therefore, we have no idea who his clients are, what their objectives are or how much money is being paid.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I am quite quick on the uptake and I have an inkling as to who the hon. Gentleman may be talking about, but will he make it clear that this person is a party employee, not a Government employee, and that the arrangements are very similar to those of Charlie Whelan, Deborah Mattinson, Derek Draper and Alastair Campbell and that it would be duplicitous to say that they are in any way different?
Jon Trickett
I quoted the Prime Minister at the beginning of my speech. He said that this is a problem that affects all parties and has to be resolved by all parties. I take that point entirely.
Referring back to the gentleman I am talking about, if there were a statutory register in place—as there would have been if Labour had won the last election—we would undoubtedly know who was lobbying on behalf of whom, how much was being spent and on behalf of which clients.
Mark Durkan
Does my hon. Friend recognise that experiences during the banking crisis, with the charity sector and in other areas have taught us that there is a key difference between registration and regulation and that proposals that centre only on registration do not give us what we need?
Jon Trickett
That brings me to my next point. The Prime Minister said that sunlight is the best disinfectant and I agree, but I do not believe that the proposals mentioned in the amendment match up to the requirements. Let me explain why. There are three reasons. First, it was drawn in such a way as to cover only the narrowest section of third-party lobbyists, which is less than a quarter of the whole industry. What is the point of having a register of professional lobbyists that will not register all professional lobbyists? Secondly, there is no sign of the Government including in the Bill—it is certainly not in the White Paper—a code of conduct that would regulate the register. Even the voluntary code that covers the more ethical part of the industry already has a code of conduct. Why would we want to have a lower statutory threshold than that which the more ethical section of the industry already imposes on itself and its own members?
My third objection to the consultation, as the Government call it, is this: given that the Government are not proposing a code of conduct, there can be no sanctions applied against lobbyists who breach the code. Again, this is a lower standard than the industry’s existing codes. At the moment, any lobbyist working within the current ethical voluntary register is forbidden to engage in any improper financial relationship with any parliamentarian, which brings us to the bones of the issue.
If we have a voluntary register and someone breaches the code by having such a relationship with a parliamentarian, they will be removed from the register and will be unable to practise as a lobbyist. That should be written into legislation, but it is not envisaged in the White Paper.
The White Paper was
“possibly one of the most shoddy documents I have ever seen government produce.”
That is not my view, but that of a practising, professional lobbyist. Francis Ingham, director general of the Public Relations Consultants Association, said of the White Paper that the Government’s proposals were “unfit for purpose”.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The code of conduct, which my hon. Friend mentions, is habitually broken. For example—he mentioned this sort of contravention—the code says that parliamentarians should not be paid by lobbying companies that are signed up to the code, yet many Members at the other end of the corridor are directors of lobbying firms and so presumably are in receipt of payments. That breaks the code of conduct, but nobody does anything about it.
Jon Trickett
The problem is that many companies and lobbyists—the Australian I mentioned, for example—do not participate even in the voluntary code, which is why there must be statutory provision.
Jon Trickett
I will not take any more interventions, because I want to make some progress and other people want to speak.
It is not difficult to define what the House should do to regulate the industry—I agree that the point is to regulate as well as to register, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said—and it need not be burdensome for professional lobbyists. In fact, it takes about 20 minutes to provide the necessary information on the relevant form—I have tried it myself. The Bill should do four things. It should create a clear definition of professional lobbying; a statutory register of all those who lobby professionally; a clear code of conduct that forbids inappropriate financial relations between lobbyists and parliamentarians; and a strong system of sanctions when the code is breached.
All that is detail, however. We are simply asking for a commitment from the Government to agree to cross-party talks—in fact, that is really all our motion asks for—not as an excuse for failing to act, but as a prelude to rapid action to bring this matter into proper order. I hope that the Government’s amendment to the motion is not a signal that they intend to conflate a series of irrelevant issues in order to obfuscate further and therefore once more evade the central question before us this afternoon, which is: how are we going to reform and then regulate the lobbying industry? The noble Lord Wallace, who speaks for the Cabinet Office in another place, said that the Government did not intend to conflate these matters. I hope he is correct, but I fear he is not.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that if we are genuinely to restore public trust in politics, the statutory register of lobbyists has to be the very minimum, and that we must do far more to tackle the excessive influence of corporate money and vested interests and to address things such as the invisible secondments of people from industry right into the centre of policy making here in Whitehall?
Jon Trickett
I will be speaking on other matters, as will other Labour spokespeople in due course, but the hon. Lady is right that we have to take big money out of politics across the board. We have proposals to do that, and have made some difficult recommendations on trade unions, if anyone is interested. It is the Government who are stalling the negotiations on party funding.
We need a lobbying Bill that will begin the process of cleaning up our politics and create a level playing field for all the professional lobbyists who behave ethically but are constantly undermined by a few who do not play by the rules. Nothing less will do. The Leader of the House must say whether he will continue to speak for the closed circle, the tiny elite, that seems to run our country and on whose behalf many professional lobbyists often work, or whether he will speak on behalf of the many by placing the professional lobbying industry on a proper footing.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end and add:
“notes the failure of the previous administration to implement a statutory register of lobbyists for 13 years; welcomes the Coalition Agreement commitment to regulate lobbying through a statutory register; notes the Government’s consultation paper on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists; welcomes the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation before the summer recess to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, as part of a broad package of measures to tighten the rules on how third parties can influence the UK’s political system; and looks forward to welcoming reforms that ensure that the activities of outside organisations who seek to influence the political process are transparent, accountable and properly regulated.”
I move the amendment on behalf of the Government both as Leader of the House, in which capacity I seek to protect and promote the reputation of the House, which the motion claims might have been damaged—I am sorry that my being here disappoints the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who wanted other Ministers to be here, but I am pleased to be here, and am here as a volunteer, not a pressed man—and as a Cabinet Minister who, with ministerial colleagues, has policy responsibilities in this regard. I, along with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform, and the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), will take responsibility for the forthcoming Bill, which, as the amendment makes clear, we have committed to introduce before the summer recess. It will be a Bill to implement our coalition programme commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists and to promote transparency and an improved regulatory framework for the influence of third parties in the political system.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene already. Perhaps he can add some clarity to his speech.
Jon Trickett
We might be able to foreshorten the debate, if the Leader of the House will say whether it will be a lobbying Bill.
Mr Lansley
It will introduce a statutory register on lobbyists. I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speech—honestly, I did—but I regret that it sank further and further into the quicksands of confused thinking.
Mr Lansley
I shall try to be even-handed. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) first.
Mr Spencer
It is good to hear that my right hon. Friend is here voluntarily and has not been lobbied, but, further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), will he clarify whether he thinks it appropriate for hon. Members to give parliamentary passes to lobbyists?
Mr Lansley
That is an important point. My personal view is that we should not be doing that. I do not wish to engage you directly in this debate, Mr Speaker, other than by way of approbation. I thought it was absolutely right that you made your proposal in the light of recent press allegations. In particular, it was absolutely right that you considered the question of the number of passes made available to sponsors of all-party parliamentary groups and asked the Committee on Standards to consider the matter. I had planned to refer to that in a moment.
Mr Lansley
As I am referring to this point, I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Charlie Elphicke
I want to underline my support for the idea that no lobbyist should have a parliamentary pass. In particular, nine Labour MPs sponsor parliamentary passes for union lobbyists. Does my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that, and will he say, here and now, that it is wrong?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Leader of the House, I have made it clear, along with my colleagues, that parliamentary passes should be made available for the purpose of supporting Members of Parliament in their parliamentary responsibilities, not for the benefit of third parties. It is not to conflate unrelated issues for the Government to focus on this issue of third-party influence in the political system. The process must be transparent. If third parties are involved, as inevitably they will be—that includes trade union relationships with the Labour party, which are absolutely fine—it must be transparent and not convert what should be a transparent third-party relationship into the undisclosed control of, or influence over, parliamentarians.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) that the Bill would introduce a register of lobbyists. Will he confirm that it will also include the regulation of lobbyists?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman should talk to his own Front-Bench team. [Interruption.] I am just answering his question. The point is that it will introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, and in that sense it is a regulatory process. I will explain our approach later.
Did the hon. Member for Hemsworth really think it was sensible to have this debate just weeks before publication of the Bill? What was he thinking?
Mr Lansley
Yes, we are. Its purpose will be to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, which is what we said in the coalition programme we would do.
Mr Lansley
If I may, I will make a little progress before giving way. I have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Hemsworth, whose speech, I am afraid, sank into the sands of sloppy thinking. I probably should not be surprised about that—people said the motion was nothing but a piece of political opportunism launched off the back of recent reports—but I am a more generous soul. I looked for a purpose in the Labour motion. I hoped that the debate would show evidence of Labour thinking practical thoughts about how to promote a more open and accountable system. That hope was, however, not founded on experience. We know that Labour did not actually do anything about a statutory register of lobbyists for the 13 years it was in government. We are three years into this Parliament, and there have been 86 Opposition day debates, yet this is the first on lobbying.
We know why Labour did nothing about lobbying. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) said in October 2011:
“It was very, very, difficult to get right. We were persuaded by the industry that they would set up their own code”.
But Labour did not put in place the statutory register it now calls for, and it so lacked a view during this Parliament—notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Hemsworth has just said—that it did not even respond to the public consultation on the Government’s proposals that were published last year.
Alex Cunningham
No one could be more aware than the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Health Secretary, that the tobacco industry lobby is one of the most powerful groups around this place, given its direct and covert campaigns to delay legislation to introduce plain packaging for its products, among other things. Will the Government ensure, if and when they get round to registering lobbying organisations, that such organisations will be required to reveal whose payroll they are on, to ensure greater transparency? For example, tobacco companies might finance third-party organisations as a front to promote their causes.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hemsworth have chosen the wrong person to attack on the question of tobacco control. When I was in opposition, I made it clear as shadow Secretary of State for Health that my party would not engage with the tobacco industry, and we did not do so. In government, I made it clear that we would comply with the international framework convention on tobacco control, which precludes the exercise of influence on our policy by the tobacco industry, and we do so. I was the person who sat down and talked to the Australian Health Minister, way back in the latter part of 2010, in order to understand what she intended to do, and I was the one who launched a consultation on standardised packaging for tobacco. I know that this Government are taking decisions in the best interests of the people of this country, including on health grounds, and that we are not taking them at the behest of any tobacco company.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Bill will include a statutory code of conduct that lobbyists will have to abide by?
Mr Lansley
As I have said, it will set out a statutory register of lobbyists.
Mr Lansley
No, I will not give way. It would be better for me to make my speech and explain what we are planning to do than simply to try to respond to more interventions.
We did not hear from the Opposition about this subject; they did not respond to our consultation last year. It is interesting that the first time we heard from them was when we announced that we would introduce a Bill before the summer, at which point they tabled their motion calling for the Government to introduce a Bill. This is an interesting concept: they are not jumping on someone else’s bandwagon; they are jumping on ours. This is a flagrant example of that.
In the event, the hon. Member for Hemsworth did not offer any practical ideas; instead, he offered assertions and slogans masquerading as policy. He should have had the honesty to admit that the Labour Government put the issue in the “too hot to handle” box. They did not resolve the complex nature of the problem, which has been revealed by the divergent responses to the consultation. The responses showed that we are far from achieving consensus on the nature of regulation that is required.
The Government will set out to promote the culture of openness that best delivers the positive behaviours and public confidence that we all seek.
Mr Lansley
Let me explain a little more, then I will give way again.
There are two ways in which we can go about regulating conduct in political life. We can create a comprehensive rules-based system backed up by intrusive enforcement, to try to specify what everyone should and should not do pretty much all the time. That would be immensely bureaucratic and costly, and would involve a constant effort to keep up. It would create not a culture of openness but a “see what you can get away with” approach.
The other way forward is to be clear about the standards expected, based on the Nolan principles, and to ensure that all those who exercise responsibilities—and all those who seek to influence them—are subject to the necessary transparency in their actions and contacts, and held accountable for their actions, so that we can see who is doing what, and why. For those who seek to influence the political system without the necessary transparency, there will be clear sanctions available.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I think the right hon. Gentleman heard the valid point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made earlier. This is a complex business. Some of the big legal firms are now half lawyers and half lobbyists, and they say that they will refuse to be involved in the proposed register because of client confidentiality. There are some really big problems, but Members on both sides of the House want to get this right. May we have a pre-legislative inquiry to enable us to do that? This is a really difficult one. We used to think that accountancy firms consisted of auditors and accountants, but look at their track record now that the banks are going to hell in a handcart. Many of those firms do not need lobbyists, because they have been here all the time lobbying as companies. I was quite enthused by the right hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks, but may we have a pre-legislative inquiry to enable us to get this right?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will know that I am an advocate of ensuring that the Government legislate after we have consulted and, whenever possible, sought scrutiny of the proposed legislation. I fear, however, that if we were to go further in regard to pre-legislative scrutiny, we would not be able to legislate in the time frame we have set out. We published draft clauses, and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee produced a report on them that was not wholly supportive. I completely understand that. We have reflected—at length, I freely admit—on what the Committee said, and I believe that we will now be able to proceed with the Bill. It might not meet everyone’s objectives, but it will do what is necessary to create the clarity, transparency and openness that form the basis for us to ensure that public confidence is achieved.
Mr Lansley
I will give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I apologise to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer); I will give way to him in a moment.
Mr Allen
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to legislate for and about Parliament and about lobbying in Parliament. It is therefore only fair that Parliament should have due process and be able to understand the Bill so that it can make it better on behalf of all parties. He says that the time frame is very compressed, but he has yet to respond to the Select Committee’s report from nearly a year ago, so there was clearly a little bit of ease in the time frame at that point. Will he please leave the door open so that proper pre-legislative scrutiny can take place before the Bill comes before the House, in order that all Members can understand these complicated issues and legislate better on lobbying than we seem to be doing at the moment?
Mr Lansley
We will introduce a Bill before the summer recess but, given the nature of things, we might not be able to proceed with its consideration until the September sittings or later. That would afford people an opportunity, in the context of the Second Reading debate and elsewhere, to look at how we have resolved the issues.
John Cryer
I was listening to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the demands that the register would place on lobbyists. Will that include having to provide financial information, such as how much has been spent on lobbying? Many Members on both sides of the House think that that would be an important part of the jigsaw.
Mr Lansley
I am not planning to do that at the moment. We have made it clear that we are going to introduce a statutory register that makes third-party influence clear, so that people will know on whose behalf lobbyists with third-party clients who are seeking to influence us are working. I listened with care to some of the interventions on the hon. Member for Hemsworth, and I acknowledge that there are important issues about the relationships between lobbying companies—and lobbyists who act on their own behalf rather than on behalf of third parties—and parliamentarians. But, frankly, is it not up to Parliament itself to be very clear about this? Contrary to what has been suggested, I am not planning to legislate within Parliament. For example, the issues that the standards code is rightly looking at in relation to the interests of the Chairs of Select Committees and the interests of all-party parliamentary groups and how they are represented are important ones, but they are matters for the House to determine, as I shall explain.
Mr Lansley
I want to make a little more progress before giving way to my hon. Friends.
Mr Lansley
And to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whose views I always respect.
As a Government, we believe that we must choose the route of trying to produce a transparent system. The contrary route—a completely rules-based approach, rather than one based on principles—is more likely to fail, as too often rules then create loopholes that people will exploit when they can. In contrast, we are setting out to create an open and transparent culture that transforms behaviour so that people live up to these principles. As a Government, we have pursued such an open approach, so that we can look with justification to promoting some of the most transparent actions ever.
Mr Lansley
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before.
We have published departmental business plans so that Ministers can be held to account on the development of policy. We have published more than 9,000 datasets from Government Departments, public sector bodies and local authorities. We have published details of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external individuals, including lobbyists. We have published details of gifts, overseas travel and hospitality received by Ministers and special advisers. We are now planning to go further with a Bill to create a statutory register of lobbyists.
Let me be clear, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth was, that there is nothing wrong with lobbying as such. It is a necessary—indeed an inevitable—part of policy making and the parliamentary process. Politics is about the reconciliation of conflicting interests in society, and the articulation of those interests is necessary to enable the political system to be effective. What is required is that the representation of interests to decision makers is made transparently, fairly, accountably and free of improper influence. The Nolan principles provide a high-level framework, as amplified by the code of conduct for Members here and by the ministerial code. If, in all cases, Members and lobbyists lived with the letter and the spirit of those principles and codes, our system could command greater confidence.
Mr Spencer
Will the Leader of the House clarify that barriers will not be put in place to stop constituency groups such as the Fire Brigades Union, the Police Federation and small church charities lobbying their MP, as they should not be precluded from that process?
Mr Lansley
I think that we in this House should be clear that our constituents have a right to lobby us as their constituency Members of Parliament. What is important is that we always behave in a way that is consistent with the code of conduct for Members so that we act as constituency representatives, not on the basis of any other inappropriate or improper relationships.
Pete Wishart
The Leader of the House will know that in Scotland we are progressing our register of lobbyists through a cross-party private Member’s Bill. Does he recognise the efforts we have made in the Scottish Parliament to try to deal with this problem, and is that a model that he might indeed follow?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are a number of models in a number of jurisdictions across the world, which we have of course looked at and considered carefully. What I am emphasising here is that we are going to proceed on the basis of a belief that the greatest possible clarity and transparency is the key to achieving the confidence we are looking for. In order for that to happen, what is particularly necessary is that the public can see who is lobbying whom.
Mr Lansley
I will give way in a few moments.
In that respect, there is a lacuna, in that when Ministers meet consultant lobbyists, it is not always clear to the public on whose behalf those consultants or companies are lobbying. The purpose of the measures we will introduce is to rectify that deficiency.
Of course, to make the transparency complete, further steps may be required. In particular, lobbyist meetings with shadow Ministers, the relationships of external interests to parliamentarians through all-party parliamentary groups and Select Committees, including their Chairs, may require further steps. The latter issues relating to all-party groups and Select Committees are, as I mentioned earlier, matters for the House, and the Government welcome the referral of these issues by Mr Speaker to the Committee on Standards—now, of course, reinforced by its lay membership. I hope that the House will be able to consider what steps to take on the basis of that Committee’s advice. As I have made clear, the House should proceed only on the basis of recommendations relating to House matters from its own bodies for this purpose. I know these issues are not as straightforward as some represent them, but we are now proceeding with them.
Mr Lansley
I will give way later.
The question of the publication of shadow Ministers’ diaries in the same way as Ministers currently publish theirs is, of course, a matter for the Labour Front-Bench team.
Mr Lansley
In the spirit of openness, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). I hope he will indicate the willingness of his shadow Front-Bench team to publish their diaries in the same way as Ministers publish theirs.
Mr Lansley
I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman volunteer any comment in response to my question. To be fair, perhaps it is more the responsibility of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, so perhaps he would like to stand up and say that shadow Ministers believe that in order to secure the necessary transparency, they, as well as Ministers, should publish their diaries.
Mr Lansley
Perhaps the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) would like to speak on behalf of the Labour party and volunteer this confirmation on its behalf.
Grahame M. Morris
It is very kind of the Leader of the House to give way—I was starting to think that I had inadvertently offended him in a previous life. How does he think the public will react when they find out that, one in four Conservative peers and 58 Conservative MPs have recent or current financial links with private health care? Will the Bill address that?
Mr Lansley
I have no idea of the specifics of what the hon. Gentleman talks about or of what precisely he means by what he said, but what I would say is that transparency is important. If Members of this House have financial interests in companies, they should be very clear about them in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and they should be very clear that they do not act in Parliament in a way from which they could personally benefit through their relationship with those external interests.
Mr Lansley
Let me try the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). Would she, in the interests of transparency, like to volunteer on behalf of the Labour party to publish the meetings that her shadow Ministers have with external lobbying companies?
Helen Jones
The right hon. Gentleman should understand that he is supposed to be answering the questions. Let me put this point to him. Will the Bill that he proposes include regulations on in-house lobbying, such as the type associated with Fred Michel? Yes or no?
Mr Lansley
I thought I had made it clear on many occasions that what we are setting out to do in the Bill is to create a statutory register of lobbyists in the context of seeking to make absolutely clear where a third-party influence is being exercised in relation to Ministers. I used to be Secretary of State for Health, as Members will recall. We published our diaries of meetings and when the British Medical Association came to see me, nobody was under any illusions about why it did so. That applies, too, to the Royal College of Nurses, other royal colleges, the Patients Association, the NHS Federation—the list is endless. There was no doubt about the nature of the representations from people associated with many of these organisations. Where a lobbying company is seeking to influence Ministers, the permanent secretary or whomever it might be, the issue is knowing who their clients are. That is where the gap lies, and that is what we are focusing on. [Interruption.] I do not know about Fred Michel in that sense.
Mr Sheerman
I can give a straightforward answer in that I believe our shadow Ministers should publish their diaries; I see nothing wrong with that. The right hon. Gentleman has bounced that issue on us, but I imagine that most serious Labour Members—and most of them are serious—would say yes to that. Let me press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. All the groups he mentioned lobbied him, quite legitimately, when he was Secretary of State for Health, but the key issue is whether this lobbying register will go right across the sort of people that lobbied him, including the lawyers, the accountants and the big companies, so that everybody is included in the register—not just a tiny circle of professional lobbying companies representing only about 25% of the lobbying industry.
Mr Lansley
With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point, which I have already made. The gap lies where Ministers, permanent secretaries and—I hope his hon. Friends will take the matter up—shadow Ministers need to set out whom they meet and for what purpose, and on whose behalf they are being met. When I met members of the BMA and the RCN, we were under no illusions about that. If I were to meet representatives of a lobbying company that had a client in an industry and we did not know who the client was, we would not have the necessary degree of transparency. That is what we are talking about: ensuring that we have the maximum transparency.
Mr Lansley
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman twice. I am grateful to him for agreeing with what I said, but those on his own Opposition Front Bench will not—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Leader of the House has made it clear that he will not give way. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has a beatific smile on his face, but he has been in the House for 34 years, and he knows that a Member cannot make a point by means of an intervention if the Member who is on his or her feet will not give way.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position that he was being helpful, but I think that his concept of helpfulness is not necessarily shared.
Mr Lansley
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will be noted that Opposition Front Benchers, despite having tabled the motion, are not themselves willing to contribute to the transparency that we all require.
As the House knows, the essential component to inspire confidence in the political system is the behaviour of Members of Parliament and those in the political system. We have responsibility and power. We must live according to the highest possible standards and we must live by the letter of the rules, but, as past events have shown, it is even more vital for us to live by the spirit of the principles of public life.
Many of the breaches and scandals that we have seen in recent years arose not because the rules were unclear—although, in the case of the expenses scandal, they too often were—but because people had behaved badly, and I believe that transparency is the key to dealing with that as well. I believe that the great majority of those in our Parliament and our political system set out to behave well and do behave well, but, human nature being what it is, the minority who are tempted to do otherwise need to know that they cannot engage in sustained, concealed efforts to peddle influence. Their activity will be brought into the open, and they must expect to be held to account for their behaviour, for, as the Prime Minister has said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. To secure that transparency was the purpose of the efforts that we have undertaken over the past three years, and it is the purpose of our forthcoming Bill.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has said that Ministers must have a register and that it would help him if Opposition Front Benchers operated the same system, but have I a responsibility to make public the identity of people who are consulting me? More important, if they are people in my constituency, there may be a secretary who spends a small amount of money on assisting me. Am I required to publish that as well?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend will know, the responsibilities that we have as Members relate to the Members code, which does not include a responsibility for us to publish the details of our meetings, the names of those whom we meet, and the purposes for which we meet them. That protection is afforded to Back Benchers and, of course, to shadow Ministers as well. We as Ministers are clear about the fact that we publish our diaries, on the basis that we exercise responsibilities and power. If shadow Ministers take the view that they have no power and are therefore not accountable for whom they meet, for whom those they meet represent, and for the influence that those people are seeking to exert, they will have to argue the case themselves.
The Opposition motion calls for a Bill to be introduced before the summer recess. I am pleased that, in this instance, they agree with the Government. Well before the motion was tabled, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that a Bill would be introduced before the recess. The motion also calls for cross-party talks. That comes as something as a surprise, as the Opposition have not previously demonstrated an interest in this issue. They have not sought constructively to engage the Government in discussion of it during the three years for which the introduction of a register has been under consideration—foreshadowed, of course, in the coalition programme-—and they made no response to the Government’s consultation last year.
Now the Opposition say that they want a register of “professional lobbyists”. I still have no idea what they mean by that, or what is the logic of it. Are they referring to everyone who lobbies Government or Parliament, and who is paid? I do not think that they mean “professional” in the sense of having a relevant professional qualification, so “professional” must mean “paid”, and that would capture an immense number of people.
Mr Lansley
No. I am about to end my speech.
In contrast, the Government’s proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists focus on cases in which further clarity is required. The introduction of the register is part of a broad package of measures to tighten the rules on how third parties influence our political system, along with reforms to ensure the accountability of outside organisations that seek to influence the political process. Together, those two elements constitute a further, clear demonstration of our commitment to transparency in the political system.
As was demonstrated by the response to the Government’s consultation, the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists is a complex issue, and one that has required careful consideration by the Government. Our proposals will deliver a register that will increase transparency without placing disproportionate burdens on those who legitimately lobby Government and Parliament. We will present those proposals before the summer recess, and we will continue to work with those who have engaged with our plans.
I welcome the Opposition’s new-found interest in our proposals, and hope that they will now seek to engage constructively in making our political system more transparent. Perhaps, on reflection, they will agree to engage positively in the publication of shadow ministerial diaries, in order to ensure that transparency exists from their point of view as well.
On that basis, I ask the House to support the amendment and, if necessary, to reject the motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Given the number of Back Benchers who wish to speak, there will be a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
There is no doubt that we need a lobbying Bill—we have needed one for some time, and we now need one relatively soon—but it is important for us to learn the lessons of the past, and not to legislate in haste and repent at leisure.
Mr Allen
Now that we are down to 10 minutes, I shall probably rush through my speech rather more quickly than I expected to, but if my hon. Friend will allow me to get past my first sentence, I shall look forward to the bonus minute later.
Nor should we respond to media stories by producing Bills. We should proceed in a measured, careful way, and we should involve the House. Let us not forget that it is the Government who control Parliament, down to the minutest detail. That applies even to the scheduling of today’s debate, and the use of our Opposition time to do so. The Government will continue to exercise that control until we elect our legislature and our Executive separately, as most modern democracies do.
When it suits Governments—not just the present Government, but many Governments in the past—they throw up their hands in mock horror at some transgression that has taken place in the House, or as a result of interaction with lobbyists. In many instances, however, they have been complicit, having either not legislated in a timely fashion, or formed a corrupted relationship with Members of Parliament and others. The most obvious recent example is the failure to tackle Members of Parliament’ salaries, the introduction and promotion of a culture in which the provision of allowances and expenses was substituted for such action, and the failure, over 20 years, to answer the question.
I hope that we will not repeat some of those mistakes. I hope that we will take the lobbying issue seriously, and will not merely use it as a way of buying buy off media speculation about the fact that a Member of Parliament—one of 650—has been found, thanks to the combined resources of Fleet street and the BBC, to be allegedly doing something that he or she should not be doing.
Robert Flello
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that that is exactly why a Joint Committee of both Houses should look at the issue pre-legislatively and in great detail?
Mr Allen
I think there are many ways to skin this particular cat. If the Government are serious about creating an effective lobbying Bill—as many Back-Bench Members and my Select Committee are—then where there is a will, there is a way. We can find a way to do that, but the measure in its current form is a reactive and short-term measure, and it is not part of a serious, well-thought-out reform package, either by the media, who are keen to nail individual Members of Parliament, or, more seriously, by the Government, and, indeed, previous Governments of different political colours.
Parliament must take a lead on the specific issue of lobbying, but I very much hope we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Lobbying is a very important part of our democracy. I imagine most Members of this enfeebled Parliament use lobbying ourselves very directly with Ministers to try to make our points, and many of us create all-party groups. Some of us lobby effectively, although, speaking as someone who is lobbying for the Government to keep their promise on bringing forward proposals for a House business committee, which was in the coalition agreement, some of us are also obviously failing in getting the Government to fulfil their own promises. Government Front-Bench Members will not be surprised to learn that we will continue to press that issue as well, however.
My Select Committee has looked at the lobbying question very seriously. We spent a long time interviewing witnesses. We have eminent Committee members from different parties—some of whom are present in the Chamber—and they might not in the normal shape of things be soul mates or agree on all matters, but they produced a report that the Government have had in their possession for the best part of a year. It is a measure of how seriously the Government take this matter that, first, the Leader of the House is chatting away and not listening to the Chairman of the Select Committee, who is asking him to do something he should have done nine months ago, and, secondly, he does not respond to this House, let alone to me or to my Committee members. That Ministers just do not bother answering is regarded by many as rather cavalier.
However, if a scandal is revealed by Fleet street and Ministers feel they need to show how tough they are by taking action and doing something, suddenly a Bill appears, or the promise of a Bill is made, even before they respond to a Select Committee of this House. I hope the Leader of the House will take these matters a little more seriously, because if he does, and he dares to allow Parliament to be a partner in the process of making the law—rather than finding something off the shelf in the Department—he may be in serious danger of creating a Bill that will command all-party support and the support of this House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend had any communication in his capacity as Chair of the Select Committee from the Government on why such a response has been so long delayed? Have any particular reasons been put to him, or is it his view that they simply have not noticed that there is a report to be responded to?
Mr Allen
I would be very happy to give way on that point either to the Leader of the House or the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who very kindly came to our Select Committee last week. They may wish to speak for themselves, but there has certainly been a lot of correspondence in trying to get a response. That is expected—it is standard practice—and I do not know whether I should raise the matter with the Chair. However, I would hope that Select Committees of this House that undertake serious study and scrutiny of Government are usually responded to in a proper way, because that will help us to make better law, instead of having a knee-jerk response because of one person being entrapped by the media—I am not expressing any view on that, as this is still under study—that seems to me to put the cart before the horse. On an issue where there should be support across the House, it seems that there is almost a deliberate attempt to break any potential for consensus on, and longevity for, the legislation that we may bring forward.
As with the Dangerous Dogs Act, we are in danger of introducing a dangerous Members of Parliament Act, and we may well regret that in the longer term. This is not just a news story or just a way of refuting Fleet street in that corrupting partnership between Government and media. This is about an important part of the fabric of our democracy. Lobbying is important, and this is about allowing it to flourish, and getting things right, and making sure the people who put it in such bad odour are exposed.
Lobbying in the UK is currently unregulated. The UK Public Affairs Council operates a voluntary register, but registration rates are low. The Government agree that a voluntary register is not working. A commitment to introducing a statutory register of lobbyists was included in the coalition agreement. My Committee looked at this. We took oral evidence over many sessions and produced our report. I hope the Government listen to what we have said, which was not damning, saying, “This couldn’t happen.” Instead, we suggested how something can be introduced in a way that is sustainable.
The first fatal flaw we asked the Government to look at was the fact that so much of the lobbying industry would not be covered by a statutory register. Just covering third-party lobbyists does not do the job. There are lots of different figures available, but we found 100 organisations that were third-party lobbyists. Spinwatch, at one end of the spectrum in this debate, says there are between 3,500 and 4,000 full-time lobbyists. This proposal does not do the job, therefore, because it is one-eighth of a lobbying Bill, rather than a Bill that covers lobbyists in their entirety.
The second flaw is that we do not have an effective definition of lobbying, so that we all know what we are talking about—and so that lobbyists know what we are talking about, and that Members of Parliament talking to someone in either a private or public meeting, perhaps with a tape recorder or video camera concealed and recording them, know exactly where the lines are. That will enable us to produce something that is sustainable and that people can live with for many years to come. My Committee therefore also asked for a clearer definition.
We came to the conclusion that we were only scratching the surface of the issue. We therefore proposed what we called a medium regulation system as a starting point for a statutory register of lobbyists. A lot of Members have got great ideas, and I hope there will be a process by which they can be fed into our law-making process. There needs to be that starting point—that foundation or bedrock—that we can build on in future years. Let us put this in place. Some may regard it as the lowest common denominator, but that in itself is a good starting point, so that if problems arise, those colleagues who come after us can build on something that commands a consensus of support in this House.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very measured and reasonable speech, particularly in respect of his point about responding to Select Committees. Does he agree that one of the basic principles we should endorse is that both the Opposition and the Government should publish details of meetings, and would he encourage his Front-Bench colleagues to give that undertaking to the House today?
Mr Allen
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is treating this matter a little more superficially than I would have hoped. There are some important questions, and no doubt he can raise them, but I am not going to get involved in that sort of frippery. I am capable of going in that direction, but I will not do so because there are some serious issues here that concern the hon. Gentleman as well as everybody else.
My Select Committee looked at the possibility of having a hybrid code of conduct to operate alongside the statutory register. We addressed that idea carefully. It is possible to do it, and we believe that, just as we commanded support in our own disparate all-party Select Committee, it is possible for the House to come to a satisfactory conclusion on that. It would mean that organisations and individuals on the register would sign up to their particular industry’s code of conduct.
We must use the time we have available to do some pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill will be introduced very soon. I hope the Leader of the House will give us a month or so in September, so that we can do the job properly for the House.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Yesterday, I took a phone call from a constituent who wanted to lobby me on a particular local issue relevant to him and his neighbours. This morning, I met a person from a public relations firm who wanted to discuss an issue relevant to one of his clients. As I walked through Portcullis House today, I passed a large number of MPs talking with constituents, the media, lobbyists, pressure groups and many other organisations. In many ways, they were doing exactly what an MP should be doing. I then headed to this Chamber, passing through Central Lobby, the Members’ Lobby and the Aye Lobby before arriving here.
As hon. Members will realise, I am trying to demonstrate that lobbying is a fact of political life. The reality is that lobbying is an important part of our political environment and process. It is a legitimate activity that is a significant contributor to our political system and political activity. It brings to our system a number of important benefits that we would be the poorer for if they were not available: it allows MPs to hear different sides of an argument and different prospectuses. MPs themselves lobby on a variety of issues when we hold passionate beliefs or on matters that relate to our constituencies. Indeed, we participate in and set up all-party groups, many of which are involved with lobbying. Arguably, lobbying allows us to become better informed and more aware of the issues, and, on occasions, we can even have our minds changed by the evidence put before us by lobbying groups. I therefore fully support the right of businesses, charities and other organisations to lobby.
However, what is important is that lobbying or campaigning groups supporting a particular cause should carry out such activities in an open and transparent way. What we all clearly want to avoid is undue pressure being exerted or inappropriate activities being carried out. It is equally important that an individual’s position is not compromised, such as through payments being made that are incompatible with that person’s office. In a perfect world, there would be no need to change the current arrangements, but introducing a lobbying register can and should help to increase openness and transparency and, importantly, to improve the public’s confidence in our political system.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has been saying and he is talking a huge amount of sense about the fact that our entire life involves being lobbied. However, I am slightly at variance with him about whether the proposed register should encompass only those people who are paid as third parties—we do not know on whose behalf they are lobbying—or all the others who lobby, such as his constituent and the other interest groups he mentioned. Does he agree that the important thing is that groups such as Keene Public Affairs, an organisation that undermined one of my all-party groups recently, ought to be named, ought to be on the register and ought to have to declare who their clients are and that the register should not apply to ordinary lobby groups of the kind that he described?
John Stevenson
I agree, and I believe the thrust of my argument will be very much in tune with what my hon. Friend suggests.
The crucial issue is public confidence. I accept there will always been the potential for the unscrupulous or the criminal—it was ever thus—but having some level of registration will create greater openness, which I would like to think will help drive standards of behaviour to a much higher level, one that is acceptable to the public. As I have said, it would also improve the public’s confidence in our political system. I will therefore be supporting the underlying principles that the Government’s forthcoming Bill will bring forward, and I look forward to seeing what they have to propose and considering it in the usual way.
Mr Allen
The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, making a thoughtful and careful speech. He supports his Government’s proposals, but does he agree that everyone in the House would benefit from this issue being given a proper pre-legislative period? That would allow Members, wherever they are, to make the sort of representations he is making, either to a Select Committee or to a Joint Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) suggested, so that when the Bill comes back for its Second Reading we are all way better informed about what we can achieve and how we can do that.
John Stevenson
We hope that today’s debate will help to inform Members of the House and bring the issues to light, and, thus, inform the Second Reading debate.
As I said, I will support the underlying principles of the Government’s forthcoming legislation. I would, however, wish to ensure that it is as simple and as straightforward to administer as possible. It should not and must not over-regulate the industry. Clearly, I accept it must be comprehensive in its approach to ensure that all appropriate organisations are registerable, and ensure a fair and level playing field. Organisations in the commercial sector must be included, as should trade organisations, certain charities and organisations that are campaigning to influence the legislative process and Executive decisions—yes, that should include the trade union movement.
Trade unions are an important part of our industrial relations and our political process. They are undoubtedly one of the most powerful lobbying organisations in the country, receiving substantial sums from the taxpayer; in July 2010, the trade unions received nearly £6 million. I believe that 23 members of the shadow Cabinet have received funding from trade unions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, nine Labour MPs are sponsoring parliamentary passes for trade union lobbyists. Powerful bodies that, in effect, bankroll one of the main political parties must be seen to be open and transparent and must be open and transparent. That is in their interests, as well as in those of the public. This is an opportunity to help improve the transparency and accountability of the trade unions. In particular, when they are lobbying, it should be clear what their true membership is and what the implications are for strike ballots and for the payment of the political levy. All should be open to scrutiny and proper confirmation.
Mr Thomas
For the avoidance of doubt, we do not have a problem with those who work for trade unions and who lobby being covered by a more comprehensive piece of legislation than the Government are considering. We think that all in-house lobbyists should be covered by the legislation. That is the point of difference between us and the Government, and between the hon. Gentleman and the Government, too.
John Stevenson
I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Labour party will support the inclusion of trade unions, because it failed to do any of that in its time in office. Labour had 13 years in office and we had absolutely nothing from the Labour party. As with much of the present political agenda, Labour is playing catch-up with Government policies on a range of issues, as well as with the views of the public. This is another example of Labour trying to pretend that it is on the right side of the argument.
John Stevenson
I have taken enough interventions. The reality is that Labour is so far behind public opinion and the Government are in tune with it. I commend the coalition Government for going out to consultation on this issue and now bringing forward legislation; a proper register of lobbyists and a fair set of requirements for disclosure is the correct way forward. I would also like to see a set of criteria for the funding of campaigns by third-party groups during elections. I believe that at the last election about £3 million was spent by third-party groups on campaigning, and it is right that that should be regulated in the proper way. Any reasonable person would consider these reforms to be absolutely appropriate. They are all part of rebuilding the public’s confidence in our politics and a way of encouraging all those engaging in the political process to act, and to be seen to act, openly and transparently. It is sad that the Labour party has been so slow to engage with this issue but, as I said, it likes to follow our lead.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I echo earlier comments made about lobbying. I have always supported a lobbying Bill to create a register of lobbyists in a transparent and properly regulated way, but I have no objection to lobbying per se. It is part of everyday life—or it should be if we are doing our jobs properly. We get lobbied on a weekly basis, on all sorts of issues, by church groups, mosques, gurdwaras, temples, community groups and all sorts of individuals. A woman came to see me a couple of weeks ago and said, “You are opposed to the sell-off of the Royal Mail, aren’t you?” When I said that I was, she said, “Well, on that basis you should also be opposed to gay marriage.” I did not quite follow the logic of that argument either, but she had the right to lobby me, and she did so, albeit in a novel way.
What worries me is when large concentrations of unaccountable wealth and power are brought to bear in the lobbying industry. Funnily enough, Jonathan Aitken said something similar when he was an MP and large business consortiums were lobbying for the contract to build the Channel tunnel. At that time lobbying was in full swing, and he—surprisingly in the light of subsequent events—said:
“What worries me most is that usually lobbying is genuine in the sense that it stems from little interest groups and concerned citizens. Here we see the Panzer divisions of big business, their heavy artillery and tanks trampling over all the small people’s interests which I want to see better defended.”
Most of us would probably want to see those interests better defended and certainly the Prime Minister seemed to want to see that three years ago when he said that lobbying would be the “next big scandal” to hit British politics. Lobbying has been the perennial scandal in British politics within living memory and probably before that, too.
The Prime Minister’s reference to lobbying was three years ago and since then we have seen two private Members’ Bills. One was in my name, and I offered it to the Leader of the House as a Government Bill, but he was a bit shy about taking it on. The other was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). We also saw a Government consultation followed by countless commitments from various Ministers that a Bill would be produced, as we are always told, “in the near future.” Last year, the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), promised a Bill before he was moved in the reshuffle. His successor, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), is on the Treasury Bench and has, I believe, promised a Bill twice on the Floor of the House—but there is still no Bill.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised a Bill in Prime Minister’s questions over the past three years and after the last lobbying scandal a few weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister promised what he called “head to toe” political reform, including a register of lobbyists. That was on 3 June. I have no idea what he meant by that, but I suspect that he did not have much more of an idea what he meant either—he never normally does.
We still have no Bill, yet the scandals come regularly and frequently. Only last year, the treasurer of the Tory party, Peter Cruddas—we will all remember this—had to resign after promising access to the Prime Minister for a fee of £250,000. Months before that, Tim Collins, a not particularly lamented Member of this House, promised access to just about everybody and anybody in the Government.
We can go back before that. I have mentioned lobbying scandals in living memory, but probably the doyenne of political lobbyists from the 1930s and 1940s up until the 1970s was Commander Christopher Powell. His name is probably not familiar now, but years ago he was very well known and for a number of years he had an office in the House of Commons. It sounds extraordinary today that a political lobbyist who represented all sorts of clients should have an office in this place, but he did for quite a long time.
Members might remember the scandals attached to Ian Greer in the 1980s, which eventually made the front pages of just about the entire national press as well as the broadcast media in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Let us be balanced: there was also the cash for access scandal that involved Derek Draper, another person who is not particularly lamented by Opposition Members—at least, I hope he is not. I can say that with some passion, having dealt with him years ago.
As I said earlier, I by no means condemn the political lobbying industry. In fact, I suspect that most lobbyists do a decent job, do it honestly and are perfectly prepared to be transparent about it, but there is always the temptation to cross certain lines unless accountability and transparency are built into the system.
Mr Sheerman
Speaker after speaker has talked about the importance of openness, transparency and accountability. I absolutely agree with that, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should also allow the little person, not just the well-heeled and well-suited person, to lobby? Lobbying should be open to everyone; the problem is that too often those who can afford to pay a lot of money can lobby more effectively.
John Cryer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but I think I covered that at the beginning of my speech. Most of us these days hold regular advice surgeries—for me, and, probably, for most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House such surgeries are a weekly business.
The days when MPs never went near their constituencies and did not regard themselves as constituency Members are long gone. There was once a national MP for Blackpool called Walter de Frece who, despite the fact that he was the Member for Blackpool, never went near the place. In fact, he could not find it on a map. He struggled to find Britain on a map, because he lived in Monte Carlo. He came to Britain twice a year for the Budget debate and for Ascot, yet he was elected for years and years and was regarded as a successful constituency MP. While he was here, he would get a pile of House of Commons notepaper and sign the bottom, and then his secretary would fill in the rest. It sounds extraordinary, but because he managed to reply to a few letters—this shows how things have changed—he was regarded as a particularly brilliant constituency MP. Nowadays, that has changed beyond all recognition—not even in the safest seat could an MP from any party get away with such behaviour.
Let me return to the demands that I think the register should place on lobbyists. The criterion that it should only cover third-party lobbyists is unfair on the third-party lobbying industry. In-house lobbyists—that covers all sorts of organisations and companies—should be forced to provide information, which, as I said when I intervened on the Leader of the House, should include financial information. Big companies, wealthy organisations and even wealthy individuals can spend millions on lobbying, and that sort of information should be available.
Mr Allen
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech and learning a bit of parliamentary history, too. Does he accept that the work of the Select Committee could be a starting point in defining what a lobbyist is as well as who is in and who is out? The Committee has suggested that anyone who is in a paid, professional role of lobbying should be covered. That would include in-house lobbyists, of course, as well as trade associations, trade unionists—that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson)—think-tanks, campaign groups, charities and many others who would be required to register. Does he agree that getting the definition right is the starting point of a good Bill?
John Cryer
That is crucial. The definition in my Bill covered anyone who lobbied “for commercial gain”, which is similar. The starting point that my hon. Friend suggests is perfectly reasonable and would, I suspect, cover all the relevant companies, associations, trade associations and trade unions, as well as the big NGOs and people who hire third-party lobbyists or who have in-house lobbyists. Most trade unions and federations have in-house lobbyists, which is fair enough.
The important principle is that we must get transparency into the system. We are talking about a big industry; lobbying in this country is a successful industry worth £2 billion. There is no reason why it cannot continue to flourish and be successful as long as it is open and transparent, so that we know exactly what lobbyists are doing, who they are meeting and what sort of resources are being spent on achieving their aims.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer). Let me pick up on his last point: what we are after is transparency. I think there is agreement across the House on the need for transparency and to ensure that big business, big money and big power are accountable in politics. Today’s debate is very much about how best to try to achieve that or, at least, to find a starting point.
I was grateful that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) began, as many other Members have, by stressing the importance of good lobbying and the fact that we in Parliament cannot do our jobs without a degree of lobbying. Members have obviously mentioned their constituents and, like the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, I have regular surgeries across 3,800 square miles. I travelled 207 miles last weekend to do surgeries at diametrically opposite ends of the constituency, celebrating national care homes day by visiting all the registered homes in the constituency.
At my constituency surgery in Alness, a lady came to ask me about the regulations for herbalists. I have written to the Minister on her behalf and I consider that to be absolutely the kind of thing I should be doing as a constituency MP. On another level, as a member of the Treasury Committee and a former member of the now completed Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I have received a considerable amount of evidence from a wide range of bodies. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether they are giving me evidence or lobbying me. I am absolutely certain that in both cases my ability to have a reasoned discussion with the witnesses who have appeared before me has depended on my ability to access different points of view and different thoughts coming from different parts of the financial services industry.
It is right that we should be open to lobbying in the sense that we should hear what different people have to say. Our job is to assess what is said and come to a reasonable decision in our deliberations, whether in Select Committee or when considering legislation. As sometimes happens, the tendency to dismiss lobbyists and lobbying as a wrong process is to misunderstand how Parliament should work.
We are really talking about access to power for the purposes of diverting what power might otherwise do. Part of the problem that we will have with the legislation is working out where power is. With Ministers, it is pretty straightforward. If I go and lobby the Secretary of State for Energy about what is happening at Dounreay, it is pretty clear why I have gone to see him. If Babcock does the same, it is also pretty clear what is happening. The problem is when people have access to those in power in a way that is not revealed. An example was given this morning when Sir Mervyn King made his last appearance before the Treasury Select Committee. The Chairman asked him a question about lessons learned. He said that one of the most important things was that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the body that will control the banks, had the support of Ministers and Parliament such that the kind of lobbying that took place in the past—when bankers went to their supervisors to ask for a lighter judgment on supervision and the telephone calls he mentioned to No. 11 and sometimes No. 10—could not happen. That is what we really have to seek to expose.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman cited Babcock. That is a prime example that shows why the Bill must cover everyone. Babcock is a multinational company that has a rail division, a nuclear division and a defence division. Simply to say that Babcock has been to see a Minister provides no transparency. So it has to be all lobbyists.
John Thurso
I am going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in a moment for a simple reason. In relation to visiting a Minister, the key is not in the Bill or in any legislation that we might pass. The key is the ministerial code; the key is the fact that the visits by that company or any other company will be published. I agree with hon. Members who said that there should be more information; wider detail should be published about meetings. At the moment, the quarterly register often just says “general discussion”, and that is not good enough. I urge those who are responsible for the ministerial code to look at toughening it up in some way and perhaps publishing the code a little more often than quarterly. Such things could be done tomorrow; they do not require legislation.
The second point is the difference between in-house and third-party lobbyists. I think we are all going in the same direction, but it seems to me that one has to start somewhere. To me, the third-party lobbyists are a good place to start. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, it is better to make a start than to go for perfection. If Oxfam turns up to see the Secretary of State for International Development, it is pretty obvious what is going to be talked about. It is far more important that when Messrs Grabit and Nickit turn up to lobby on behalf of an unknown firm, we have a registration of who they are and what they do. That is far more important than making every single company that has someone in house working for them register that fact.
In my party’s 2001 conference motion on regulation of professional parliamentary lobbying, which I am sure was on everyone’s lips at the time, we said:
“No parliamentarian … at Westminster should be a director of, an employee of, receive any reward from or hold a stake in any of the duly registered professional parliamentary lobbying companies. … A statutory register of such professional lobbying firms should be set up and supervised by the Commissioner on Parliamentary Standards.”
In 2006, my colleague David Howarth, the then Member for Cambridge, sought to insert an amendment into the Companies Bill to cap the amount spent on lobbying. The then Government declined to accept it. So my party has a long history of seeking to do something about lobbying. The important thing now is to be clear who is doing the lobbying. That is why registering the professional lobbyists is so important.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Is not one of the problems of the recent scandal not so much the lobbying but the payment of politicians, who may be part of the operation of that lobbying. It is not the lobbying per se; it is the payment, the money, the feeling of corruption.
John Thurso
I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) to his place. That is something I touched on at the beginning of my remarks. He makes an important point. In the recent scandals involving a Member of this House and three Members of the other place, nothing in this Bill or any other Bill on lobbying would have changed anything. What they did is already against the rules. My advice to any Member of this House is that the day someone comes to them and says, “Would you like £24,000?”, they are being offered a sting. None of us is worth that amount.
I was once almost the victim of a sting. A gentleman came to see me and asked me if I would chair his company. I said, “Yes, but first I need to do due diligence and see a set of accounts. Secondly, you have to look at my CV and see whether I have the skills you want. Thirdly, if it is ever anything to do with Parliament, I can have nothing whatever to do with it.” Needless to say, I never heard from him again.
John Thurso
I have taken two interventions so I would like to get to the end of my speech.
I hope that the Bill will deal with third-party, non-party controlled expenditure and measures to regulate non-party actors who seek to influence elections. This touches on the whole question of the trade unions. The best way is simply for the trade unions to be treated in the same way as any other body according to the third-party, non-party controlled expenditure rules. If we had those rules, requirements made of trade unions would be made by way of alterations to the third-party controlled expenditure rules rather than to any trade union rules, which is absolutely the right way forward.
It is right that we look at lobbying and make sure that we have a register. It is too late for cross-party talks. We tried that with the House of Lords and look where it got us. I am scarred by that. We should just get on with it and make sure that it happens.
My inclination is towards pre-legislative scrutiny. I doubt that it is going to happen, but the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee might take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). He went ahead with it himself on the Treasury Committee and I am sure that his Committee will just go ahead and do it. It will probably be an invaluable report. I look forward to supporting the Government in the Lobby and making sure that matters come to fruition and we see a Bill as soon as possible.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
We have heard several interesting speeches, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, that have tried to grapple with how we define and register lobbyists. The fundamental point, as everyone in the House knows, is that one of the biggest political problems of our time is the loss of faith in politics and politicians, and we have only to walk the streets of our constituencies to see that. People feel that they are not listened to and that they have no way of influencing events. They might have some regard for their own Member of Parliament—indeed, polls show that people often do—but they feel that the big decisions are taken elsewhere, in a place where their views are not heard—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) wants to make an intervention, I shall allow him to do so.
Mr MacNeil
I just wanted to suggest that the case the hon. Lady makes is exactly why we want independence —thank you very much.
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman will find that the polling in Scotland is no different from that elsewhere. There is a loss of faith in politics and politicians in many developed countries, and it ill behoves him to make cheap political points about that serious issue, with which we all must deal. People think that there is a distinct political class of people who move in and out of lobbyists, think-tanks and Parliament. I know that that is not true and that there are many hon. Members from diverse backgrounds—obviously not those in the Cabinet—but we have to bear responsibility for allowing that perception to exist. That is why dealing with lobbying is important, so that is one of the vital things—not the only one—that we must do to open up Parliament. If we continue to allow people to have the impression that some individuals have privileged access and may buy the right to influence legislation, we are digging our own graves. It is not lobbying itself that is wrong, as many hon. Members have said, but lobbying behind the scenes when people do not know about it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Helen Jones
In a moment.
There has been promise after promise on lobbying, yet nothing has been done. We have been reminded that it was the Prime Minister who said that lobbying was
“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
That was followed by further words, but no action. The Conservatives did not commit to introducing a statutory register in their election manifesto, despite the fact that when the Prime Minister made his famous “Rebuilding trust in politics” speech, he said:
“it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying and forced our politics to come clean”—
it has taken a bit of time to do the washing.
The coalition agreement contained a promise to introduce a statutory register of lobbying and the former Minister for constitutional affairs, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), promised that he would publish proposals in January 2011, but then everything went quiet until recently. It seemed that no one was responsible at all.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Helen Jones
In a moment.
The latest scandal forced the Government into action, but their proposals that we have heard about so far are full of holes. It appears that they will cover only a narrow section of third-party lobbyists, but that is simply not good enough. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, only about 100 organisations would be covered, yet the UK Public Affairs Council defines lobbying as
“in a professional capacity, attempting to influence, or advising those who wish to influence, the UK Government, Parliament”—
and so on.
Jon Trickett
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Third-party lobbyists that operate legitimately and ethically feel threatened by the idea that the Government will leave open an enormous barn door for in-house lobbyists. There will be a devastating impact on third-party companies if their client organisations begin to hide away what they were doing by taking on more lobbyists in house. Will she comment on that point?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about who should be included on the register and the importance of getting the definitions right. Many people have referred to lobbying by constituents, and any constituent has an absolute right of access to their Member of Parliament. My constituents are not slow about making their views heard, as I suspect is true of those of other hon. Members, but that is different from commercial lobbying, so the legislation must make that clear.
We have to deal with those who are directly employed lobbyists, but they would be allowed to carry on as before under the Government’s plans. What would happen to big firms such as Capita, Grant Thornton and PricewaterhouseCoopers that operate across government in many ways, but include lobbying among their functions? Legislation cannot work unless a code of conduct is attached to it. Parts of the industry already have a voluntary code, but without a code of conduct, there is no real point of having a register, because one then cannot deal with breaches of ethics, including by removing people from the register. Without full publication of details and meetings, lobbying will still be shrouded in secrecy because people will not know what is going on.
Helen Jones
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, so I hope that he will forgive me if I continue.
The fairly shabby little proposal before us is a reaction to a particular story, rather than an attempt to get things right. It is important that we have proposals that command cross-party support in the House and that, if possible, they are subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. In my time in the House, a lot of bad legislation has been passed in a hurry, but a lot of legislation has been made better as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny, so I do not understand why the Government are shying away from that process. We need to get the proposals right for not just this Parliament, but future Parliaments, and we need a clear definition of “professional lobbying”, a clear code of conduct and strong sanctions for breaches of that code. Why on earth are the Government so reluctant to go down that road?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am in almost entire agreement with the hon. Lady that we need to move at a steady and sensible pace so that we reach a proper conclusion. Can she explain why Government and Opposition Front Benchers—as expressed in the motion and the amendment —want to get everything done by the summer recess?
Helen Jones
I do not think that Labour Members are arguing for that at all. We want a full and comprehensive proposal, not a half-baked one that covers only part of the industry and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, could damage part of the industry. If a register is to end bad practices, it has to be backed by proper sanctions. We know that transparency is essential, so why on earth are we not going down that road? After all, the Prime Minister kept saying that sunlight was the “best disinfectant”—I wonder what happened to that phrase.
Even those involved in the industry are unenthusiastic, to say the least. The director general of the Public Relations Consultants Association called the proposals “unfit for purpose”. The chair of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations said:
“Basically it’s so weak now there’s no point in us joining it”.
Surely that is not good in the long run for the Government —of any colour—for Parliament and for the reputation of politicians as a whole, so I urge the Government to think again. They need to understand what is at stake, which is no less than the reputation of politicians and the political class as a whole.
If we are to get it right, we must try to come to an agreement. It has been said from the Front Bench that we have no problem with regulating trade union lobbying activities. However, the Government should not confuse the regulation of lobbying with the funding of political parties. By all means let us have a debate on that, but it will have to include the role of commercial companies and their donations, organisations such as the Midlands Industrial Council, and so on. To try to push the two together to attack one lot of political funding but not another is not a sign of serious government; it is a sign of a Government wanting to score cheap political points, rather than to sort out the problem, and I hope they will not do that.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I support the amendment tabled by the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends. From my point of view, lobbying is entirely healthy and integral to our democracy. This is a point that we have heard from a range of speakers this afternoon. I like to point out to my constituents that lobbying is named after Central Lobby. Central Lobby has given its name to this activity because any constituent can come to Central Lobby while Parliament is sitting, fill out a green card and summon their MP to the Lobby so that they can bend their MP’s ear on the issue that matters particularly to them. We should be looking to encourage and support lobbying and try to remove from it the taint that has suddenly emerged, as though it were intrinsically bad and liable to corruption.
One of the things that is so effective in our democracy is that most MPs are available to their constituents, to listen to them lobbying on a wide range of concerns. Every Friday I have an open surgery where people can come to raise issues with me. We should be proud of lobbying in our democracy. It enriches all our activities as parliamentarians.
I am pleased to hear the progress that the Government have made on transparency. I welcome the fact that all Conservative Cabinet Ministers list the details of the meetings they hold with a wide range of organisations, and in particular the fact that they name the private companies which employ public affairs representatives to come and lobby on behalf of their organisations. That is an advance in terms of transparency and I should have thought that the shadow Cabinet would welcome the opportunity to show that level of transparency as well.
Many of the issues being raised today are ones that we as MPs can address ourselves—[Interruption.] I am being heckled from the Opposition Front Bench. Yes, I am a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I have taken it upon myself to publish all the meetings I have with paid public affairs professionals and organisations that lobby me, either in the constituency or here. We as parliamentarians are entirely free to do that, and we can take the opportunity to shed some transparency and show our constituents that lobbying is not only open to them but is very much part of the work of an MP.
In the first month that I did that, I highlighted the fact that I had had meetings with, for example, the National Farmers Union. NFU representatives are extremely effective lobbyists on behalf of farmers in my constituency. They are extremely knowledgeable in a specialised area, and it is very important that an MP in an agricultural constituency such as mine listens to what they have to say on a wide range of agricultural issues. I agree that when I meet a paid public affairs professional, whether for a public affairs firm or employed by an organisation, I can reveal to my constituents that I have had such a meeting. That is not something that we as MPs are not able to do.
That brings me to the main point that I want to make in this argument. There has been much discussion today about what the Government ought to be doing, but as we heard from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, there is much that we as parliamentarians can do to ensure that the public are aware of what we do, know when we meet with lobbyists and understand that lobbying is an inherent part of our democracy. That transparency could be emphasised in some of the other things that Parliament does. For example, not everybody knows that all-party parliamentary groups must publish who is sponsoring that group. They also have to publish when they work with an MP to take a room—the House of Commons accounts must show who hired the room.
Transparency in relation to early-day motions would also be healthy. I wonder whether colleagues will support me on this. I can honestly say that I have so far resisted signing a single early-day motion. We have seen how they are sometimes used by lobbyists as a way of showing that they have done something in Parliament, when in reality it is not a particularly effective tool. Some colleagues are more enthusiastic about early-day motions than others. That is another area where we as a Parliament and as MPs could do more to show transparency.
What do we say about organisations such as 38 Degrees? That organisation has done a wonderful job in bringing to our democratic attention a wide range of views held across the e-mail communication channel. Given that it plays such an active role in encouraging our constituents to lobby us on a wide range of issues, it would be interesting and informative to know how such an organisation is able to pay public affairs professionals and others to encourage constituents to write to their MPs. That is the level of transparency for which we as parliamentarians could take responsibility, rather than just relying on the Government to pass legislation. Such transparency is a matter for us as MPs to consider. We can do these things as individuals. We do not need to rely on legislation.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that lobbyists, particularly in the charitable sector, should show some responsibility? Quite often I receive a fistful of postcards from a particular charity, purportedly from my constituents who have signed these cards, but when I write back to those constituents with a response to the postcard campaign, they often say, “I don’t know anything about this”, and we find out that somebody’s family has put in four or five cards on behalf of other people. A little more responsibility needs to be shown in that respect.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have had the same experience. I then have to dig into my files and discover the original document. I send that back to the constituent, who is often quite surprised to discover that they have been encouraged to lobby me in that way.
Thomas Docherty
I find myself agreeing with the hon. Lady. Does she accept that what her own Government are proposing would not cover charities or organisations like 38 Degrees?
Harriett Baldwin
What I accept is that the Government are the ones taking the steps to publish meetings with organisations that represent themselves with their public affairs professionals. The Government are doing much more in the way of transparency than the Opposition were able to do in 13 years of power. I would love to see members of the shadow Cabinet publish details of their meetings, and I strongly hope that as a result of my persuasive remarks this afternoon, those are steps that the Opposition will soon take.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady says that the Government have taken great steps on transparency, so will she encourage them to publish the pre-1997 papers relating to devolution legislation, which should be open and transparent for the people of Scotland? I look forward to her support.
Harriett Baldwin
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a fervent supporter of us all being better off together, so I will support whatever is in the interest of our doing that.
The point I am trying to make is that there is an awful lot that Members of Parliament can do as individuals to help advance the cause of transparency. We should not all sit and wait until legislation is passed. We can take some responsibility in being open and transparent. I look forward to the day when that includes the meetings of the shadow Cabinet.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Like many hon. Members, I am lobbied every day, by my electorate and by people who have an interest in the things that I am interested in as an MP. It is a perfectly honourable process. Provided that it is carried out in an honourable, straightforward and transparent way, lobbying adds to the substance of Parliament and does not detract from it.
However, there is rather more to the issue than simply whether lobbying is carried out in a transparent way. It is a question not just of whether sunlight is the best disinfectant, but whether in addition to sunlight we need Sunlight soap in order to scrub the process clean. That is what the public remain concerned about. As hon. Members have said, it is not just about the transparency of lobbying, but about the way in which it is carried out, the secrecy of substantial elements of it and the influence that is brought to bear as a result of certain arrangements that lobbyists can make regarding resources, access and various other things. Those concerns relate not only to third-party lobbyists but are across the board.
Perhaps we ought to apply a comparative principle in devising what we want to achieve by having a register of lobbyists. If we think about it for a moment, we realise that what we—the parties set up in this House—do in seeking votes is lobby the electorate, and we must do so in a reasonable, bounded and temperate way. A number of sanctions have been laid down in law for a very long time to ensure that lobbying of the electorate is restrained and that we do not go beyond those bounds. They are known as the electoral offences.
There is the offence of bribery. As far as lobbying is concerned, if a Member of this House was asked, “Would you like to be a director of my company? I’ll give you £24,000”, that is a very straightforward approximation of the offence of bribery as it relates to this House. There is also the offence of treating, which means saying to the electorate, “I’ll buy you a slap-up dinner, and drinks at the bar are on us, provided you vote for us.” The parallel, as far as our affairs are concerned, would be offering a week’s holiday or substantial trips around the world in order to exercise some advantage.
Grahame M. Morris
That is a really important point, because there is a distinction between what happens in this place and what happens in local government, for example. If I was serving on a planning committee and owned a building firm, it would not be good enough for me simply to say, “I declare an interest”; I would not be able to take any part. All that happens here is that people declare an interest, but they are still taking money from private health care companies and then voting through the Health and Social Care Bill.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend emphasises the power of Sunlight soap in other parts of the body politic, as opposed to our proceedings.
There are two other main electoral offences that relate to our lobbying of the electorate, and the Secretary of State has referred to one in relation to the content of his proposed Bill. He said that we want to know who is lobbying us and that the Government will legislate to fill that gap. That is the offence of personation. We need to know who is exercising the vote. If we were to try to defraud the electorate by having someone vote in place of the person who really had the vote, an electoral offence would be committed.
The final major electoral offence is that of undue influence. That is the parallel offence that is wholly absent from the proposed legislation as it relates to our proceedings. Undue influence is not about whether someone is paid or given a weekend away, or whether someone else stands in their place; it is about someone exercising various means of persuading another person to vote for them that are beyond the cause of reasonable lobbying. That seems to me to be the crux of the issue. The proposals do not provide for an overall register of all lobbyists, with sanctions and the ability to throw people off it, properly to take account of the question of undue influence in the lobbying process.
I am sorry that that appears to be the way the proposed legislation is proceeding, because it could easily be fixed by some fairly brief discussions between the parties. After all, this is a matter that affects not just one particular party or Government. The legislation needs to stand the test of different Governments of different parties. It is an issue that concerns all parties and this House. Therefore, it seems to me that above all the legislation must be proceeded with on the basis of what the parties think is the right way forward.
It is shocking that the Government have taken a year to respond to the all-party Select Committee inquiry on lobbying and what can be done about it. That is way out of line with what is normally expected of Government responses to Select Committee reports. That ought to be rectified immediately. Pre-legislative scrutiny of what is proposed would not derail the legislation unduly. For example, the Energy and Climate Change Committee was recently given six weeks to consider the entire draft Energy Bill before it came to the House. Pre-legislative scrutiny would give a vital opportunity to get something that works across the House.
I am a little disappointed that much of this afternoon’s debate has been something of a knockabout rather than about principle. I have tried to inject into the proceedings a little focus on what we are really about, which is principles for legislation. Between us, we must ensure that the legislation works for the future. If that takes a few weeks of discussions between parties to get it right, and if there is a little give and take with regard to how it will work, that will be a good thing for the House. If it ensures that undue influence is not exercised in the House by lobbyists, if it is clear about who should be included in the rules, and if the public are confident that the right people are included in those rules, that, too, would be a gain for us all.
I hope that the Government will not decide this afternoon that this is about bashing the Opposition’s motion and getting their amendment through; it is about trying to get something through that is good for us all. If that means both sides laying the motion on the Table in order to proceed, perhaps that would be a good thing for the House. I think that above all we need to get the legislation on lobbying right so that everyone benefits in future. It is not about one party scoring a few points from the other in the short term.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Today of all days, I should draw Members’ attention to my register entry on this topic.
At the beginning of the debate, there seemed little chance of consensus, but as it has gone on issues have emerged on which Members on both sides of the House can be pleased that progress has been made. We have, however, either underplayed or glossed over three specific points, the first of which is obviously one of definition. Despite numerous speeches on the topic, we are still pretty unclear about precisely who should or might be caught by the proposals. Secondly, we have, I believe, slightly underplayed the positive contribution made by lobbyists to many of our lives—not only in the House, but in our constituencies. Thirdly, we have made some progress, albeit not much, on how the matter can be properly resolved.
We need to give the greatest care and longest time to the problem of definition. We have touched on the role of pressure groups, which include charities, as well as industry representatives—a phrase that could cover a multitude of sins. Local groups could be well funded or well advised or simply put themselves together on the spur of the moment to lobby us in our constituencies on a particular interest or issue. The words “professional lobbyist” have been used without much qualification during the debate. More clarity on who would come under that description is crucial if we are to get things right.
Mr Thomas
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the need for clarity from the Government about definition. Has he seen the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, especially its recommendation that the Government should
“clarify whether its definition of lobbying includes lobbying advice, or only direct representation, to avoid confusion regarding who should, and should not register as a lobbyist”?
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have seen the report; as I am still a member of that Committee, from time to time I read our reports. I take his point, but if he will forgive me I will come back to it in my closing remarks. If I forget, no doubt he will intervene.
Jonathan Edwards
Does my constituency neighbour agree that we also need to look at the relationship between the Government and big business? Earlier this year, the World Development Movement produced a document stating that a third of Ministers had links to finance or energy companies involved in the exploitation of fossil fuels. We have not seen much movement towards creating a low carbon economy in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman understand why people are concerned?
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I entirely respect his view. I sometimes think we underplay the obstacles that outside interest groups have to go through to get to and influence Ministers. We are talking about creating not only new legislation, but legislation on top of an already stringent set of rules. Again, I am not trying to duck the issue, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point when I come to how we should resolve all these differences.
I turn to what I call “donor lobbyists”, the strongest part of whose argument appears to be the strength of their bank balances. I am interested that the Labour party has made concessions on that, particularly with regard to the influence of trade unions. For some time, a concern among Members on the Government Benches has been how we could have a register of lobbyists that did not include everybody. Members on both sides of the House have made progress on that during this debate.
I shall make only two further points, the first of which is our strange obsession with what we seem to call these days “professional lobbyists” without any real qualification of what they might be, although the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee went some distance towards that. Plenty of people consider themselves to be professional lobbyists but have many other strings to their bows and do many other things for the organisations they represent. Are they or might they be considered professional lobbyists under the proposals? We have yet to find out.
It strikes me as odd that we seem to gloss over some of the big organisations. Tesco has been mentioned, probably unfairly, as an organisation that might not fall under the proposals because everybody knows what it stands for. Actually, that is not right. Tesco might come into this building to lobby on fuel prices, planning, food labelling or any number of issues that come under its jurisdiction. We have to be careful about drawing some random arbitrary line above which some people go. Rather than re-establish public confidence in what we do, we could end up causing great disappointment to those interested in the proposals and do ourselves considerable harm in the process. Likewise, there are plenty of well financed, organised and documented pressure groups—campaigning against or in favour of major wind farm developments or things such as HS2—that are unquestionably engaged in very sophisticated lobbying.
It will not surprise hon. Members to hear that I want more lobbyists; I think they are a good thing and bring great variety and strength as long as we treat them with sufficient recognition and responsibility. Doing anything that might deter people from being able to lobby us pretty well however they wanted would be a counter-productive road down which we should not go.
We seem to have overlooked some existing legislation—the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whenever I have wanted to know what has been going on in the darkened corners of ministerial offices, I have simply put in a freedom of information request and have probably acquired most of the information I have wanted about who is meeting whom and on what basis. Let us not reinvent something that already exists and to which every member of the public has perfect access.
Lastly, I want to touch on two things. First, there is the positive contribution of lobbying, which some of us seem to have slightly overlooked. Personally, my life would grind to an absolute halt if lobbyists representing all sorts of different groups did not supply me with lots of useful, expert information on a range of subjects and completely free to the taxpayer. If we had to get our offices to pay for that information, the taxpayer might have something to say about that. Let us not for one minute make it more difficult for responsible organisations —charities, industry pressure groups or anything else—to provide us with a constant stream of high quality information, which makes us more likely to produce decent legislation.
Having read the Government’s amendment to the Opposition proposal, I am confident that we are pointing in the right direction on resolutions. We need to avoid reforms that are simply a partial list of names on a piece of paper. We must not over-regulate a responsible industry; that might unintentionally make the life of the charitable sector, in which I have some interest, all the more difficult. If we end up in a situation where people who donate to charities or contribute to charitable activity think that their donations may become the subject of political debate or some public declaration, that might make them, for all sorts of sensible reasons, much less inclined to make their generous contributions to those charities. If the consequence of our trying to resolve a political issue in this building is that we end up deterring people from supporting valuable charities, we will not have done a good job in the eyes of the public, but a very bad one.
The issue gets to the heart of the complexities of the debate. I hope we can reflect on the views held by Members on both sides of the House, and particularly the view of the Chair of the Select Committee. We should turn a deaf ear to calls for great haste to answer the question of why we have not done something.
We can see from a handful of the contributions this afternoon that we could legislate in great haste and make an absolute horlicks of this. It would be much more sensible for us to work our way steadily through the issues raised, particularly that of definition. If we do not do that, rather than having been able to tick a box and sign off an aspect of the coalition agreement, we will have created a situation in which, when the next lobbying scandal comes along—and it unquestionably will—people will ask what the register was all about and why it did not prevent the scandal from occurring. We will have to look them in the eye and say, “Of course it never stood a chance”.
We must take time. The Opposition proposal, dare I say it, is a little cynical; the Government amendment makes a great deal more sense. The Government are right not to be bullied or rushed into producing something hastily that proves incomplete. I have no difficulty, with all my history, in recommending that those who are interested should vote against the Opposition proposal and in favour of the Government amendment.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
There have been some interesting and thoughtful contributions to this debate. We must acknowledge the Prime Minister’s perception when he predicted that lobbying would be
“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
However, despite the bluster and sticking out of chests on the Government Benches, the coalition has had three years to bring in legislation, but a register of lobbyists was again noticeably absent from the recent Queen’s Speech. Let us be honest: it was only the most recent scandal exposed in the “Panorama” documentary that led the Government to consider introducing a Bill before the summer.
Let me read out a quote:
“It is vital that we act quickly and decisively to restore the reputation of politics. Too much unacceptable behaviour has gone unchecked for too long, from excessive expenses to sleazy lobbying practices. The people of Britain have looked on in horror as revelations have stripped away the dignity of Parliament, leaving millions of voters detached from the political process, devoid of trust in the political classes, and disillusioned with our system of government.”
That is a statement from the Conservative party manifesto; it is not very often that I agree with anything I read in there. That was the commitment that the Conservatives made in recognising the problem and that something needed to be done about it. So what has happened? We have had three years of Conservative-led coalition government and we have seen precious little action in relation to that commitment. We saw the former Foreign Secretary resign over the Werritty scandal and the cash-for-access case in which the Conservative party treasurer, Peter Cruddas, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), offered “premier league” access to the Prime Minister for £250,000 a year. It is not a distinguished record. I am not shirking our responsibilities. The documentary that was broadcast quite recently was shocking. It related to one Member from this place and three from the other place, two of whom were members of my party. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Some sanction needs to be applied against such individuals. Clearly, there is the ultimate sanction for a Member of the House of Commons, but for those in the House of Lords there is no really effective sanction.
There are a number of things we have not done. Despite the warm words from Government Front Benchers, we have not curbed the improper influence of lobbyists, changed the ministerial code to bar Ministers and officials from meeting MPs on issues where the MP is paid to lobby, or required companies to report their annual spending on lobbying. I think that a Liberal Democrat Member referred to that; indeed, it was a promise that the Lib Dems made.
There can be no trust in politics when the public believe that politicians are for hire to the highest bidder. After the most recent scandal, all Members of Parliament holding directorships, advisory positions and consultancy roles are viewed with suspicion, whether that is justified or not. I want to put down a marker about second jobs and MPs spending in excess of 20 hours a week working outside Parliament. That raises questions about whose interests they are really serving. I do not have time to work 20 hours outside this place; I put all my efforts into representing my constituents. I do not know how Members can take up directorships and consultancies. That must put a question mark into the minds of their constituents; if not, it should.
All Governments have been tainted by the revolving door of former Ministers and special advisers who, in retirement, find themselves in lucrative jobs with companies they once dealt with as Ministers or advisers. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in his Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on 2 November 2011. In my opinion, this is nothing short of corruption—the same kind of thing that we would condemn in other countries across the world.
The cosy relationship between some politicians and lobbyists was clear to see when the Prime Minister invited professional corporate and private health care lobbyist Nick Seddon into the heart of Government. Whose interests will Nick Seddon serve following his previous roles as a deputy director of Reform, which is listed as a free-market think-tank extensively funded by private health care and insurance companies, and as head of communications at private health care company Circle? Does that name ring any bells with anybody? At the heart of Government, corporate interests are over-represented to the detriment of the public. We do not want to be running a corporate plutocracy in the United Kingdom. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for his article in today’s Morning Star. It is an excellent piece that makes some terrific points about the excesses of corporate influence in the United States.
I recently witnessed this kind of corporate influence in action during the east coast main line debate. No matter how much public opposition exists against the privatisation of rail services, a Government who have surrounded themselves with advisers and lobbyists with corporate interests and connections remain fundamentally wedded to a policy of open competition in all public services, prioritising profits over people. Where is the voice of the public being represented?
I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will, like me, have received many hundreds of e-mails and representations from constituents regarding the Government’s proposals on plain cigarette packaging. I found it absolutely extraordinary that within weeks of the appointment of professional lobbyist Lynton Crosby, who had apparently lobbied against plain tobacco packaging in Australia, as the Conservatives’ election strategist, there was a change in policy. The links with private health care companies are wide and extensive in this House. As I said in an intervention, the Our NHS campaign reports that one in four Conservative Lords and at least 58 Conservative MPs have recent or current financial links to companies or individuals connected to private health care. Over 30 of the companies who are listed as corporate partners of Reform have recent or current financial links to Lords and MPs.
It is not the miners but corporate lobbyists at the heart of Government who are the enemy within. They undermine our democracy, which is increasingly becoming a plutocracy with access to Government and decision making going to the highest bidder and corporate interests at the expense of the public.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument carefully. I think that he needs to be careful, and the whole House needs to take care, in defining who lobbyists are and what their interests are. Several times he cited Reform, which is an independent think-tank with a cross-party board set up in the same way as many other think-tanks across politics, such as, in the past, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Smith Institute, which have been aligned with the Labour party. That is very different from talking about someone who is a paid-for corporate lobbyist working for a professional lobbying company or an individual company. We must be careful about this.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful for that intervention. The point I am trying to make is that nothing is always as it first appears. Quite frequently, all-party groups are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Often, think-tanks with certain financial backers are coming up with certain policies, and when we look at who is funding them we can see why that is happening. Perhaps I could have selected a better example. If I was wrong, I acknowledge that.
The overwhelming majority of lobbyists understand and even welcome the need for a statutory register. They understand that in a democracy, the Government need to be open to influence from all parts of society. I have always considered myself to be the voice of the unheard. There is nobody else to speak up for the people I represent. It is right that we should speak for the smallest community group as well as listening to the point of view of the largest commercial operator. We should hear from everyone, from individual citizens to multinationals. We want an engaged, interactive citizens’ democracy. Without robust statutory regulation, the perception will continue that big business, the powerful and the few are able to gain private access to the decision makers at the expense of everyone else.
I hope that the motion will receive the support of the whole House, given its emphasis on cross-party negotiations, the implementation of a statutory register and a clear code of conduct that is backed by sanctions in the event of serious breaches of the code. I will leave it at that to give others a chance to speak.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I learned that the Morning Star still exists. I confess that I was unaware of that. I thought that it had gone with the Berlin wall and all that.
As so often in this Chamber, we are not discussing a new problem. The issue of lobbying and undue influence goes back into the mists of time. Delving back not too far, who can forget Sir John Trevor, a former Speaker of the House who was expelled both from the speakership and from Parliament for accepting a 1,000 guinea bribe from the City of London to promote a Bill on orphanages? Interestingly, the Chairman of the Bill Committee, Mr Hungerford, received only 20 guineas for his service. He, too, was expelled from the House. I reflect that the Speaker was worth almost 40 times as much as the Chairman of a Committee. I wonder whether the relativities have changed in this more modern age.
Sir John Trevor and Mr Hungerford were expelled by this House for being unduly lobbied. Interestingly, they were unduly lobbied by another arm of the state: the corporation of London. It is worth bearing it in mind that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Easington said, it is not only wicked businesses that are involved in lobbying; it is something that happens across society. Everyone has an axe to grind regarding the issues that face this House. They therefore come to us to lobby. In and of itself, that is a perfectly legitimate activity.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) so rightly said, it is an historic right of every one of our constituents to come to Central Lobby, demand our presence and tell us their views on whatever subject is important to them. That is a wonderful historic right. It is a pity that people do not know about it and do not use it more. We ought to encourage our constituents to come and lobby us in that way. There is a nobility in lobbying that must not be lost in the midst of the discussion about what is, in effect, corruption. Let us try to use the terms differently and not allow lobbying to become a polite term for criminality, dishonesty and corruption.
Within British politics, there are essentially two types of lobbying. There is the lobbying of Members of Parliament, which is perhaps the triumph of hope over experience, whereby people come to see somebody such as myself, a junior Back-Bench MP, and say that they want me to do this, that and the next thing and to change legislation, thinking that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House hang on my every word. Sadly, I have to tell such people that that is not quite how it works. MPs have the ability to debate and argue, but not necessarily to change the course of the world. Then there is the lobbying of Ministers, who have a much greater and more direct Executive power—a decision-making power, rather than merely an influencing power. The two types of lobbying need to be regulated differently and separately.
There is a difference between those on the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench. Opposition Front Benchers have the hope and possibly the expectation of power. Those on the Treasury Bench have the reality of power and lobbying them can have a direct influence on what is happening. They should therefore be subject to a higher standard of openness and transparency than Opposition Front Benchers, who ought to be entitled to their smoke-filled rooms, although as they are socialists, the rooms will have no smoke in them, because they do not approve of that sort of thing. You know what I mean, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Given the difference between Government and Parliament, we need to legislate only for Government. Parliament has all the powers that it needs to regulate its own affairs, if only we had the courage to use them. We have a Committee of Privileges and a Committee on Standards. We are entitled to expel Members who misbehave. We may do so not according to a detailed set of rules, but according to whether we believe, as a House, that they have undermined the reputation of the House and have not behaved like honourable Members. Such a decision is not justiciable in any court in the land because we are the High Court of Parliament. The regulation of our own affairs is not challengeable in the other House, as was established by the Bradlaugh case, when an atheist was refused the right to sit in Parliament.
We have the right as a Chamber to admit and expel Members. When Members abuse the rules, we ought to exercise that power and clear up politics directly ourselves. That does not require legislation to come through before the summer recess; it simply requires us to have the willpower and the backbone to do what we are able to do already.
Grahame M. Morris
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow. I compliment him on his speech. Will he clarify what the consequence is in the other place when peers commit a similar offence?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The House of Lords, when considering what it could do about the expenses scandal, discovered that it had the right to imprison a peer for a Session. It decided that it must therefore also have the power to suspend a peer for a Session. However, it may only do that Session by Session. It cannot expel a peer because a peerage comes from the sovereign, whereas our position in this House comes from the people to whom we can be sent back. To get rid of a peerage requires primary legislation. That was done in 1917 to remove a group of peers who were fighting for the Germans and the Austrians during the first world war. It is open to this House to do that with the other place. We may pass an Act of Parliament to remove a category of peers who have committed offences. The House of Lords itself can suspend peers Session by Session. It can repeat such a suspension if it believes that the offence is egregious enough.
This House also has the power to punish individuals outside the House. If people are in contempt of Parliament, we have the ultimate power to imprison them. I am not proposing that we should use that power extensively, but if lobbyists try to bribe or corrupt Members of Parliament, it is not unreasonable that Parliament herself should impose the punishment on those lobbyists. That would be a matter of us regulating ourselves, using the power given to us by the British people, rather than farming it out, through legislation, to the courts to decide whether parliamentary privilege has been breached.
Damian Collins
When the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence during the phone-hacking inquiry, we found that many of Parliament’s powers to summon and even imprison people for misleading Parliament or for being in contempt of Parliament are historical. It is not certain what their legal status is and whether they have been superseded by subsequent legislation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The power of the House to regulate its own affairs is one of the fundamental building blocks of the constitution. That power cannot be given up, except by this House voluntarily surrendering it, which it has not done. No court in this land can question a decision made by this House to regulate its own affairs. It is arguable that the European courts could, but we can take away their right to do so by a simple piece of legislation. If we are to legislate, therefore, it should be to reinforce our self-regulatory powers and to remove the possibility of challenge. That would clarify what we can do, and we should then go ahead and do it.
John Cryer
Of course, technically it is not actually an offence for an MP to accept a bribe. A motion was passed—I have not got the information in front of me—in the 17th century that specifically condemned MPs who accept bribes, but it has never been enforced.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. My point about Sir John Trevor is that we should use the power this House has to expel a Member for taking a bribe. That is not the same as a criminal offence. Sir John was entitled, had he wished and had his electorate wanted him back, to stand for Parliament again. As it happened, the King promoted him to become Master of the Rolls, so he did not do too badly out of it in the end.
There is a difference between the penal power of Parliament and statute law and the requirement of an offence for a statutory punishment. There is no need for a specific offence for Parliament to act, which is a benefit because it is easier for us to expel a Member, and it leaves the person expelled with a right of appeal to his constituents. The British people would then be the ones to make the final decision. They would be entitled to decide whether the lobbying the Member had been caught up with was of a kind that they approved or disapproved of. Ultimately, it is right that we should trust the democratic forces of the electorate to judge our behaviour rather than parcelling it out to the judiciary, who I think are in a less strong position to judge whether what has happened is acceptable, right and proper in the political context in which it has taken place.
It is important to remember that we can also punish those who are in contempt of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) that we need to use those powers to remind people that they still exist. By allowing them to wither on the vine, we have weakened the ability of Parliament to clean up its own Act. Had we done so over the expenses situation, we would not be in the sorry state we are now in with politicians being held in very low esteem.
I urge the Government, rather than rushing hastily to legislation, to consider whether the powers that already exist can be used to clean up our own act, and can be used in a way that overcomes the difficulties of definition that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), the shadow spokesman, spoke very clearly of in his speech. That is the centre point of legislating, but it is the hardest point to define.
I will leave hon. Ladies and Gentlemen with this thought: what happens when a constituent comes, accompanied by his accountant, as happened to me last week, to complain that he has been defrauded and wants me to do something to help him? His accountant is paid, is representing his views, and might be the only member of his firm, but he is clearly lobbying me. And then, what do we think of the Whips, who lobby me on an almost daily basis on whether I am to vote Aye or No, and are often successful in their desire to get me going in the right direction? Should we have a register of them to ensure that their behaviour is even more proper, benign and pious than it already is?
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure, although not always easy, to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He is always informative and entertaining.
I have been a Member of this House since May 2010. When I was considering standing for selection as a candidate, I had to think carefully about whether this was something I wanted to do. I had concerns about the male culture and ethos of this place, and the impact that that would have on me as a woman MP. On that, my worst fears have been more than realised. I also had concerns about leaving a relatively successful career in education where I was relatively well respected to become a Member of Parliament, when the path to Parliament is hardly littered with respect and trust. I think we all know the reasons for that: it is not just the scandal in the previous Parliament but the view, widely felt out there among sections of the public, that we are all in it for ourselves and that election to Parliament is an open door to all kinds of experiences and funding not available to the general public.
I know that the vast majority of Members of this House are here because they genuinely want to make a difference to the lives of the people we represent. We may do that in different ways and we may have different priorities, but that is the reason why we are here. Scandals connected with lobbying, like those highlighted in the press in recent weeks, simply reinforce the negative view of politics and politicians, and the view that the relationship between lobbyists and politicians is far too close and is built upon mutual greed.
It is going to be really difficult to regain the trust of the public, but surely a good start is to put in place a statutory register of professional lobbyists that is backed up by regulation and includes a clear definition of what we mean by lobbying. When I say a clear definition, I mean a definition that will make sense to the people who vote for us. That should not just include third-party lobbyists, but in-house lobbyists and anyone who lobbies for commercial gain. Our constituents understand that the majority of all-party parliamentary groups provide information for parliamentarians, and work to influence MPs on issues of concern. All-party groups that support the work of parliamentarians in education, care leavers, social mobility, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, ovarian cancer and autism—all groups that I am happy to say I am involved in—and the charities and even companies that support those groups, are not lobbying Members with anything other than good intentions. It is right that those groups have access to politicians, and that is what our constituents would expect.
However, it is also clear to our constituents that we need regulation for all-party groups funded by private companies and for organisations that are bidding for Government contracts, offering lucrative jobs to former Ministers, MPs and Peers, and whose profits depend on Government policy. At its most basic, this issue is about the rich and powerful gaining access to those in government who make decisions, very often financial decisions, that can affect a company’s bottom line. That access is not available to the rest of the population. Although we may never be able to stop that completely, it is important that we regulate it and make it transparent.
I have to admit that I have received very little of what I would consider to be lobbying for commercial gain, but that is probably because I tend to involve myself in areas of activity that do not attract lucrative contracts. However, as the Government privatise more areas of health and education it will be harder to avoid. It is therefore ever more important that we have a statutory register in place that includes not only a clear definition of professional lobbying, but a code of conduct that is so clear that our constituents will understand it and approve of it, including a headline that forbids inappropriate financial relations between lobbyists and parliamentarians. I know that that is difficult. As the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, this is the crux of the matter. It will be incredibly difficult to define, but we know exactly what we are talking about and so do our constituents.
We need strong sanctions for both parliamentarians and lobbyists where breaches occur. It might just make a difference to lobbyists if they knew that if they breached or even attempted to breach the code, they could be prevented from working in Parliament again, and that in the most serious cases matters could be referred to the police and ultimately result in jail sentences. Despite the Prime Minister’s promises that he would deal with this, all he has done is to kick it into the long grass and he has only retrieved it following yet another scandal. However, I am less concerned about how we got here. Let us be glad that we have got here and let us get it right this time.
My concern is that the Government’s proposals are late, are weak and will not stop the most insidious and lucrative lobbying. The Government, either inadvertently or deliberately, failed to deal with the real problem.
Damian Collins
Does the hon. Lady agree that we must proceed with some care in terms of how we put together a register of lobbyists because, in the most recent scandals, it has not been lobbyists seeking to entrap parliamentarians but journalists masquerading as lobbyists? Many people who consider themselves to be lobbyists as part of a voluntary registered scheme already would never engage in such practices.
Pat Glass
Absolutely, which is why I said at the beginning that lobbying has a long tradition in this place and should continue. But we need to deal with that lobbying, or as the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, that corruption, which is about gaining commercially.
Finally, I want to say that Labour did put a voluntary code of practice in place in 2009 but, like so many other voluntary codes of practice, it simply did not work. We need a statutory code of practice; something that has teeth and will bite. Our constituents need to see that, this time, we mean business. That will happen only if there is a statutory code of practice in place that works, so that those who breach it—MPs, peers and lobbyists—are dealt with severely. This will not in itself reinstate trust in politics, but it will be a good place to start.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). I should start with a confession; I am married to a lobbyist. He is a consultant NHS psychiatrist and chair of the Westminster liaison committee for the Royal College of Psychiatrists and provides advice on mental health to all political parties. Having made that confession, I shall confess that I am also a lobbyist; I lobby shamelessly on behalf of my constituents in South Devon.
All of us would agree that lobbying is at the heart of our democracy and the way it works. It is a tragedy that lobbying has acquired a dirty raincoat image. I suggest that we should not throw the raincoat away; we should give the raincoat a wash. I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House that this is all about transparency in representation to decision-makers. But the word “transparency” has become devalued currency. We are talking about the kind of transparency that one sees on an ambulance window, allowing people to see out but not to see in.
We need to look at how transparency applies in our democracy today. At the heart of the matter is the question: who are the decision-makers in our democracy today? As a Back-Bench MP, I find that very many of the decisions made in Parliament take place in rooms to which we are not invited. That is important. Who influences the decisions in those rooms? Very often, in this day and age, it is election strategists. I have no objection to election strategists but if we are to have transparency in representation to decision-makers, we must have transparency in who election strategists, for all political parties, are also representing outside that very important role.
If an election strategist is also working as a paid lobbyist on behalf of big alcohol, big tobacco and other interests around the world, it is very important that people can see what those interests are. It is important that that extends to both Front Benches, and it would be greatly to the credit of Opposition Front Benchers if they accepted that they should also keep a diary of who meets them. This has to apply across the board to all those making decisions on our behalf in Parliament.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has returned to his place because I completely agree with him that there is no legislation in this House that could not be improved with pre-legislative scrutiny. I urge the Leader of the House to look at this important point. What would be the harm in bringing this to a Committee to allow not only Members of this House to make sensible recommendations for change, but people outside? We will have a better Bill if we have pre-legislative scrutiny. Let us not be afraid to allow people outside the House to see what we do in this place and who makes representations to us, and let us have a better democracy.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been an extremely interesting debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) set out, we hope that this debate will prompt the Government to recognise the urgent need to introduce a statutory register for all who lobby professionally and a clear code of conduct, including a ban on financial relationships between lobbyists and parliamentarians and clear sanctions where the code is breached. Those sanctions should ultimately include preventing serious offenders from practising by removing them from the register.
In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House did not explain why the Government were against a clear statutory code of conduct for lobbyists, so it would be good to hear more from the Deputy Leader of the House about that and to hear him explain how a register that covers only third-party lobbyists will clarify the Tesco problem—to paraphrase the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is no longer in his place—and help us to find out what big organisations are lobbying the Government about. It is not often clear or self-apparent what an organisation is lobbying about, given their range of interests.
As our motion makes clear, we are willing to work on a cross-party basis, so that all our collective interests can be served. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It is in the long-term interests of both sides of the House, as well as of those we seek to serve, that we toughen up the rules on lobbying and that we get them right. As several hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), made clear, it is important to remember that much of the lobbying we get is critical to helping MPs do their jobs: the letter from constituents demanding improvements in patient care, the quiet word from small businesses about the failure of big banks to lend money. These are all forms of lobbying, and they all benefit our democracy by contributing to political debate.
Nevertheless, the growth in the amount of evidence on the scale of lobbying and its ability to influence Ministers makes it imperative that we make progress. Lobbying reform is now essential if the Government are to retain the benefit of the doubt among our constituents that they serve the common good and that Ministers are not subservient to the private interests of millionaires and big business. As my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) made clear, the public’s concern is that much of the lobbying industry is hidden from public view. A lobbyist is not obliged to identify who they are, what they do, the sources of their finance, who their ultimate client is and how much is being spent. In short, there is no requirement on lobbyists or those who want lobbying done to operate in the open, in the light, where their conversations and the responses of those they lobby can be scrutinised more effectively.
The best lobbyists, it is true, operate according to an ethical code, but comparatively few are signed up to the various codes that exist, so without clear legal force and teeth, such voluntary codes of conduct will clearly not be taken seriously enough by all in the industry. There have been a series of revelations about the scale of big business’s influence on key Government legislation, such as, for example, the Leader of the House’s disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012. I am not against the lobbying of Government by big business—I welcome it on the same basis as I welcome all lobbying—but it has to be done in the open. It would appear, however, as a result of the Government’s proposals, that lobbyists working directly for big business groups will not be required to register—an extraordinary situation—to abide by any code of conduct or to spell out what they are lobbying about.
Already the concern exists that too often it is the voice of one or two corporate lobbyists that gets heard in Downing street, the Department of Health and throughout Whitehall, not the voice of ordinary people in Britain. There are other international examples of clearer, tougher measures being taken on lobbying, notably in the United States, in Canada and in Australia, all of which have tougher legislation than Ministers are proposing here.
Ministers claim that because records of ministerial meetings are published, in-house lobbyists do not need to be included on any register. It is worth remembering, however, that The Independent carried out an analysis of who Ministers met in the first 18 months of their time in office. Out of 4,000-plus declared ministerial meetings recorded by the Government, only seven were with lobbying firms. Perhaps the Ministers did not have much contact with lobbyists, but that is difficult to believe given last year’s revelations about McKinsey’s influence on the Bill introduced by the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), and about Fred Michel’s influence on the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. A register that requires only a few lobbying firms to register will not represent a great leap forward for transparency.
After three years in office, this Government ought to be making more progress on lobbying reform. Things should be getting better, yet lobbying scandals keep on coming, and Ministers are failing to turn things round. The Government are standing up for the wrong people—in this case, the secretive in-house lobbyists—instead of for ordinary people. We want change, real transparency, a statutory code of conduct and a requirement for all lobbyists to register. That is not much to ask; it is what the British people want, and it is time the Government delivered it.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on initiating the debate and on giving the coalition Government an opportunity to set out how we are tackling third-party influence. I am happy to congratulate them, but I must gently chastise them too. Their motion is the most egregious attempt to jump on a bandwagon that I have seen in recent years. They call on the Government to introduce a Bill on lobbying before the summer recess, when we had already announced such a Bill two weeks before. At the same time, and in the same breath, for the first time in three years they are calling for cross-party talks when they know that such talks would make the task of delivering a Bill by the summer recess virtually impossible. They will of course have an opportunity to demonstrate their desire for a consensual, cross-party approach as the Bill makes its passage through the House, and we look forward to their wholehearted and constructive support.
I should like to thank the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), for the valuable scrutiny role that his Committee plays. I know that he will not be entirely satisfied with the way in which the Government intend to proceed, given the report that the Committee has produced, but I believe that our proposals are well thought out, perfectly formed and tightly focused. We will not adopt the full-blown register that he is seeking, but I hope that our proposals on a third-party register and those on ministerial reporting—which will require any meeting with an in-house lobbyist to be reported, with a description of the discussions—will provide the transparency that he wants.
Mr Allen
Speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, which studied the proposals in some detail, I am not proposing that the Government should accept the things that we said in our report. I am saying that the House as a whole should be given, say, three weeks under the auspices of the Select Committee to examine the Bill seriously, preferably before its Second Reading but even during an interregnum after that point, so that any Member, anyone in Government and anyone in the lobbying profession can make their views plain. Whatever shape the Bill is in—I am sure that it is perfectly formed—we might be able to improve it slightly through such an examination.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and he has already made his speech in the debate. We do not need a second one. Good interventions are short interventions.
Tom Brake
I want to make some progress now, and to comment on the points raised in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) ably demonstrated in his opening remarks that lobbying is a fact of life for Members of Parliament and that we are clearly not seeking to ban the activity, but to maximise the transparency of it.
My heart goes out to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) as he travels around the 3,800 square miles of his constituency. He cannot get round his constituency in the way that I can on my bicycle, but my constituency is only 25 square miles. He highlighted the important role of the ministerial code, and referred to section 8.14, which deals with ministerial reporting. His desire—one that I would share with him—is to use that as a mechanism for improving transparency. We as individual Members of Parliament and Ministers can undertake to do that, without the need for legislation.
Tom Brake
I will give way later.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) referred to the historical role that central lobbying has to play, and mentioned where the definition of lobbying came from. She set out how she as an individual MP has tackled some of the issues of greater clarity and transparency by publishing on her own website the details of her contacts. People can thus see that all is open and clear.
Helen Jones
I am grateful. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly why the Government are refusing to have pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill?
Tom Brake
I think that the Government are in a difficult position: on the one hand we are told that we are not moving ahead swiftly enough, while on the other we are told to make time available for pre-legislative scrutiny. The original proposals were scrutinised heavily, and the Government will come forward with a Bill, many aspects of which will be familiar to the hon. Member for Nottingham North, the Select Committee Chairman, for instance, as they were set out in the original proposals.
Mr Allen
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to pray in aid the Select Committee when I have been clear, impartial and open with the House about our Select Committee’s scrutiny and the failure of the Government to respond to our report within a year? Is it somehow acceptable for the Minister to pray in aid the Select Committee in pursuit of arguments that he cannot seem to make himself?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I note that point and it is on the record. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am not responsible for, and have no desire to be responsible for, the speech of the Deputy Leader of the House.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have given way to the hon. Member for Nottingham North if he had waited his turn.
As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire can be reassured that when the Bill is published, there will be clarity and no room for misunderstanding or misconstruing the Government’s intentions when it comes to the definitions of lobbying, who is covered and who is not covered.
I was a little bit alarmed at the beginning of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) when he seemed to be inviting you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to test the market to see what the going rate for paid representation was. Later, he clarified that that was not what he was suggesting. He raised a serious point about the powers that we have as a House to enforce our own rules. He wanted us to exercise those powers diligently and without hesitation, and I would certainly agree with him on that. We were then given the parliamentary equivalent of a TED talk on parliamentary privilege, which I suggest we put on YouTube for others to view later. Finally, I can give the reassurance that it is not the Government’s intention to include the Whips in the register.
Finally, there was a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who described herself as a lobbyist for her constituents—a role that we all applaud. We should all seek to imitate her in that role. She reinforced the point that both Front-Bench teams should show transparency. We will want to hear more from the Opposition about that.
Mr Thomas
May I pursue a point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)? Why does the right hon. Gentleman, a Liberal Democrat, think it acceptable for Crosby Textor not to have to abide by a statutory code of conduct? That is the gist of the proposals that he is supporting.
Tom Brake
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I work very closely together. I have some responsibility for some aspects of Liberal Democrat policy, and he speaks for the Conservatives on some issues relating to the Conservative party. However, the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is clearly a Conservative party issue, and not an issue for the Deputy Leader or, indeed, the Leader of the House.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) was anxious for us to be able to deal with unaccountable wealth that wields unaccountable influence in this place. I hope that we shall at least be able to clarify the position relating to third-party lobbyists, who often represent companies with considerable wealth. I worry about the hon. Gentleman, however: I do not know what the Deputy Prime Minister has done to him, but he clearly has a large chip on his shoulder. I recommend therapy to deal with that.
The hon. Member for Warrington North said that members of the public had lost faith in politicians. I agree with her to some extent, but I should point out that according to the latest report by the Hansard Society, the public feel that in certain respects politicians in this place have a greater influence on affairs. That may be partly a result of the e-petition process and the important role played by the Backbench Business Committee.
The hon. Lady issued a plea for the register to include in-house lobbyists who were connected with charities, trade unions and churches, but did not say why she considered that to be necessary. As I have already explained, quarterly reports of meetings between Ministers and permanent secretaries and in-house lobbyists provide the details of those who were met and the purposes of the meetings.
Helen Jones
I think that if the Minister reads the report of my words, he will see that I mentioned in-house lobbyists but not charities or churches.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Lady for providing that clarification. I am not sure that the same clarification has been provided by Opposition Front Benchers, but we will have other opportunities to hear from them about the scope of their proposals.
Given the rather convoluted phrase about sunlight and soap with which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) began his speech, he appeared to have been lobbied by Procter & Gamble. I am afraid that I lost the hon. Gentleman towards the end of that phrase, but his main point was that the problem of undue influence would be dealt with by the inclusion of everyone on a register. I do not understand how that can be the case. Simply including people on a register cannot ensure that they will not exert undue influence.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for having missed the beginning of his speech. He spoke of the need for an engaged, interactive citizens’ democracy, which is something that I would certainly support and welcome.
I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) feels that the House is becoming less—
Tom Brake
No, she clearly thinks that the House is still too confrontational, or too male-dominated or testosterone-driven. I am not entirely sure what she considers to be the cause of the tension.
The hon. Lady advanced the same arguments about the need for an extensive register. She, too, did not take account of the fact that meetings with in-house lobbyists are reported. Those who want to establish whom Ministers have met and why, and the dates on which they have met, can refer to the quarterly report, and can then ask questions if they wish to do so. If, for instance, it concerns them that a Minister has met representatives of Tesco to discuss food labelling, they can pursue the matter further. However—this is relevant to what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said—I should welcome greater transparency in that regard. I know Ministers are looking at that collectively.
Finally, in summing up for the Opposition the hon. Member for Harrow West touched on many of the issues that his hon. Friends had raised in the debate, in particular the code of conduct. The Government’s position is clear: that is best addressed by business, so we can focus on the third-party register.
This debate has provided a timely and refreshing opportunity for the coalition to set out how we intend to tackle the potential risks associated with third-party influence, by bringing forward coherent, finely balanced and proportionate measures—measures that will not burden charities and other organisations with huge regulations, as requested by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson).
These are measures that I believe the whole House will be able to support. I urge Members to back the Government amendment and reject the Opposition motion.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Armed Forces
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House celebrates and commemorates the contribution of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and their families, in particular those currently serving overseas; recognises the important introduction of Armed Forces Day in 2006 and urges the nation to come together and champion the Services’ achievements throughout the decades; pays tribute to the UK’s Forces, their families and the charities who do so much to support them; recognises the enormous contribution of the staff who support the UK’s Forces from within Government and the workforces in industry who supply them with world-class equipment; urges all those in public life to seek additional ways to support the Armed Forces Covenant; urges the Government, local authorities, business and charities to deliver the best possible post-service support; and considers the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant essential to uphold, through public policy, the provision of welfare and frontline support.
I am pleased to start what I think is an important debate in advance of Armed Forces day on issues that should transcend party politics. The care and support that we offer those prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of others in our nation’s name across the globe is something that we rightly celebrate every day and in particular this weekend. The patriotism, courage and dedication of the men and women who serve are immeasurable. The first duty of any Government to protect our citizens would not be possible without our forces’ commitment, and they must at all times be properly valued and rewarded.
I want this House to know again that the Government will always have the support of those on the Opposition Benches when they seek to support our service personnel. This is more important as Armed Forces day approaches. That is an opportunity for people across the UK to come together locally to celebrate the contribution our forces and their families make, not just to our national security, but to local communities. So it is in that spirit that I offer my comments today. In doing so, however, I cannot guarantee the tone or the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) will wind up today’s debate.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I strongly agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said about Armed Forces day and about support for our armed forces. Having read his motion carefully, I strongly agree with every single word in it and I am most grateful to him for proposing it. However, I look forward to the response of his hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). Is it not the job of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition not simply to propose a motion on which we all agree, but to try to point out what is wrong with what the Government are doing? Why has he wasted the opportunity to do so?
Mr Murphy
There are 364 days of the year to point out where the Government are going wrong. We have chosen today in advance of Armed Forces day to celebrate the contribution our armed forces make and to offer, as the hon. Gentleman will realise as he listens to the rest of my comments, some of the ways in which we think the country and our politics could further improve the service and support for our armed forces. But I will take his advice and when I next return to the Dispatch Box I will do so in the spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, rather than making my own comments.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
May I answer the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)? I will tell him what is wrong with the armed forces, if he really wants to know—the cuts to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.
Mr Murphy
There will be opportunities throughout the debate for right hon. and hon. Members to make their own assessments of the strength of the Government’s defence policy, but my intention today, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, is to make constructive suggestions about how together we can do more to honour our armed forces and support their families.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
In a comradely spirit, does the right hon. Gentleman think that military bands have a role to play in the future of our armed forces?
Mr Murphy
I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency a number of times and know how passionately he argues that case. Of course military bands play an important role, as we saw at trooping the colour a couple of weeks ago on Her Majesty’s official birthday. I think that the remarkable sights and sounds of military bands are celebrated by the entre nation.
Sir Bob Russell
The reason I intervened is that under the Labour Government the number of Army bands was reduced by almost a quarter.
Mr Murphy
I knew that I would enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s second intervention. Someone shouted from a sedentary position “Good luck” in relation to his not seeking to intervene again. All I will say is that I will not give way to him later in my speech. I am pretty proud of the changes and reforms introduced by the Labour Government with regard to our armed forces. Members today will offer their observations and criticisms, but on balance I am pretty proud of our record.
Our armed forces stationed overseas are rightly at the front of all our minds, including those stationed in Afghanistan. They operate in the dust and danger of a far-away terrain to protect security on our streets at home. Of course, after the pain of the past few years, many people understandably ask why it is in our interests to engage in such causes and to confront unrest in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The answer, in my opinion, is pretty straightforward: we do so because we do not want it to visit our shores.
We have recently seen UK personnel operating in Libya and Mali, alongside the ongoing operations in Afghanistan, in a sign of the unpredictability of today’s security landscape. Today the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way do so in a rapidly evolving defence environment that will demand new skills, technologies and strategies alongside their timeless courage and ingenuity.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s preliminary remarks. Are not many armed servicemen and women worried about any future entanglement? Will he take this opportunity to share with the House the answer to this question: do Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition support or oppose arming the Syrian opposition forces?
Mr Murphy
As my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have already made clear, there is a great degree of scepticism and worry about any decision to arm the Syrian opposition, not least because it is not possible to quarantine the arms provided or guarantee who will be the end user. We look forward to hearing the Government make their argument. I thought that the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister’s questions the week before last, had an argument, but he did not make it very well.
Our purpose in the world is to defend our interests and promote our values, but the means by which we achieve those ends and the threats that challenge both our interests and our ideas are increasingly diverse, complex and intense. The global population is growing rapidly, putting massive pressure on resources and space and forcing migration from poor to rich states. Climate change will reduce available land, food and water, exacerbating the drivers of state failure. Weak and unstable states already outnumber strong and stable ones by more than 2:1. A youth bulge is seeing rising aspiration and great emotional urgency in the desire for political change. The advance of information technologies and biotechnologies threatens international security infrastructure, while nuclear proliferation and cyber-attacks pose the potential for mass destruction.
Within this context, it is our duty collectively to ensure that our forces are designed to meet new threats, with a strategy defined by adaptability, prevention and partnering with our allies. Labour has argued that our recruitment plan must be advanced and affordable, defined by discipline in budgetary management as well as maximising modern technology and a new multilateralism, and that our armed forces must be higher-skilled, focused on stabilisation, cultural embedding and building other nations’ underdeveloped forces so that they can share the burden of future heavy lifting. We see a new role for our services based on earlier intervention, to prevent the need for the large-scale conflicts of our recent history. However, it is our duty to ensure that such capability is based on reform throughout the ranks.
Our duty to forces on the front line is matched, of course, by our duty of care to them when they return. The armed forces covenant, enshrined in 2010 following a campaign by the Royal British Legion, has at its heart the principle that no one should suffer disadvantage as a result of their service. That principle should infuse all our work in support of the covenant and those men, women and their families.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend about the armed forces covenant. I am sure he welcomes the news that all three local authorities in my area have signed up to the community covenant. Indeed, this Saturday morning we will name the town square in Corby after Lance Corporal James Ashworth, who, as my right hon. Friend will know, made the ultimate sacrifice fighting in Helmand, Afghanistan. He was awarded the Victoria Cross—only the 14th person to receive the honour since the second world war. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to encouraging local authorities to recognise the sacrifice of our troops.
Mr Murphy
My hon. Friend speaks again with great passion about Lance Corporal James Ashworth. This is not a partisan point: my hon. Friend has been in the House for only a short time, but no Member on either side of the House could fail to be impressed by the diligence with which he has taken an interest in armed forces and defence issues. The whole House is improved by his contributions. I am sure that, like my hon. Friend, Members across the House will be doing their bit in their own town and city centres this Saturday. I will be in Nottingham at the national celebration of Armed Forces day.
Only recently did we graphically witness both the danger that our forces face and the unity that they can inspire. The atrocious murder of Drummer Lee Rigby sickened us all—a feeling whose intensity was matched only by the resolve to defeat the extremist sentiments that shaped the minds of the murderers. The result was not division, apart from that in respect of an exploitative minority; instead, it was a simple act of Britain standing together to defy that violence, hatred and intolerance.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
When that dreadful murder occurred, it was suggested that the uniform be removed and people should go out in civilian clothes. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was a bad idea? Like other Members, I am glad that that did not happen. We should stand up to such acts and be proud that the uniform of the Army, Navy or Air Force is worn in this country.
Mr Murphy
I fully endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. I recently enjoyed visiting his constituency in an unusual bout of sunshine; coming from Glasgow, I was not used to that.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. For understandable reasons, our armed forces were, for a number of decades, to some degree invisible to the public eye because of the republican extremist violence emanating from Northern Ireland. Although there were questions during the first few hours after the attack the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is right that we have settled on the position that our armed forces should continue to travel and be visible to the public mind and public affection. Although such a position is always taken under the best available advice, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
Mr Jim Cunningham
On the cuts to the armed forces and their replacement with reservists, the Federation of Small Businesses said that a lot of their members would think twice before employing a reservist. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr Murphy
I will comment on that a little later. It is an important point. The Regular Army is being cut to about 82,000 and the reservist force is being doubled to about 30,000. It is crucial for our country that that is done in the right way. The issue is partly about how the Government interact and explain the benefit of having reservists in the workplace. I shall come back to that a little later.
I hope that Armed Forces day, in recognition of all those who have fallen, will be a reflection of the emotions that we feel—a commemoration of loved ones lost and a celebration of all they achieved and their comrades can continue to achieve; I am thinking not just of their deeds in the armed forces, but the love they gave, the friendships they built and the memories in which they are held.
The covenant is a statement of collective purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) said. Its principles cut across classes, sectors, regions and nations of the UK. Businesses, local communities, central Government and local authorities all have a responsibility to deliver the highest possible levels of care and support to the service community. Of course we operate within financial constraints, but a pooling of our commitment and imagination can lead to better policy and meaningful results. That is why we have urged local authorities to have veterans champions—a dedicated person at each council to develop support for service leavers to help them to resettle into civilian life. On return from the front line or in departing the forces, many service leavers struggle with the transition from military to civilian life.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in praising all of Scotland’s local authorities for signing the covenant. On pooling, does he think that there is a useful model in understanding the work of Veterans Scotland, which brings together 53 veterans’ organisations to work with the Scottish Government and the UK Government to ensure that veterans have the appropriate policy delivered at a Scottish and a UK level?
Mr Murphy
It is a rare occasion when the hon. Gentleman and I are in full agreement on defence matters, because we have an entirely different vision for the future of UK defence. He makes a very important point. It is a cause for some celebration that all 32 of Scotland’s local authorities have community covenants. Of course, there is an issue of scale in England, but achieving 100% in Scotland is a remarkable achievement. I would like to put on record the whole House’s congratulations to all those local authorities.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Mention of Scotland raises in my mind a prospect that many of us regard as unfortunate: that the contribution made by Scotland over many years—hundreds of years—to the British Army might in some way be prejudiced were Scotland to become independent and create its own armed forces. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that tradition is worthy of protection and is as powerful an argument as any against the idea that Scotland should hive off from the United Kingdom?
Mr Murphy
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right; he makes an important point. One of the remarkable things about the patchwork nature of the United Kingdom is the way in which our four nations come together in some of our most important institutions, none more so than our armed forces. For very many people in Scotland, but also across the UK, the idea of tearing that apart demonstrates that independence is a powerful idea of the 19th century that is ill suited to the complexity of the 21st century.
All this work and all this support from veterans’ champions are crucial to ensure that the armed forces covenant becomes a reality on the ground. For some time, I have reflected that although an Opposition party is formally out of office, it is not out of power. That is why we, as the Opposition, have worked with business to develop and deliver the veterans interview programme, which encourages employers to offer veterans a guaranteed interview or other form of enhanced employment support. It is a voluntary scheme that gives veterans a chance to show employers how their skills and experience could benefit their businesses. The Department for Work and Pensions has agreed to roll it out nationally.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Ind)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that with the several hundred charities that now exist all facing in the right direction, there is perhaps a lack of co-ordination in bringing their efforts together for the best benefit of the veterans concerned?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman, who served with such gallantry, makes an important point. The work that COBSEO—the Confederation of Service Charities—is doing could be important in this regard. Understandably, a plethora of new organisations has been created, born out of the remarkable emotion in the country whereby people wish to do something—anything—to support our armed forces. In a little while I will announce one more organisation that will be doing important work in future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares my sense of satisfaction about that.
Through the veterans interview programme, about which I have just spoken, we are working in partnership with some of the nation’s largest employers. This morning, in another partnership with business, I updated the Opposition’s Fighting Fitter campaign, through which health and leisure centres provide discounts for members of the forces and their families. Five national health companies are taking part: Nuffield Health, Pure Gym, David Lloyd, Virgin Active and ukactive. Between them, they have more than 450 sites that will offer discounts for the armed forces. We hope that others will do the same this weekend and beyond.
I was joined at the launch this morning by an Olympic athlete. When I tweeted that fact earlier this morning, people got in touch to find out which Olympic athlete would be joining me on the publicity trail. The top suggestions were Jessica Ennis and Sir Chris Hoy. However, if you will forgive me on this one occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the misuse of parliamentary terminology, it was not Sir Chris Hoy, but another knight: our very own Sir Ming Campbell. As the House will know, he competed a blink of an eye ago in the 1964 Olympic games in Tokyo. His other claim to fame, as he has said before, is that he defeated O. J. Simpson on the running track. We were joined, I am pleased to say, by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), in the House of Commons gym in an all-party show of support for the Fighting Fitter campaign.
Bob Stewart
There is no chance of me ever being an Olympic athlete. I would like to inform the House what happened when the shadow Secretary of State visited the Marines. Apparently, they sent him on a run and he beat the lot of them. Since then, they have never recovered.
Mr Murphy
Defeating the Marines in a run is one thing; defeating the shadow Chancellor in the marathon is another. I know which one I will pay for the longest. I think that he was only two hours behind me —[Interruption.] However, I do not keep records of these things and, I am sure, neither does he.
Let me get back to what I am meant to be reading out. The Opposition believe that it is vital to protect through anti-discrimination legislation those who protect our nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, recent polling shows that one in 20 service personnel have suffered abuse in the street. My hon. Friend referred to the attitude of businesses in the survey. A private Member’s Bill presented yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) proposes that abuse of the forces should be treated as aggravated, thus guaranteeing specific punishment for those who attack our forces. The polling also demonstrates that 18% of service personnel have been refused service in a public place. The Bill also proposes to outlaw discrimination against members of the forces in the provision of goods and services. That is vital if we are to tackle disadvantage that arises from military service. Although I am certain that the Bill can be improved technically, I hope that it will gain cross-party support.
We hope that the whole House will support the initiatives that I have mentioned: the veterans interview programme, local armed forces champions, the Fighting Fitter campaign and the anti-discrimination legislation. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom we also did not invite to our session at the gym this morning. I hope that he will reflect on each of those initiatives which, although launched by the Opposition, are free from party politics.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from veterans, does he think that it is important that we recognise the role played by British nuclear test veterans? Those veterans played a unique service role at the dawn of our nuclear weapons programme, but the country has never recognised them properly. We rank pretty close to the bottom of the international table of decency on this issue compared with other nuclear countries. Does he think that it is time to put that right?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important and long-running issue. All I would say is that I have met, and will continue to meet, representatives of those veterans, as do hon. Members on all sides of the House. I am sure that the Government are grappling with this matter. Under the previous Government a settlement offer was made, but my recollection and understanding is that that was blocked, seemingly by legal process and by lawyers. If that had not been the case, compensation might already have been provided. It is disappointing and regrettable that that has not happened.
An essential element of duty of care is how we support those who have served to get back into work post-service. Being in the armed forces often provides personnel with friendship, if not near-familial support. It can be disorientating and disconcerting when bonds with compatriots are suddenly broken and the norms of military life are lost.
Charles Hendry
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a challenge for people who have tremendous skills and expertise from their time in the armed forces? When they move on, potential employers who have suitable vacancies often do not employ them because they do not have relevant industrial experience. Does he see a role for organisations such as ForceSelect and others to work with those leaving the armed forces and with potential employers to help ensure that they have the opportunity for a long-term career outside the forces too?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He and his wife continue to do so much to support armed forces charity. I had the opportunity to attend one of his functions, which managed to raise thousands of pounds. His point about the relationship and interaction between potential employers and service leavers is crucial. The Government, as part of a national effort, should help to lead the way in breaking down some of those barriers and fostering a greater degree of understanding. The approach that we favour, as the hon. Gentleman hinted at, is to enhance post-service support and introduce much more rigorous in-service training. That would not only ensure that those who leave have the skills and structures to help them advance in new careers, but strengthen the operational effectiveness of the services by increasing the skill levels of personnel while they are still serving.
On post-service support, we want to see a permanent umbrella body, set above the brilliant but sometimes fragmented third sector, that will be a one-stop shop for leavers and that would vastly increase access to support and services.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I, with other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, recently met the US Department of Veterans Affairs, which produces a “bible” for veterans. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to have something similar in this country: a one-stop shop for all the services, support and benefits that are available for veterans?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about how we can learn from international experience. A lot of information is available online, but not in print. If he wishes to suggest to the Government that they produce their own bible, I am sure that the Education Secretary would be happy to write the foreword. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench are listening.
While it is right that members of the armed forces—this relates to the point about an additional organisation—do not have a union and cannot join a union, I want to mention for a moment the role of trade unions in the important work of post-service workplace support. I know that some in the country, and perhaps even some in the Chamber today, bemoan the role of unions, but I am delighted to inform the House that earlier this afternoon I attended an event with the general secretary of the Community union, Michael Leahy. I hope that the whole House will welcome the news that the Community trade union has announced its intention to work with parliamentarians on all sides and other stakeholders to position themselves as the UK veterans’ union. It is well known that Community supports me in my work as shadow Defence Secretary, and from now on it will be able to offer specialist, bespoke provision to help veterans find gainful employment and continue to make a valuable difference.
Changes in post-service support should be just one side of the reform we need, which is why we are arguing for faster academic attainment within the services. In recent evidence, the Defence Select Committee said:
“The provision for meeting the literacy and numeracy needs of our service personnel would benefit from further improvement.”
A system where many of those who defend our country are left without additional basic skills is bad for our troops, the Army and our country. We believe that through close collaboration with the MOD, the Department for Education and the devolved Administrations across the country, there can be opportunities to reach level 2 within two years for those without qualifications. This should apply across the UK because while education may be devolved in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, our collective responsibility to our forces is not. I want to make it certain that members of the forces would benefit from such changes, no matter where in our islands they live. There should also be specialist training in literacy teaching, increased provision of Army apprenticeships within the infantry and easier conversion to civilian qualifications. Enhanced in-service education would be a genuine means of progression for military men and women.
Turning briefly to the issue of reservists, the House will be aware that in the light of the Government’s structural change in the Army—as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South has mentioned—realising defence planning assumptions rests largely on doubling the number of reserves to 30,000. Labour Members support a larger role for the Army reserve, as it will rightly be known, but we are concerned that plans are as yet insufficiently available in detail to give members enough information and senior military figures have raised public concerns about their confidence in the success of the current process.
In advance of the forthcoming White Paper, there are a number of policies that we believe the Government should consider, not least to ensure the compatibility between longer training and deployment time periods and the employment of a larger reserve force.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the people of Dudley on the contribution they make to the reservists through A squadron of the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, which is based in Vicar street, Dudley? It is the best recruited squadron in the country; it recently took on 47 new trainees and is processing another 60 now, and has had two dozen volunteers on active service in Afghanistan.
Mr Murphy
My hon. Friend has been so strong in support of his Territorial regiment. When I was in Dudley, the campaign was so fierce that it was the one issue about which the local media wanted to talk. I congratulate him, and the Government will have to take into account the point he makes, not only about the high regard in which the unit is held in Dudley but the fact that it is recruited to full strength and is indeed over-subscribed. I look forward to the Minister responding to that specific point.
There must also be real protection for reservists. Current legislation says clearly that an employer has a duty to re-employ a returning reservist in the occupation they were employed in before their service and on the same terms and conditions. There is, however, no legislation to prevent an employer from discriminating against reservists in their hiring procedures on the grounds of their military affiliation. The Government should now consult employers specifically on new legislation to protect against discrimination in hiring reservists, which would need to be coupled with an obligation of transparency from reservists to declare their status.
Mr Baron
Is the shadow Secretary of State’s concern compounded by the fact that if we look at the present mobilisation rate of the existing TA, which stands at about 40%, we see that plugging the gap left by the loss of 20,000 regulars would require 50,000 reservists and not 30,000? Does the rundown of the TA forces in recent years, including the closure of TA centres and the fact that TA numbers are in decline, worry him?
Mr Murphy
The hon. Gentleman has raised these matters in Defence questions and other defence debates, and he will continue to do so. He sounds a clear warning to the Government and anyone who wishes to govern that in order to be successful, this policy—of boosting reservist numbers, engaging with employers and getting right the proportion of regulars to reservists and the relationship and integration of units and individuals—has to be done almost faultlessly. It is an enormous challenge to cut the Regular Army at this pace in the expectation that reservists will fill the gap, and I know that he will continue to raise that point.
Finally, the evidence shows that some reservists can suffer worse post-service psychological issues than regulars, in part because of the speed of the transition from military to civilian settings, so we should consider how we can increase access for reservists to military medical services in order to tackle the potential mental health problems that a minority—I stress, a minority—experience.
The Opposition will regularly disagree on many aspects of domestic and on some aspects of defence policy, and the decision to leave certain key capability gaps following the defence review will remain controversial and continue to provoke enormous debate, but Armed Forces day should be defined not by a political contest between parties, but where possible by consensus and celebration. The groups comprising our national defence—the high-skilled industrial work forces that make world-class equipment, the civilian government work force who do so much to support our forces, the charities whose unrivalled support and commitment to our armed forces personnel provide a lifeline when often another does not exist, and the families, who are sometimes forgotten, but who make sacrifices to support the actions of their family members on the front line—will each participate in this Saturday’s celebrations, but uppermost in our thoughts will be the hundreds lost in recent conflicts and the thousands in service overseas this weekend and unable to be at home and to join in the commemorations and celebrations. We remember them, we thank them and, this weekend, we celebrate them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I want to give notice to all Back Benchers that there will be a six-minute time limit, which, depending on how the debate goes, it might be necessary to reduce in order to ensure that everybody who wants to participate can.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
I welcome the opportunity to speak for the Government in this important debate. Although this is technically an Opposition day, there is evidently a good deal of consensus in the House on this issue, and without wishing to tempt fate, I suspect that the mood will be slightly different from the last time the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and I crossed swords—over the Lisbon treaty—on behalf of our respective parties.
The members of our armed forces, past and present, regulars and reserves, have made an incredible contribution to this country, some having made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. We owe our armed forces an enormous debt, and it is right that we continually strive to recognise, repay and honour this debt. The sheer breadth and pace of operations over the last decade have raised awareness of the bravery and dedication of our service personnel, and public support for our armed forces is arguably at an all-time high—something that I am sure the whole House will welcome and endorse. Excellent work has been done by all sections of society—by the public sector, the private sector and charities—to help harness this support. Earlier this month, for instance, we paid tribute to those veterans who stormed the Normandy beaches to help free Europe from Nazi tyranny. I was privileged to lay several wreaths on behalf of the Government. This was personally poignant for me as my father, Reginald Francois, served aboard a minesweeper on D-day 69 years ago.
Armed Forces day this Saturday is just one of the many ways the public show their support for our service personnel. It is an important occasion, because it allows us to come together on a single day to show our appreciation for what they do for us every day. Since its inception as veterans day in 2006—it became armed forces day in 2009—it has allowed millions of people to celebrate the achievements and remember the sacrifices of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women. The event has gained real momentum in the past few years, thanks to the backing of the royal family, charities, businesses, the armed forces themselves, and thousands of volunteers up and down the country. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who give their time and effort to make Armed Forces day the success that it has now become. This year, there will be more than 300 events taking place all over the country—including, I am proud to say, in Rayleigh—ranging in scale from the small to the large, and the formal to the informal.
Mr Francois
Yes; it is no surprise that the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) wishes to intervene on me.
Sir Bob Russell
Speaking as one Essex MP to another, I am sure that the Minister would like to inform the House that among the celebrations in his constituency there will be a performance by the Colchester military wives choir.
Mr Francois
Having seen the programme, I am happy to confirm that that is the case. I heard the Colchester military wives choir perform in Portcullis House some months ago, and if it gives as good a performance on Saturday as it did then, all my constituents who attend the event will be very impressed.
Mr Francois
I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).
Andrew Gwynne
I shall be in Victoria park in Denton on Saturday to celebrate Armed Forces day. Another way in which the public can get together to celebrate our armed forces is through the homecoming of our troops. The Minister will be pleased to hear that we have had huge crowds in Tameside and Stockport for the homecoming of the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and the Mercian Regiment in the past few weeks.
Mr Francois
I am absolutely delighted to hear that. The support that we see at homecoming parades now is much greater and more heartfelt than it was a few years ago. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will give an Essex example. In Basildon, the police estimated that some 10,000 people were present when the Royal Anglian Regiment returned. It is marvellous, when our brave service personnel come back from operations, to see their own communities across the country welcoming them home. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for doing the right thing by his local regiment on Saturday.
Mr Francois
I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry).
Jake Berry
I should like to reinforce the Minister’s point about the importance of Armed Forces day. It has given people like me and my constituents who have either no or relatively little military experience an opportunity to show our gratitude. In Rossendale and Darwen, we have been packing parcels that will be sent over to Afghanistan, and I have been overwhelmed by the public support for the project. It has given people an opportunity to say thank you, in their own small way.
Mr Francois
I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend says. Armed Forces day has gathered momentum in the past few years. It has become a bigger event in the calendar of every community around the country, and there will be 300 events across the United Kingdom on Saturday. I hope that it will gather even greater momentum in the months and years ahead. I shall now give way to a knight of the realm.
Sir Gerald Howarth
My right hon. Friend has paid tribute to the excellent Colchester military wives choir, but can I assure him that he has not lived until he has heard the Aldershot military wives choir, which is even better? Unfortunately, it will not be performing here in Portcullis House as originally planned, but it will be available to perform in Aldershot, and I hope that I can encourage all my hon. Friends to come and hear it.
Mr Francois
I can assure my hon. Friend that I most certainly have lived, but we won’t go into that now. I do not want to start anything more than friendly competition between the different military wives choirs, but if his choir is anything like as good as the one from Colchester, it will have achieved a very high standard indeed.
Another important point about Armed Forces day is that all the events will be slightly different, and personal to the groups and individuals involved. That is an important aspect of the day: it is people-led. The Ministry of Defence is supporting the day financially by allocating grants totalling some £320,000 to 100 of this year’s events, but we do not dictate the nature of the events. We do play an organisational role in supporting some of the larger gatherings, however. This year’s national event will be held in Nottingham, and the city has fully embraced its role as host. It will be attended by Their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff and, I am pleased to say, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence as well.
Our support for members of the armed forces must be more than just symbolic. While it is important to pay tribute to them on Armed Forces day, we must make sure that we provide them with the practical support they deserve all year round. That is why this Government made honouring the armed forces covenant an important objective and why we enshrined in law its two key principles: that the armed forces community should not face disadvantage with regard to the provision of public and commercial services, and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, particularly for those such as the injured and the bereaved who have given the most.
The Secretary of State for Defence is now obliged to report annually to Parliament and to the country on the implementation of the covenant, and the first of these reports was published in December last year. It is important to this Government to make sure that we support our armed forces as best we can. The Chancellor demonstrated this by allocating £35 million from the fines levied on banks for attempting to manipulate the LIBOR interest rate to support the armed forces covenant, mainly through grants to service charities. The first tranche of this funding included £1 million for Fisher House, which provides accommodation for the families of wounded personnel being treated at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. Fisher House was opened by His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, only last Friday; I was privileged to be able to attend and to have the opportunity to visit some of the wounded while I was there.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I would like to join the whole House in celebrating our armed forces. An issue that concerns me—a number of my constituents have contacted me about this—is that a significant number of ex-armed forces personnel still find themselves homeless. Does the Minister share my concern, and what are the Government doing to try to deal with the homelessness of armed forces personnel?
Mr Francois
If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall address that point specifically when I talk about the community covenant. I hope that I will be able to satisfy him when I get there.
The covenant is a contract between the armed forces and the whole of society, and we understand that society is much larger than just central government, so I am pleased that initiatives such as the armed forces community covenant have gained such momentum. The community covenant is designed to deepen the integration of military and civil communities at the local level, ensuring that local authorities and other local organisations are well placed to understand and respond to the needs of their armed forces communities. To date, over 330 local authorities have signed up—including all in Scotland—and the total represents more than three quarters of all the local authorities in the United Kingdom. We are witnessing many examples of the benefits that this scheme can bring in practice.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I commend the Government for their work on implementing the community covenant. I would like to pay tribute to both Dudley and Sandwell councils in the west midlands for signing up to the community charter. Does the Minister agree that it is important for both councils to take a proactive role in supporting legions in my constituency, such as the Halesowen British Legion, the Blackheath British Legion and the Cradley British Legion, which lies just outside my constituency, and to drive forward the work they do in the local community?
Mr Francois
I pay tribute to the two local councils in my hon. Friend’s constituency for signing the community covenant and to the Royal British Legion for everything it has done specifically to encourage the community covenant campaign. As I said, over 330 councils have already signed up. I understand that another cohort of councils is likely to sign up to it to coincide with Armed Forces day and that another cohort is then expected in the run-up to Remembrance day 2013. I hope that, by the end of this year, the vast bulk of local authorities in the UK will have signed a community covenant.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In areas of the United Kingdom such as Northern Ireland, where there are some problems in trying to get the establishment of the community covenant and where those of a political disposition such as Sinn Fein and others might for whatever reason have a problem or an issue with it, does the Minister agree that whatever the resistance or opposition of those groups, they should at least have the maturity to stand aside in a mature, professional and even-handed fashion and allow the rest of the community—of all sides—to be able to pay tribute to our armed forces?
Mr Francois
I am well aware of that background, which is complex in some respects. I recently gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on precisely the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. I also visited Northern Ireland, and was briefed in detail by the commander of 38 Brigade on the implementation of the covenant at ground level. In terms of practical day-to-day measures, it is working quite well. The after-care service is a very good example of the covenant in action in a bespoke Northern Ireland context. Nevertheless, I hope that, over time, local authorities in Northern Ireland find themselves able to sign the community covenant.
Let me give some examples of the way in which the community covenant is working in practice. Hampshire county council is sharing best practice in the support of service children attending schools in its jurisdiction. Devon county council is identifying and supporting its staff members who are reservists, helping to ensure that their views and needs are represented. Westminster city council is changing its procedures on housing allocation so that service personnel will not slip down the list if they are posted overseas on operations. We encourage local authorities to give special consideration to veterans when considering the allocation of service housing; I hope that that helps to address the pertinent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark). Cumulatively, those measures are having a positive impact on local armed forces communities.
I think it fair to say that, when it comes to the community covenant, local government has well and truly stood up, and I pay tribute to the Local Government Association and to local government more broadly for all that they have done. The covenant is producing real and tangible results, and we are grateful for everything that local government has done to enhance that.
Andy Sawford
I agree with the Minister that local government is playing an ever more important role in supporting our armed forces community, but will he join me in welcoming other organisations, such as Community Union, of which I am a member? It has shown its commitment to the armed forces by pledging to become the armed forces union, reflecting its long association with the armed forces in this country.
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman told us earlier about the renaming of a local square, which I think is very appropriate. He also referred to something that had been mentioned earlier by the shadow Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Give me a moment, and I may be able to say something more. My understanding is that people who have left the armed forces are already perfectly at liberty to join a trade union, but the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is clearly an additional union that they can join if they wish.
We have focused intensively on the provision of health care for our service personnel. We have a duty to provide those who put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf with the very best health care and support. I have taken a strong personal interest in the issue. Since I took up my post some nine months ago, I have visited the Defence Medical Services headquarters in Whittington, the Role 3 hospital at Camp Bastion, the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine at Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham, the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court, the Battle Back Centre at Lilleshall—which uses sporting activity to improve recovery—the personnel recovery centres at Tedworth House and Colchester, the residential care centre run by Combat Stress at Tyrwhitt House in Leatherhead, and New Belvedere House, the Veterans Aid hostel in Limehouse in the east end of London. I hope the House will accept that I have been able to see for myself that real progress has already been made.
The Government have announced the provision of an additional £6.5 million to ensure that next-generation microprocessor prosthetics—the so-called bionic legs—are available to injured serving personnel with above-the-knee and through-the-knee amputations when that is clinically appropriate. Those new legs are being fitted now. In his report, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), recommended that a small number of multi-disciplinary centres should provide specialist prosthetic and rehabilitation services to ensure that veterans have access to the same high-quality care that the armed forces provide, and the Government have committed £6.7 million over the next two years to ensure that nine such NHS facilities are funded to provide that service.
We have also made advances in the field of mental health. The signing of a strategic partnership by the MOD, the four national health agencies, including those of the devolved Administrations, and Combat Stress ensures that we will all work collaboratively to support the psychological needs of the armed forces community.
There is shared MOD and Department of Health funding of the Big White Wall website. Serving personnel, veterans and their families are allowed to join the site anonymously if they wish, and it provides innovative, patient-centred support for those who may need it. Our armed forces can also draw on a process called trauma risk management, or TRiM. This is a peer group support system, developed by 3 Commando Brigade, that is helping to identify those who may be at risk of mental health problems and provide support to them. In addition, as troops go through their decompression period in Cyprus on return from operations, they are provided with briefings, including specifically on mental health. That is particularly helping to tackle the stigma associated with mental health issues.
There has also been an uplift in the number of NHS mental health professionals providing veteran-focused mental health services. Working in partnership with Combat Stress, we now have around 50 professionals in place—more than the 30 originally recommended by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire, in his “Fighting Fit” report.
In addition, in terms of our obligation to provide wider, non-clinical support to the wounded, injured and sick, there was a landmark achievement earlier this month when the defence recovery capability reached its full operating capability. The DRC provides members of our armed forces with a tailored and holistic support package to help them readjust and recover from injury or illness, helping to make sure they are provided with the best care available. The Government have contributed a quarter of a billion pounds for that purpose, but this would not have been possible without the very significant contribution from service charities, in particular the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes. This has been the largest single donation ever made by military charities, and we welcome it and the fact that that whole capability has now gone live.
The shadow Secretary of State raised the subject of education. We take pride in the fact that our armed forces provide challenging and constructive education and training opportunities for young people, equipping them with valuable and transferable skills. The services are among the largest training providers in the UK, with excellent completion and achievement rates, and the quality of our training and education is highly respected.
With support for education ranging from entry-level literacy and numeracy to full postgraduate degrees, service personnel are offered genuine progression routes which allow them to develop, gain qualifications and play a fuller part in society either in the armed forces or in the civilian world. We raise literacy and numeracy achievement progressively through a soldier’s career up to level 2—equivalent to GCSE grades A to C. Our basic training establishments are inspected by Ofsted, which has rated most of them good or better. The MOD works closely both with BIS, through its Skills Funding Agency, to support skills development, and with an extensive range of colleges and other providers to deliver the education that its soldiers need.
The Army also enrols more than 95% of soldiers on an apprenticeship or advanced apprenticeship, with an achievement rate of almost 90%, the majority achieved within two years of enlistment. This is one of the largest employer-based apprenticeship programmes in the UK, encompassing over 35 different types of scheme or apprenticeship, and was most recently recognised by Ofsted as good. In the latest academic year, there were over 10,000 apprenticeship completions by armed forces personnel. I am sure the whole House will welcome that. Studying in the workplace and doing relevant contextualised learning has been shown to be very effective, particularly for some who did not have positive experiences at school.
In addition, the Troops to Teachers programme offers a route for ex-service personnel to qualify as teachers and bring military values to the classroom. This is an excellent example of people taking values and experience they have learnt in the armed forces into the classroom and transferring them to our young people. There has been a successful pilot scheme, which is now being rolled out more widely across the country, particularly from the beginning of the new academic year in September.
The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire mentioned legislation to deal with the disrespecting of service personnel in public. He may recall a private Member’s Bill debate on the issue involving the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, although at the risk of chiding him gently, I would remind him that the previous Labour Government looked at exactly the same issue and rejected legislating on it. It would therefore appear that there has been something of a change of heart by Labour. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman attempts to intervene from a sedentary position, but I did give a commitment when I debated this issue with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife on that Friday that we would examine it in the context of the armed forces covenant report 2013, and that commitment will be honoured. I just make the point that the Labour party considered whether to legislate on this issue a few years ago and decided not to do so.
On legislation on reserves, the right hon. Gentleman has similarly sought to float the idea of anti-discrimination legislation for employers. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, to make the growth of the reserves succeed it is important to carry employers with us and make maximum use of their good will. Threatening them with legislation from the outset may not be the best way to do that, but he will have to wait to see what we say in the White Paper, where we do refer to the issue.
Let me say something about the situation post-2014 and then I will seek to bring my remarks to a close so that others can speak. The current level of backing for service charities is testament to the British public’s support for our armed forces. They understand that they have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than a decade, but that is changing. Afghan security forces are now assuming control of their own security, which represents a real milestone in our progress towards ending combat operations in Afghanistan. We are starting to bring our people back home, and they are rightly being welcomed as heroes as they return. This moment represents an opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned the possibility of more clearly encapsulating the services we provide for veterans. We have work ongoing in the Department to do exactly that, and I hope to be able to say more in the months ahead.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
We have rightly talked up how we deal with health care, housing and so on for veterans. What about soldiers in the Army who want to remain in it but have been told they are being made redundant? On Monday I had a call on my voicemail in my office from my constituent Mr John Bisset, who told me that his son has served for 16 years in the Black Watch but has now been told he will be made redundant next year. How do we deal with that? How do we justify it?
Mr Francois
We have had to take some extremely difficult decisions, and although I do not wish to spoil the bipartisan nature of this debate, the hon. Gentleman will know what lay behind many of them: the very difficult financial situation we inherited in the Ministry of Defence. Having made that point, I will not dwell on it. From memory, just over 60% of those affected in tranche 1 were applicants who had applied for redundancy, the tranche 2 figure was just over 70% and I believe the figure for tranche 3 was 84%, so a larger proportion of those in tranche 3 have applied to go voluntarily. However, we do realise that these are very difficult decisions and we provide support for all those leaving as redundees via the Career Transition Partnership, which has a very good track record of getting people into employment within six months or so of their leaving the forces. When people do leave the forces, we therefore do everything we can to support them, but I say again that we had to take some very difficult decisions because of what we were bequeathed.
Let me return to the point I was making about the post-2014 situation. As we shift from a period of operations to one of contingency, we cannot and must not take the public’s support for our armed forces for granted. We need to put in place now processes and procedures that will endure well beyond the end of operations in 2014 to harness all that public support and put it to maximum good use. In that respect, we have been having detailed discussions with the business community on how best to co-ordinate and maximise its support for the armed forces. We hope to have more to say about that in the very near future, and given that the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire has said that when we do the right thing he will support us, I hope we will enjoy his support for what we are going to do with business for our armed forces in the months and years ahead.
The role of reserves in our defence is vital. Since 2003, there have been more than 25,000 mobilisations of reservists, serving alongside their regular counterparts, and 30 have paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. In the future, the reserves will be a fully integrated component of the armed forces and reserve elements will routinely be required on most military operations.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that for Welsh people who particularly want to serve as reserves in the Royal Navy, the only opportunity to do so is at HMS Cambria? Unfortunately, that is purely a land-based opportunity and they can have no at-sea training. Will the Minister see whether it is possible to ensure that HMS Cambria can provide Welsh people with the opportunity for sea-based reserve training and opportunities?
Mr Francois
I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the White Paper, which I can assure the House will be with us very soon, but I will take away the specific point that the hon. Lady has raised on behalf of her constituents and seek to come back to her with a reply, which I will place in the Library of the House.
In conclusion, defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government. The men and women of our armed forces and the families who support them make that responsibility a reality through hard work, bravery and the application of incredible skill. In character and aptitude, they represent the best people our society has to offer. It is only thanks to their sacrifice down through the years that we can live in a free and safe country and for that we should all be eternally grateful.
We have done much in just a few years to develop the armed forces covenant: to improve health care, to support mental well-being and to tackle the many other issues that are important to servicemen and women and their families. But we need to do more, including, as I have said, harnessing business support for the armed forces covenant.
On Armed Forces day this Saturday, we will pause to remember how important those people are. Then we will come back to this place with renewed vigour, concentrate on how we can support them better and get on with it.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. In Sheffield, we are very go-ahead—so go-ahead, in fact, that we had our armed forces and veterans day celebrations last Saturday. It was a pleasure and honour to be present and to have the opportunity to speak to many of our veterans, some of whom are now well into their ‘90s and served in the second world war. There were veterans from throughout the age ranges as well as cadets, embarking on what we hope will be a career in the armed forces.
Sheffield is not just go-ahead with the day on which we celebrate our veterans and armed forces. We are very go-ahead with the community covenant that the city has signed—I have a copy in my hand. The community covenant is meant to involve as many people in the community as possible, and on Saturday, alongside stalls from all the different services, a stall was set up by Sheffield city council to encourage local people to sign up and make a difference.
The covenant includes a commitment to recognise the contribution made by the armed services; to remember the sacrifices made by members of the armed forces community; to share knowledge, experience and expertise to provide help and advice to members of the armed forces community; and to encourage integration as people move from service life into civilian life.
The covenant is not just a statement of aims, but an active process. I have a copy of an update, completed only this month, on the actions taken in Sheffield. For example, work is ongoing on a lettings policy that will recognise that those leaving the armed services have a priority need for housing. Other work is going on in schools, to see what can be done with the curriculum.
There is a community covenant, which brings in many businesses in Sheffield. Companies offer work experience opportunities so that those leaving the services have the chance to try out a job before they apply for it. Support is also offered for making applications. We have big companies involved in that and small businesses also offer support to our armed forces. There are also opportunities for leisure, with Sheffield international venues making available a free life card to anybody from the services.
It is not all sunshine and light, I am afraid. The first signature on the covenant is that of the lieutenant colonel of the 38th Signal Regiment, whose headquarters is in my constituency. The Signal Regiment has squadrons and troops in Aberdeen, Banbury, Croydon, Leeds, Kingston, Milton Keynes, Nottingham, Rugby and its headquarters in Sheffield. It plays an enormously important role. It provides information communication systems to the emergency services and local government in an emergency. That is not something that it just practises and trains for, something that I have seen troops doing when I have attended their annual camp. This has been brought into action in recent periods. The regiment provided support to the Regular Army in the floods, and during the foot and mouth and fuel crises.
I am concerned that one of the changes that the Government have seriously considered is moving the headquarters of this enormously important regiment from Sheffield. Members will have heard the spread of the regiment, and as it goes right from Scotland down to the south of England, one would think that Sheffield was a good place for its HQ, being somewhere in the middle.
Perhaps more important, the community of Sheffield supports our armed forces, not just in words but in deeds. We recruit the armed forces and we have good cadet forces. We encourage our businesses to provide support for people to take part in the reserve forces and take on the kind of tasks that we have been discussing today. So I am most concerned that the Ministry of Defence, as part of its review, is considering removing that headquarters, taking a significant reservists’ base away from one of the largest cities in this country. That cannot be right. The Minister has time to change his mind on this, look at it again and do something about it.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, the home of the British Army, I am delighted to participate in this important debate today. I am delighted that Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition have brought forward this subject for debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), I could not possibly disagree with a single word in the motion. I hope that the newspapers and other media will take note that the House of Commons is today united in support of our armed forces, and that we have complete respect for them and all that they do for our country. That is a substantial change from what it was like when I first came here 30 years ago, when there was trench warfare between the parties—to use a military expression. That does not apply today.
I salute the attempts that the previous Government made to engage the British people. I have no doubt that Armed Forces day, previously Veterans day, has served as a valuable focus to draw the public’s attention to the role played by our armed forces and to get behind them. That is evidenced by the huge amount of money that the public willingly give to a range of charities—not just Help for Heroes but wonderful charities such as Combat Stress. They have done a great job, as did General Lord Dannatt in encouraging the public to express their support for Her Majesty’s armed forces.
We will be marking Armed Forces day with a military festival in Aldershot for the whole of next week, and the Aldershot military will be part of the celebrations. I pay tribute to the outgoing military commanders in Aldershot: Colonel Mike Russell, the garrison commander, who has done a fantastic job over a short time of liaising with the local community and running the garrison; and Brigadier Neil Baverstock, the commander of 145 Brigade, who might be more widely known to hon. Members and has also done a superb job. He retires from the Army this week to assume a role with a wonderfully outmoded title in the other place, which he will be starting next month.
In addition to taking part in Armed Forces day, Aldershot will benefit from 750 extra troops who will be coming to us following the repatriation of our forces from Germany. With the new building that is going on in Aldershot and the forthcoming Aldershot urban extension, we have much about which to be encouraged regarding the Army in Aldershot.
The context of our debate is more difficult, however. As the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), mentioned, we are having to make cuts to our armed forces, but that is difficult for Conservative Members, because we believe that the defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. However, the public finances that we inherited had been completely destroyed, so we have had to make unpleasant decisions. I hope that our withdrawal from Afghanistan will reduce the pressure on our armed forces, but I cannot be certain that Her Majesty’s Government will not be faced with other emergencies throughout the world. Given that the Prime Minister rightly wants the United Kingdom to play the significant role of trying to fashion the world in which we live, rather than simply reacting to it, our armed forces are unlikely to be kicking their heels on the parade ground in Colchester, Aldershot, Catterick or Tidworth.
Our armed forces are respected not only at home but abroad, and they leverage fantastic influence for the United Kingdom. I welcome the defence engagement strategy, which I had some part in preparing when I was a Minister. There is a focus in the Ministry of Defence on that strategy and on how we leverage defence diplomacy to the advantage of the United Kingdom to influence events in the world, as well as in the wider context of supporting our defence industry. I am delighted that the Opposition’s excellent motion—I salute them for this—refers to the work force of the British defence industry and the support that they give to our armed forces, because they deserve recognition.
There will be continuing debate in the House about the pressure on our armed forces. There is not time to go down that avenue today, save by quoting General Ray Odierno, the chief of staff of the United States army, who said a couple of weeks ago:
“As the British Army continues to reduce in size we’ve had several conversations about keeping them integrated in what we’re trying to do…In a lot of ways they’re depending on us, especially in our ground capabilities into the future.”
We must bear in mind the role that the British Army and our other services play throughout the world and alongside the United States. That is relevant to this debate as although we are talking about the armed forces covenant and support to the armed forces, we must be careful, because if there is not a worthwhile career in the armed forces, we will face difficulties.
Time is short, so let me just say that our defence exports are fantastic. They were worth £9 billion last year, which was a record year, and Britain continues to dominate. However, I would also say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the recent Supreme Court ruling was an absolute disgrace. It will do severe damage to the capacity of our commanders to ensure that they can make military decisions without being second-guessed by the courts.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
More than eight months ago one of my constituents contacted me, fearing that, come April this year, her sons would be left homeless, owing to what has become known as the bedroom tax. Like thousands of other people across Teesside and East Cleveland and the United Kingdom, my constituent, Alison, would have had to find an extra £100 per month because she was deemed to have spare rooms. For those hon. Members not familiar with Alison’s story and therefore questioning the relevance of the bedroom tax to this debate, I hasten to add that her two sons are both serving in the armed forces, one of them on the front line in Afghanistan as we speak. We have a proud military tradition in Teesside and East Cleveland and Alison’s story rightly began to attract attention from the local media.
It was not too long ago that the armed forces covenant was enshrined in law. This was meant to recognise that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of the armed forces and their families, and it established how they should expect to be treated and to redress the disadvantages that the armed forces community faces in comparison with other citizens.
Alison has been a tenant of the same housing association for nearly two decades, and in this home she had single-handedly brought up her twin boys. Despite this history, she spoke to her housing officer about moving to a smaller property, only to be told that the association does not have enough one-bedroom properties to meet the needs of everyone. Alison was not opposing the Government’s policy out of stubbornness. She was trying her hardest to adapt to it but, as we are finding out across the country, the policy is one of the most ill-thought out that this Government have implemented, and the appropriate accommodation simply is not available.
In the months after Alison initially brought her situation to my attention, national interest in the issue understandably peaked. Alison’s case was even raised by the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister’s questions, in which the Prime Minister insisted that the changes were “fair”. Nevertheless, in early March this year, the coalition Government performed an apparent U-turn when they made the following exemption:
“Adult children who are in the armed forces”—
including the reserve forces—
“but who continue to live with parents will be treated as continuing to live at home, even when deployed on operations…In addition housing benefit recipients will not be subject to a non-dependent deduction, that is, the amount that those who are working are expected to contribute to the household expenses, until an adult child returns home.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 9WS.]
Members may now be thinking that that is an excellent outcome and that the Government have realised their mistake and put it right, as did I, but unfortunately Alison’s story, and more than likely that of many others like her, does not end with this apparently successful change in policy.
It has been almost three months since the bedroom tax came into being and I am sure Members will have noticed the impact of the policy on their work load. Alison’s family has still been hit by the bedroom tax and she is now in rent arrears. The rushed U-turn has left the new rules unclear, with local authorities interpreting them with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the Government have worded the regulations, only a tiny number of personnel, primarily reservists, will be exempt. If they lived in barracks prior to going away on operations and/or prior to commencing pre-deployment training, the Department for Work and Pensions holds that they are not the claimant’s non-dependent children. Operations include deployment abroad, pre-deployment and the debriefing process at end of deployment. Therefore, the exemption applies only to a small number of people, and DWP Ministers have confirmed this in response to written questions. To all intents and purposes, the Government seem to be redefining what adult children who are members of the armed forces register as their homes.
It is true that people can have a number of residences. However, for tax purposes, only one home or domicile is used. If, as seems to be suggested by Ministers who have responded to questions on this issue from me and from the shadow Work and Pensions Minister, the Government consider barracks the home of adult children who usually live there, the barracks should be used for tax purposes also. The regulations suggest to working-class young men and women that joining the forces may jeopardise their parents’ home—hardly a wise recruitment strategy.
It is grossly unfair to differentiate on this basis. It is a very mean-spirited technicality. The motion we are here to debate today is one to celebrate and commemorate our armed forces, and the armed forces covenant is a key way for us to do this. It recognises that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of the armed forces and their families, and it establishes how they should expect to be treated. If that is the law, the least our young adults serving in the armed forces deserve is to have their ability to live in their homes with their families respected, and not to have to worry about their parents while they are on operations and serving their country.
The Government urgently need to clarify their guidelines that were supposed to exempt the families of members of the armed forces from the bedroom tax, yet Ministers seem to have created another discrepancy that is a direct attack on those who are putting their lives on the line to keep us all safe. The Government cannot get away with statements that appear to resolve an issue but which, in reality, are deliberately intended to be obtuse so as not to deliver any such promises. I hope Ministers will be willing to meet me and other concerned MPs to exempt our armed forces finally from this tax.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I congratulate Her Majesty’s Opposition on the spirit of the motion and both the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), on their speeches. In endorsing everything said from both Front Benches, I wish to put on the record my appreciation of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which is based at the Colchester garrison. I wish to praise all the armed forces charities, including Combat Stress, Veterans Aid, the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, ABF The Soldiers Charity, formerly the Army Benevolent Fund, SSAFA and a host of others, including regimental charities.
The Minister referred to the military wives choirs, of which there are now about 80, which I think is an incredible achievement in a relatively short period. I pay tribute to all those choirs. I am particularly proud of the Colchester military wives choir, because earlier this month it had the great honour of representing this country and the military wives choir movement at the Canadian international military tattoo in Hamilton, Ontario. I know that they were warmly welcomed because I was there cheering them on.
I referred earlier to military bands, which I believe are an important part of the fabric of this country that bring together the armed forces and the general public. In 1997 there were 29 Army bands, but today there are 22. Only last week, in answer to a written question, the Minister said:
“The number of army bands is currently under review as part of the Future Music 2020 re-organisation programme, although no decision has yet been made.”—[Official Report, 19 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 720W.]
I sincerely trust that there will be no further cuts.
Bob Stewart
Military bands actually have another role in battle. I used my military band to calm down a situation. In particular, I remember a piper playing on the roof of my building, which stopped the battle completely. People were perhaps wondering what the noise was, but it worked amazingly well. Military bands are very important in war.
Sir Bob Russell
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that helpful contribution.
Earlier this month the Treasury put out some ignorant comments about the number of Army horses and tanks. Following that to its logical conclusion, I assume that next year’s trooping the colour will take place on bikes.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The hon. Gentleman said that those comments came from the Treasury, but I gently point out to him that the person who actually made them is a member of his part of the coalition.
Sir Bob Russell
The Minister is absolutely right, but of course the briefing was given by Treasury officials. I do not think that the Defence Minister is saying that he is never briefed by his officials. If that is the case, it is a very worrying situation.
With regard to the armed forces covenant, the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, recently conducted an inquiry into education for the children of service personnel. There is a conflict between the armed forces covenant and the Education Act, both of which are laws of this country, and that conflict needs to be addressed. Other conflicts are emerging already between the armed forces covenant and the definition of social housing for single former military personnel. I think that there has to be a ruling on that, because some local authorities are interpreting it differently from what the armed forces covenant means. I am concerned that the community covenant might, in some cases, be paying lip service, rather than being a reality. We need to look at that.
We also need to look again at serving Commonwealth soldiers being obliged to leave compulsorily on health grounds and then not being treated by the armed forces covenant. Again, the covenant is not being fair in the way the financial packages for voluntary redundancies are being looked at. I have a constituent who accepted the terms of redundancy based on his years of service, only to have the financial package withdrawn after he agreed to leave. I think that case might end up in the courts, so I will leave it there.
The armed forces covenant has a long way to go with regard to the condition of Army family housing. The Government have been able to find money to upgrade former military housing for use by civilian families, which I support, but they claim that they do not have the money to upgrade Army housing. I recognise that every pound of public money spent on those houses boosts their value for Annington Homes—in a shameful act, the last Conservative Government privatised the houses and in 13 years the last Labour Government failed to deal with the issue, although I raised it on many occasions.
Will the Ministry of Defence look at how the pay and dine operation works in practice? A car will run only if it has petrol in the tank; our soldiers can operate at full capacity only if they eat the right amount of food at the right times and in the right quantities.
Having praised those in uniform, I want also to praise the civilian work force, without whom our armed forces could not operate. I include the Defence Support Group, the MOD police who under successive Governments have taken a massive cut; in my constituency, 33 MOD police officers have been reduced to zero. I should also mention other guard services, the MOD fire service and all the support staff—not forgetting Garrison FM, which operates in the principal garrison towns of this country. I wish to broaden the wider military family and include the cadet forces.
The reduction in the size of the Army is not good news. I repeat what I said to the Prime Minister:
“On the Prime Minister’s watch, the Army will reduce to its smallest size since 1750 and will be half the size it was at the time of the Falklands war. Does he accept that history is not kind to Prime Ministers who are perceived to have left our country without a strong defence capability?”—[Official Report, 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 309.]
I do not think that trying to plug the gaps of a smaller regular force with reservists is the way forward. I support reservists, of course I do—we have fantastic Territorial Army people in my constituency. However, cutting the Regular Army and trying to plug the gap with Army reservists is not the solution. The move is being driven by the Treasury. Those at Treasury questions today will know the response to my question about how many civilian employees at HM Treasury had volunteered to join the Army reservists since requests for civilians were made in January this year: zero.
Armed Forces day in my constituency was launched yesterday in the town hall, with the mayor and garrison commander in attendance. The town and garrison have excellent joint facilities, including the athletics track and the Phoenix club house, which I opened earlier this month.
I end by praising the last Government for providing the new Merville barracks, the best in the country, and welcoming the current Government’s proposals for the first world war commemorations, which will commence in August next year.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I want to pay tribute to all the men and women who serve in the armed forces and say how important it is that debates such as this are held so that we can express our gratitude for the service they give, the risks they face and the bravery they show on behalf of the rest of us.
As I said earlier, the people of Dudley make a huge contribution to the armed forces through the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, a Territorial Army regiment with a base at Vicar street in Dudley. The regiment has a history in the region dating back to 1794, and A Squadron has had a base on Vicar street for more than 20 years. It attracts recruits from across the black country, having recently taken on 47 trainees; it is processing another 60 at the moment. Two dozen volunteers are currently on active service in Afghanistan. It is a popular and expanding squadron in a popular and expanding regiment with deep roots in the local and regional communities. In fact, it is one of the best recruited yeomanry regiments in the whole Territorial Army.
Ministers will be pleased to hear that the regiment is making exactly the sort of contribution they are asking for as they seek to double the size of the TA in the next few years. However, under current proposals, the regiment could be disbanded to make way for a new Scottish regiment. A Squadron in Dudley would be merged with B Squadron in Telford, and the Telford base would cease to be a regional headquarters, becoming part of the Royal Yeomanry regiment based in Croydon. The Telford squadron would end up paired with a new Queen’s Dragoon Guards regiment in the regular Army, based in Norfolk. Together with other changes to squadrons in the midlands, this means that the RMLY would be disbanded, despite its history and the contribution that people in Dudley and the wider black country make to it. The midlands would lose half of its five squadrons and a regional HQ. If we lost the Vicar street base, people who have done a full day’s work in Dudley would have to travel 30 or 40 miles to do their training and fulfil their responsibilities in Telford, which is unlikely.
Dudley would lose a central part of the community at the heart of events that unify people in the town, such as Remembrance day and our St George’s day parade, all to create a Scottish yeomanry, with great difficulty and huge expense, even though similar plans have failed twice before. Even if bases in Dudley and Telford are maintained under the new structures, I worry that they could be at risk in the long term because local reserve squadrons are best managed locally, not from a headquarters 140 or 150 miles away.
Hannah Bragg has created a petition against disbandment, gaining huge support and over 1,300 signatures already. However, I urge the Minister not only to listen to what she has said, and what I am saying, but to seek the advice of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), a former commanding officer of A Squadron in Dudley. Will the Minister visit Dudley to see for himself the brilliant work that is being carried out at Vicar street? Everyone accepts the case for pairing reserve units with their regular counterparts, but other alternatives have been proposed. What thought has been given to, for example, preserving the RMLY and pairing it with the Light Dragoons for closer co-operation? I hope that he will consider the alternatives.
In their responses to questions I have tabled and letters I have written, Ministers have so far refused to comment on the future of the regiment. I very much hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to guarantee the future of the Territorial Army in Dudley, and guarantee the future of the RMLY, so that my constituents can continue to make the huge contribution to our nation’s defence that they have done so far. Will he join me in congratulating the 47 new recruits and the 60 new leads that are being processed? Does he agree that that is exactly the sort of contribution that he wants local communities to make if we are to hit this Government’s targets?
The people of Britain show huge respect and support for the work of our armed forces. Nowhere is this more true than in Dudley, where our local squadron and the wider regiment are at the heart of the community and have the freedom of the borough. It is hugely important that the TA is not reorganised in a way that puts that in jeopardy.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I, too, welcome this debate and this opportunity to celebrate our armed forces.
Very few communities are more shaped by their relationship with our armed forces than my constituency of Gosport. One need only look at the scale of our community engagement in events such as the Remembrance Sunday parade, where thousands of people turn out to watch representatives from all our military establishments parade through the town. Last year saw the parade for the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war, when veterans from around the UK came to the town of Gosport. Indeed, two of my favourite Doorkeepers from the House of Commons were among those who took the time to parade through Gosport. The Falklands Veterans Foundation is based in Gosport, offering invaluable support to our brave veterans.
Everywhere you look in my constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are historic buildings that tell the story of our armed forces through the ages. You may not be aware that it has even crept into our daily language. The expression “Up the creek without a paddle”, or more colourful variations thereof, originated from Haslar creek, where back in Nelson’s day wounded sailors were taken up to the Royal Navy Hospital Haslar to recover, or otherwise. Of course, in those days they were not necessarily as keen to be part of the Royal Navy as people might be these days. They were held prisoner so that they did not desert while being treated, and some tried to escape by going through the sewers to the creek. I hope that these days people are much more inclined to remain part of our armed forces.
It is estimated that the armed forces community in Gosport comprises about 5,500 people. We have a very proud military wives choir—Portsmouth and Gosport military wives choir—and I went to hear them record tracks for their album. Fortunately they did not make me sing, which would have been a disaster for all concerned.
Gosport also has a high proportion of people who are in receipt of armed forces pensions. At one in 16, it is the highest proportion in Hampshire and the second highest in England.
The armed forces community covenant was signed by Hampshire county council in June 2011. Last November, on Remembrance Sunday, the Gosport armed forces community covenant was established to formally acknowledge Gosport’s long affiliation with the armed forces. Those covenants are voluntary statements of mutual support between the civilian community and serving and former members of the armed forces and their families. Above all, they are about respect underlined with action.
The demands imposed on the armed forces in the course of their duties are unique and set them apart from others who serve and protect our society. However, there is the potential for disadvantage if national and local government policies, as well as local communities, do not tackle the problems that military families encounter.
One of those issues is the opportunity to balance military and family life. That is a particular problem in the Royal Navy, which has the most unfavourable harmony arrangements of the three main services. That is why it is so important that shore-based military training is delivered as close as is possible to the big military communities. In Gosport, the marine engineering training at HMS Sultan, which is rated outstanding by Ofsted, gives Navy families a rare opportunity to live as a normal family, with husbands and wives coming home every evening.
Another big challenge is service mobility, which risks disadvantaging personnel and their dependants with regard to access to local public services, such as doctors surgeries, schools and social housing. The rate of home ownership is lower among service personnel than in the nation as a whole. Accessing school places has always been a challenge. The pupil premium that forces families now receive is hugely welcome. However, accessing school places continues to be a challenge. In big military communities, it is difficult for schools to maintain places for forces families. One of my constituents has five children at four different schools, which causes enormous difficulty.
The final problem relates to ongoing treatment and support. Serving in the armed forces comes with the inherent risk of serious physical and mental injury, which can result in the need for ongoing treatment and welfare support for service people and their families. I have talked about the legacy of the military buildings in Gosport, but there is a legacy in the people too. Many of my constituents have served in the armed forces. Many have given up the best years of their life and their good health for our country. Tragically, this country has not always given enough back. I have been troubled on countless occasions by the stories of ex-service personnel who have not received the help that they need to make the difficult transition from the front line to civvy street.
Many community organisations in my constituency help service personnel who have not made that transition very well. The veteran mentors scheme that is run by the Hampshire probation trust helps former service people who find themselves on the wrong side of the law by giving them mentors who have also been in the armed forces. As we all know, the armed forces, and the Royal Navy in particular, have their own language. I often receive e-mails that say “BZ” at the end. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that means “well done”. I hope that those people feel the same way after I have finished making this speech. It is important that military personnel are mentored by people who share that common language.
I am proud of some of the things that the Government have achieved. Taking the armed forces covenant seriously has been a great achievement. I am proud that they are finally addressing the inequality with regard to medals for Arctic convoy and Bomber Command veterans. As a country, we are right to be proud of our military past. We can now be proud of the future that we are securing for our service people and veterans.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
It is apposite that we are having this debate today, because this evening I will have the huge pleasure of hosting an RAF Bomber Command dinner as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces with responsibility for the RAF. This evening, we will welcome Douglas Radcliffe MBE, a wireless operator; Commodore Charles Clarke OBE, a navigator; Alf Huberman, Bob Gill DFM and Harry Irons DFC, air gunners; Doug Newham LVO DFC, an observer; and Les Temple, who was on special duties, all of whom were part of Bomber Command during the last war.
The House will remember that Bomber Command played a crucial part in maintaining this country’s freedom: 55,000 airmen lost their lives during the second world war, a truly staggering death rate of 44.4%; 8,500 were wounded in action; and 10,000 were captured and interned. They were very young men—the average age was 22. The group I am hosting this evening are, on the whole, very old men, but men with a proud history of service to their country. I am pleased that many colleagues will be joining me to welcome them here to this House tonight.
Armed Forces day is very important. Not only are we recognising the past, but we are looking at what we do for our armed forces in the present. My local authority, Bridgend county borough council, has signed a community covenant, and the leader of the council, Mel Nott, has become our veterans champion. We take that responsibility very seriously. On Friday, I will be attending a Royal Navy eve of Armed Forces day reception at Coopers Field in Cardiff. The event will include a cadet field gun demonstration. I am sure that the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) will be pleased to know that the Royal Marine band corps of drums will be playing, and there will be a presentation by the Royal Navy presentation team. The following day, I will be joining veterans, councillors and community organisations who are coming together for the Armed Forces day parade in Bridgend.
I raised a number of issues in an Adjournment debate earlier this year. Following that debate, it was brought to my attention that the Armed Forces Act 2006 contains an anomaly for which I can find no reasonable explanation. The Act contains a list of what are known as schedule 2 offences, and requires a commanding officer to report those offences to service police. Explicitly spelled out in the Act is the exclusion of sections 3, 66, 67 and 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from schedule 2. These sections cover sexual assault, exposure, voyeurism and sexual activity in a public lavatory. This means that if an individual reports any of these offences to their commanding officer, there is no requirement in law for that report to be referred to the service police—the report can stay within the chain of command. I can find no explanation for that. It was not clarified in the Public Bill Committee’s deliberations, and the House of Commons Library was unable to shed any light on it. To date, I have not received a reply to a letter I wrote to the Minister on 23 April on this issue.
In the civilian world, no individual would be required to report a sexual assault to their employer; they would go straight to the police. Their military counterparts are at a distinct disadvantage. I draw the attention of Ministers to the YouTube clip of Lieutenant-General David Morrison speaking on sexual offences in the Australian military. It is a fantastic clip, in which he makes it very clear that sexual offences have no place in the Australian military. He says that armed forces personnel should either
“sign up or get out.”
I hope we take that stance in this country. Men and women must be able to serve with equality and safety in our armed forces.
I have also talked of the need for a service ombudsman. Yet again, the Service Complaints Commissioner has said that the service complaints system is not working efficiently, effectively or fairly. There seems to be resistance from the chain of command, who fear it would undermine their authority. We cannot continue with a halfway house. Our servicemen and women deserve an ombudsman who can take forward their complaints, so that they can have a right to justice.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my interests as a member of the reserve forces.
I start by paying tribute to all our armed forces, all who support them and, given the flavour of previous speeches, to the awesome Portsmouth military wives choir, but it will be no surprise to the Minister that I wish to focus my speech on the issue of the Service Complaints Commissioner. I am extremely pleased with the work that Ministers have done on this, and with their recognition of the importance of the role and of the fact that it must be reformed. It is vital that we get this to work, especially in very serious cases such as physical and sexual assault, or where psychological and medical help is needed, or where the family is in need too.
In one case I have dealt with, the armed forces completely failed a young soldier who was beaten, burned and sexually assaulted by men in his unit and, after making a complaint, was placed back in the unit with the assailants. He received no help, despite two suicide attempts. When he was returned to his parents’ home, the family were unable to cope with his considerable distress and no help was made available to them.
This experience, and evidence gathered by the Defence Select Committee, has led me to conclude that the role must be able to compel the armed forces to act. The commissioner’s role must be to intervene when a complaint is live, to be proactive and to be able to spot trends, act on them and head off trouble. Arguments deployed against the Service Complaints Commissioner having an ombudsman role have included that it would interfere with the chain of command and that the role would constrict the complaints commissioner from acting on live complaints. The Defence Committee has outlined how both of these concerns can be met within an ombudsman role.
I am pleased with the work that Ministers have done on this issue and that they have made it a priority. I believe that they are extremely sympathetic to reforming this position, but I know from the few years that I have spent in this place that a Minister knowing the right thing to do is the easy part; it is making it happen that is the tough part.
May I take this opportunity to urge the ministerial team to pursue the request to beef up the role? The British Legion has highlighted that an ombudsman role would be much better understood by service personnel themselves. It must be able to act on live complaints and to compel the armed forces to act and a complaint must not necessarily close if a service man or woman is killed. Where there are systematic problems in our armed forces, they must be dealt with proactively. Our armed forces have nothing to fear from an ombudsman role and everything to gain. I urge Ministers to pursue this agenda relentlessly. We must settle it way in advance of a new Service Complaints Commissioner coming into post.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. There is an incredible amount of expertise on and passion for the armed forces in Parliament, as we have heard today, and as the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces, it is a privilege for me to be able to see that passion regularly come through in the events that we organise.
I would like to make a few points. They include: the importance of the armed forces as institutions in this country; their changing nature, as the Government seek to replace professional servicemen and women with an increased reserve force following the strategic defence and security review; and the challenges and opportunities that will confront us as we approach the end of over a decade of expeditionary operations.
Since becoming an MP, I have had the opportunity to increase my familiarity with the armed forces, particularly with the Army, a great deal. I have visited British Army Training Unit Suffield in Canada, the armour centre in Bovington, the Army Foundation College for our youngest personnel and, of course, Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. I have spent time everywhere, from my local recruiting office in Manchester to the Defence Academy at Shrivenham. I have done that because if I have to make decisions about voting to deploy British service personnel abroad—putting them in harm’s way—I want to know first hand about the training, equipment and preparation they have received.
The high standard of training and the professional identity of armed forces are extremely impressive. The British armed forces are among the best—if not the best—in the world. I believe that that strength comes from three things: the quality of our recruits, the quality of the training they receive, and the common identity that is instilled in our people by the units themselves and, in particular, the regimental system. I am extremely proud of the regiments associated with my constituency: the Mercians, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.
Bob Stewart
Everybody in the House is worried about the recent High Court ruling, which has already been alluded to. It is extremely difficult for commanding officers to make decisions that put their men or women in peril, but now they have to consider whether they might be dragged before a court of law for a decision they make in good faith and in the height of a battle. The House has to sort this out and direct the law accordingly.
Jonathan Reynolds
I appreciate that intervention from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who speaks with particular authority on this matter. I am glad he has had the opportunity to put that on the record, and of course he can give us a greater insight than perhaps anyone else in the House on that point.
The people I represent have tremendous pride and faith in the regiments associated with my constituency, which unfortunately has had to contend with a considerable number of casualties in Afghanistan. I have seen how the regiments continue to support those families and how they become part of their own family, but I do not think that this is widely understood or appreciated by the public. I cannot begin to understand how a family must feel when, knowing that their child is away on operational duty, they open the door to see military personnel standing there and realise that it cannot be good news. When I talk to families in my constituency who have been in that position, I am impressed by how the regiments continue to support them. I believe that all the branches of the armed forces, but particularly the Army, are fundamentally important national institutions, and part of being a one-nation party means promoting those national institutions that bind the country together. The Army is a particularly fine example of such an institution.
The make-up of the Army is changing considerably under the Government’s plans following the strategic defence and security review. The Army will now comprise a smaller regular force and be more dependent on reserves, as we have heard. I have the greatest of respect for our reserve forces, especially given the role they have played in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this will pose substantial challenges. We should carefully consider what the effects might be on our reservists, their families and their employers, particularly if we find ourselves embarking on another military deployment of a similar scale to the one now drawing to an end in Afghanistan.
Let us consider what we ask of our reserves: we expect them to train in their spare time to reach the same standard as full-time professionals; to be prepared to put their civilian lives and civilian jobs on hold for lengthy tours of duty, possibly involving combat; and then to slot back seamlessly into civilian life at the end of it, only perhaps to do the same again within a year. That puts a real strain on people, so I urge the Government to consider whether the harmony guidelines that exist to maintain a balance between time on deployment and ordinary service will still be suitable for a military comprising a greater number of reservists. We might also have to consider stronger statutory protections for reservists who serve on operations and to promote and praise employers who correctly recognise that it is strongly in their interests to support employees who wish to do this.
The SDSR is not the only reason we should give serious thought to our armed forces over the next few years. As we near the end of our involvement in more than a decade of war in Afghanistan, it will soon be an appropriate juncture to ask what lessons we can learn from that deployment. I am not seeking a grandstanding public inquiry or suggesting a political reckoning; I am simply saying that we must critically evaluate how we have fought and managed this difficult conflict. Do we believe, for instance, that the strategic decisions made were the right ones? Did we initially get our force rotation right? Did the frequent change of tactics with each new deployment hinder our initial progress?
We have made real improvements in Afghanistan, but that has come at a great cost to this country in blood and treasure, so we owe it to constituencies such as mine, which have suffered a lot, and to the armed forces as a whole to evaluate the mission critically and to seek to make improvements for the future. We can never do enough to make our people safer, better cared for and better equipped to succeed.
This Saturday, as we celebrate the contribution our armed forces make to our country, hon. Members should consider how we can maintain the identities and institutions that are fundamental to the strength of our armed forces; what new issues we need to address as reservists play an ever greater role; and what we can learn from more than a decade of fighting in Afghanistan. I am extremely proud of our armed forces, and I believe we must honour our duties to them as dutifully as they protect us.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
We can disagree with nothing in the motion, but without wishing to break the consensual mood of the House, I think that this is too good an opportunity not to ask at least some questions of Ministers, in the hope that they will at least reflect on them and perhaps return later.
I am concerned, as are a number of Members on these Benches, that by keeping on cutting defence expenditure, we risk creating imbalances on a variety of fronts. Can it be right, for example, that the budgets of Departments dealing with health, welfare and international aid are being protected, if not expanded, as a percentage of Government expenditure? That puts disproportionate pressure on other Departments, such as Defence, when trying to save costs. I also wonder whether imbalances are being created in regard to our transatlantic relationship. Our defence capability is one of the key anchors of that relationship, but it is not a one-way ticket. There are obligations on both sides, including our own. If we keep shaving our defence capability, might we put elements of that relationship at risk?
I also suggest that we might be creating imbalances in other areas, such as our capability to meet our foreign policy objectives, whatever they might be, and defend our interests overseas. The House knows that I have not been supportive of our military interventions over the past decade, but let us put that to one side. There have been moments during those interventions when our resources have not matched our ambitions. It was not the fault of the troops on the ground, but in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular the necessary resources were lacking, and that had a knock-on effect on our ability to achieve our objectives.
I have other concerns but, as an ex-soldier, I shall focus on the Army. The plan to disband 20,000 regulars before knowing whether the plan to recruit 30,000 reservists to take their place will work is high risk, given that we do not know whether those reservists will be able to plug the gap from a capability point of view, or from a boots-on-the-ground point of view. I ask Ministers to ensure that that issue is centrally addressed in the forthcoming White Paper. There are key questions that need answering very soon, because redundancies are taking effect as we speak, and we do not know whether the plan will work.
There is a real danger that Government proposals will prove a false economy, in financial terms and in terms of military capability. Let us take cost savings as an example. I am conscious of the figure of £1.8 billion over 10 years, and more details will follow in the White Paper, but at the moment the Government are long on promise and short on costings and details. They have admitted in the Green Paper that it costs more to train reservists than regulars. The financial incentives being offered to regulars to join the reserves mean that they will be on a better scale of pay than a serving brigadier, if we include the £5,000 sign-up bonus, the bounty, the daily rate and so forth. There is also the question of civilian salaries being matched, although I am aware that the Government are considering capping an element of that. Again, we need to see the details. And all that is before we even consider the fact that the reservists will not be deployable in their first year.
I have already raised the question of the number of reservists that will be required. According to Ministry of Defence figures, the present Territorial Army mobilisation rate is 40%. If we apply that to the 20,000 regulars, we will need 50,000 reservists. I look forward to seeing the details of how that magic figure of 40% is going to be increased. It will take a concerted effort to achieve a mobilisation rate of much more than 40%, given that many people in the Army believe that we are not even hitting 40% at the moment.
There is also the question of the capability gap. In the 1980s, when many of us served, the TA did a very good job that basically involved reservists being transported out to Germany, digging a trench and waiting for the Soviet or Warsaw pact forces to arrive. Today, asymmetric warfare is becoming the norm. The skills base will become much higher, and our requirements will be much more demanding, yet I understand that the number of training days is being increased to 40 overall—an increase of only five days. I question that on the capability front, particularly when those forces are going to be mobilised as groups rather than as add-ons. That factor must be considered.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my fear that, with the scale of priorities we have at the moment, there is a danger that if we reduce the size of the Army much more, they will all be able to fit into the single first High Speed 2 train?
Mr Baron
Let us hope it is not a one-way ticket!
Let me finish with a concern some of us have about the potentially distorting effect on the ground. Excellent, well recruited battalions, such as the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, are being axed, while more poorly recruited battalions are being saved. It is costing millions of pounds to keep over-strength battalions up to the mark. Such a policy is, in many respects, simply reinforcing failure.
In conclusion, I think this is a high-risk policy, and I ask Ministers to make sure that they cover the base very carefully. In my view, we need to see concrete evidence that the reservist plan will take effect and will work—before we let the regular battalions go. Here we are dealing with the defence of the realm, and this is happening when many countries not necessarily friendly to the west are arming and increasing their expenditure on defence. No one here can tell when or where the next threat will come from. I therefore ask Ministers to consider these points very carefully.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
There are three Members still to speak and we have only 15 minutes before the winding-up speeches.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I rise to thank the shadow Minister and the Opposition for bringing this motion before the House for debate today. Every Member will be aware of my support for the armed forces. I have been a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army in the past and I have had the opportunity to travel with other Members through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That allowed me to see a glimpse of what our armed forces do. I have been on a Navy ship and been to Afghanistan, and I have had the privilege to watch the intensive and back-breaking training done by each man and woman who serve, whether it be at Catterick, Sandhurst, Canada, Kenya or Cyprus. I am a keen supporter of our armed forces, and I will continue to be so.
We must all agree today that the armed forces are deserving of our respect, support and help. The veterans’ flag will fly this Saturday in the town of Newtonards in my Strangford constituency. Through the hard work done by the Ards borough council and the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association Northern Ireland, a veterans’ event has been arranged for September this year.
I am pleased that the motion makes reference to the armed forces covenant—a subject to close to my heart, for which the Democratic Unionist party has been pressing in Northern Ireland. Let me quote from a debate on Northern Ireland affairs:
“A recent report published by the World Health Organisation on post-traumatic stress disorder found that Northern Ireland had a higher incidence of PTSD and trauma-related illnesses than any other conflict-related country in the world”—
ahead of Lebanon and Israel. The study showed that
“nearly 40% of people in Northern Ireland had been involved in some kind of conflict-related traumatic incident.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 642.]
The survey estimated that about 18,000 people in Northern Ireland had developed mental health problems as a result. There is already a huge demand on relevant services from across Northern Ireland as a result of trauma-related illnesses arising from this conflict, which underlines the seriousness of the issues. This tells us that there is such a heavy strain on these services that they are not able to take care of our service personnel, which we should be able to do.
We need a covenant in place. That is the issue to which I ask the Government to respond. We need our Government to follow this through with specific funding, as befits MOD issues, as well as action to bring Northern Ireland up to the standard of the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard much about what is happening in England, much about what is happening in Scotland, but I want to see the same thing happening for Northern Ireland.
I was dismayed to read a report of what was said—I pay no disrespect to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—in the Commons Welsh Affairs Committee. When asked about the Welsh level of care in comparison with other devolved nations, he said:
“We have a particular challenge in Northern Ireland because of some of the Sinn Fein-run authorities’ views on the covenant and what it represents. In Northern Ireland, this is particularly sensitive and difficult, so if you’re talking about a score card we would have to take that into account.”
That is not acceptable to me or to the people of Northern Ireland; nor is it acceptable to the families of service personnel who come back changed and need specialised and specific help.
Northern Ireland, despite her small size, still contributes 20% of the reserve forces to the Army. Recruitment spans the Catholic and Protestant divide, which is to be encouraged. It is good to see things moving forward. The Northern Ireland cadets, for instance, have had the largest number of recruits for years. In some sections of the cadet force, the ratio of Protestants to Roman Catholics is 50:50. That will give the House some idea of how far things have advanced as a result of the Northern Ireland political process, and of the positive effect of what we have been trying to do.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, especially as I was not able to be present at the beginning of this important debate. Will he take this opportunity to put on record the deep appreciation that is felt by many people throughout Northern Ireland for the Royal British Legion, and for the many other charities that have supported the armed forces throughout the worst of the times and the troubles, and continue to do so in what are now, thank goodness, peaceful times in Northern Ireland?
Jim Shannon
I certainly subscribe to that sentiment. We have been extremely lucky to benefit from the work of the many organisations, including the SAAFA group, Combat Stress and Help the Heroes, which have done so much for us.
The Ulster Defence Regiment and the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment operate a care service that could perhaps be extended to those serving in the British armed forces. I also ask the Government to consider using buildings that were used during Operation Banner for the benefit of ex-service personnel. I think that we should do more than just ask the House to accept the words in the motion.
Let me end by saying that, to me, “We will remember them” is not merely a phrase; it is a promise. We should not wait any longer to demonstrate that ex-service personnel in Northern Ireland are in our remembrance—today in the House, and tomorrow, as we begin to implement the changes that are so desperately needed.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his brevity, which has enabled me to speak in the debate.
I welcome the motion. I have been in the House for three years, and this is one of the first Opposition days that I can remember on which I have been unable to object to the cut of the jib of those on the Opposition Front Bench. What does disappoint me is that there is no military wives choir or band for me to say a great deal about.
I shall speak first about the importance of Armed Forces day, then about charities that support our armed forces and veterans, and finally about the penultimate section of the motion, which refers to the role of those in public life and to what more can be done by central and local government to help veterans.
I think that 10 or 15 years ago there was a great deal of apathy in the country about the work of our armed forces, but over the past decade or so that has given way to a return of great enthusiasm for them. One of the few positive consequences of our engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq is the fact that the armed forces are now treated far better, and are seen in a far better light. Armed Forces day has become a vital way of enabling the country to show its appreciation and support for our forces. I shall be in Nuneaton on Saturday to support Armed Forces day. I look forward to that, and to the launch of the Defence Discount Service’s privilege card, which will also take place on Saturday. That is a small thing for most people in the armed forces community, but it provides another way for us to show our support for them.
Let me now say something about the charities that support our armed forces. I want to focus on the work of Veterans Contact Point, a wonderful organisation that is based in Nuneaton town hall. It has three notable features. First, it is entirely run by volunteers, who are former members of the forces themselves and who understand the issues that confront service personnel when they arrive on civvy street. Many of those who run the organisation have also experienced problems after leaving the services, and are therefore well placed to provide our veterans with advice, guidance, signposting and other forms of practical support and help.
The success of Veterans Contact Point lies in the help that it gives to the cohort of people with whom it engages most: those who find it difficult to reintegrate when they leave the armed forces and return to civvy street. Many of these people have a problem with dependency on drugs or drink, or have been in trouble with the police or have been in contact with the probation service, and might have been in prison. The project is led by Len Hardy, the Warwickshire Probation Trust veterans champion, who has done a magnificent job. It has been extremely effective in providing a holistic service for our veterans in Coventry and Warwickshire, because it has brought together elements of Government and our charities. I want to mention in particular the important input of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the local Nuneaton and Bedworth branch of the Royal British Legion, the Scraping the Barrel charity, ABF The Soldiers Charity, which was known as the Army Benevolent Fund, and the European Social Fund. I would like a Minister to come and observe this excellent service in action, because it provides a huge amount of community good and a huge amount of support for those coming out of our armed forces.
My third point is about how people in public service, local authorities and the Government support our veterans community. Veterans Contact Point has had a very mixed response from local government and as a result may have to move venues. I do not want to be political, but we need to make sure, across the piece in local and national Government, that we do all we can to support such organisations. I have had some discussions with Veterans Contact Point about the community covenant grant scheme, and we need to address the way in which it works, as my understanding is that some of the bureaucracy has caused an issue in relation to accessing grants.
I endorse the sentiment of the motion. I will support Armed Forces day on Saturday, and I look forward to seeing a fantastic response to our armed forces, veterans and their families across the country.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I thank the Opposition for this opportunity to pay tribute to the courage and commitment of all our armed forces. My constituency has a strong military heritage, contributing many winners of the Victoria Cross—far more than would be expected from a town of its size. I have had many gallant predecessors myself, too, including the first, and first Liberal, MP for Cheltenham, the hon. Craven Berkeley, and Douglas Dodds-Parker, who was a Conservative MP in the post-war period and who served in the Special Operations Executive in the second world war with great distinction. I should also mention his successor, Charles Irving, who was deemed insufficiently robust for front-line service and famously bayoneted a retired lieutenant-general in the backside while on service in the Home Guard.
More distinguished service was seen by many Gloucestershire soldiers, airmen and sailors in two world wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Korea and in earlier conflicts. The Gloucestershire Regiment is now part of 1 Rifles, whose soldiers still proudly wear the back badge won by the “Glosters” at the battle of Alexandria in 1801, when they showed almost inhuman courage by turning back to back to face simultaneous French attacks from front and rear. They showed equally heroic courage at the battle of Imjin river in Korea in 1951, tragically losing 620 men in that one battle. Gloucestershire’s military tradition is also still represented by the Gloucestershire Hussars. As part of the Territorial Army, it counts Tobruk and Gallipoli among its battle honours. I hope such local connections are not lost in the future reserves development.
We also have the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in Gloucestershire, an astonishing outfit of 16 nationalities capable of deploying for NATO at five days’ notice. It is, perhaps, a model of the kind of new flexible, fleet military that we need to create for the 21st century.
We also have strong connections to the defence industry, started by George Dowty in the 1930s and now represented by companies such as GE Aviation and Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, and companies like the Omega Resource Group, started by former soldier Jon Penhale. I am very grateful to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for meeting me to discuss Omega’s approach to providing employment and training opportunities for soldiers designed by former soldiers and recognising the unique challenges that they face.
Not only are the Government doing the right thing to develop an armed forces fit for the 21st century, with much greater emphasis on better integrated reserves, but they are right to have tackled some of the difficult challenges of the Ministry of Defence budget and defence procurement. Those are difficult things to face up to, but they are necessary steps that have to be taken if we are to make an armed forces that are not only fit for the 21st century in military terms, but financially sustainable.
I am happy to endorse Armed Forces day today—
Mr Speaker
Order. We thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution but we are now going to have a Front-Bench speech from Mr Kevan Jones.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
First, I thank the 13 Members for their contributions to a good debate that has highlighted the respect that Members of the House have for our armed forces and the importance that they give to their role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) talked about the contribution of Sheffield and her constituents to the armed forces. She described how the local community covenant was not just a piece of paper and discussed the work that was happening practically on the ground with local people and businesses. I know that Sheffield has a proud history, because when I was Veterans Minister, I had the privilege of meeting 300 women of steel. These 300 women helped to keep the Sheffield steel industry going during the second world war and they are held in high esteem in that city.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) —a very old friend of mine from our days on the Defence Committee—talked about the contribution of his constituency to the British Army. May I join in his comments about the tremendous contribution that Aldershot makes to the British armed forces? He also highlights the important role of defence industries across the UK. We could not equip our armed forces and carry out the operations we ask them to do without the support of those industries. He also congratulated the previous Labour Government on Veterans day and the formation of Armed Forces day. I am not sure that he will agree that he will also want to thank Lord Davies of Stamford, who was the architect of Veterans day in his report. The hon. Gentleman will also wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), who was also instrumental in developing Armed Forces day.
The hon. Gentleman said that, as a Conservative, he did not get elected to cut members of the armed forces and then digressed into what we usually hear by blaming the previous Labour Government for the deficit. We must recall that he was an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and they supported our spending commitments right up to 2008. May I gently remind him that he was also calling for a larger Army, a larger Air Force and a larger Navy?
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) rightly raised the case of his constituent Alison, and I pay tribute to him for how tenaciously he has championed her interests. She finds herself in a terrible situation, where she proudly has two sons in the armed forces but is losing out because of the Government’s bedroom tax. I know that the Minister has sympathy with this case and I share his frustration that the decisions of other Departments sometimes have an unintended impact on the members of the armed forces. However, this situation does need urgent clarity, because Alison and many others will rightly feel let down by the fact that she thought the Government had done a U-turn on this but they clearly have not. This should be pursued as a matter of urgency. When I challenged the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) on it, he was not sympathetic at all, but I am sure that the Minister in this debate will raise these issues with him.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) reminded us, as if we needed any reminding, that 16 Air Assault Brigade is based in Colchester and gave us the first reference to the military wives choir. He also referred to Army bands. As the Minister for the Armed Forces rightly pointed out, the person who was arguing for fewer military horses was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is a Liberal Democrat. Then again, the hon. Member for Colchester is one of those individuals who, as Liberal Democrats quite easily can, protests against the cuts in the size of the Army when he is part of the Government who are making them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman grudgingly agreed at the end of his speech that the previous Labour Government did a lot to improve housing in his constituency. I tried to unpick the shambles of the Annington Homes contract, but it was not possible, and he is right that it was a very bad deal for the taxpayer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) mentioned the contribution his constituency makes to the armed forces, as well as the RMLY and the fantastic job it is doing to recruit reservists to the reserve forces. I congratulate the 47 individuals who have joined.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) helped me out for the next pub quiz I attend by giving the meaning and background of the phrase “up the creek without a paddle”—I am sure that many Defence Ministers must think on occasion that they are. That information will obviously be of great use. She also made an important point about family life. We sometimes forget that families are important through the support they give to members of the armed forces.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for the work she does on the RAF for the all-party group. She is a great advocate for the RAF in this House. I also congratulate her for organising tonight’s Bomber Command dinner, which I will be attending. I looking forward to meeting many of the veterans she spoke about. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) mentioned the armed forces ombudsman. I, too, pay tribute to Susan Atkins, the service complaints commissioner for the armed forces. I remember when the post was brought in following a good report from the Defence Committee on the tragic events at Deepcut, and the resistance from service chiefs, who thought that it would be the end of the world if we had a service complaints commissioner. It clearly has not been. The hon. Lady said that the armed forces had “nothing to fear” from an ombudsman. I reiterate that and totally agree with her points. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) mentioned the Army’s links to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the proud history of his constituency’s links with the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and the Fusiliers. He rightly did not forget the casualties that have taken place in Afghanistan and other conflicts and raised questions about the strategy the Government are pursuing on the Afghan draw-down.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who has a great deal of experience in the reserve forces, raised the legitimate concerns of many people, even in the reserves, about the Government’s gamble in reducing the regular Army before putting the detailed plans in place to recruit reservists. It is a little like putting the cart before the horse and I agree with him that that is a high-risk strategy. Recruitment levels will be difficult to achieve and without proper protection in the workplace, many people will not be willing to volunteer for the armed forces. We will see how the plans are rolled out, but it would have been useful to see the White Paper before the Government embarked on the strategy, rather than halfway through the process.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the contribution of the people of Northern Ireland to the armed forces. I pay tribute to them. When I was a Minister I visited Northern Ireland on a number of occasions and witnessed the tremendous dedication of veterans, their proud history and the contribution that members from both communities in Northern Ireland are making today to our armed forces.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) mentioned the Veterans Contact Point in his constituency. He made the important point that many of these people are volunteers. I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks and those of the House to the army of volunteers who work tirelessly within all charities throughout the country to support our veterans and members of the armed forces.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) raised the proud history of Gloucestershire and the joint rapid reaction force. I am glad that it is bedded in. It was set up on my watch in the MOD and it was a complex move, but I think it was a successful one. He also rightly paid tribute to the defence companies, both large and small. There are many large defence companies in the UK, but we should not forget the SMEs and small companies, which make a huge contribution.
I thank all for their contributions today. Let us hope that the events of this weekend will not only reinforce the public’s support for members of our armed forces but give us an opportunity to remember those who have lost their lives in recent conflicts and those who have been wounded both physically and mentally in the service of their country.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I am pretty sure that I do not have to, but I will anyway, declare that I am in receipt of a service pension so I have an interest in this debate.
I will not be able to respond to all the points that have been raised today, but I will try. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be hesitant in sending me letters if they want a particular point answered to which I have not been able to respond.
Today’s debate has been remarkably consensual, which I welcome. It has demonstrated that Members of the House care passionately about supporting our service personnel. We are fortunate to be able to rely on the men and women of our armed forces, for whom as Minister for the Armed Forces I have some responsibility. It is a much over-used word, but it is a real privilege to have that responsibility and to work with members of our armed forces. I know that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has done that, as well as others in the House.
The dedication of our armed forces to maintaining our security and protecting our interests and values means that Britain is able to act as a force for good in the world, defending our national interests and our international obligations. We are all proud of what they do.
I was in Scotland this morning visiting one of our deterrent submarines and the submarine service on the Clyde, and it was extremely impressive and very professional. I know that other hon. Members will have seen that as well. The role of the armed forces both in the deterrent and elsewhere is difficult and sometimes dangerous. I pay tribute to their bravery and professionalism, which represent the very best qualities our nation has to offer. We owe them and the families who support them an enormous debt of gratitude. That is why the Government are committed to supporting the success of Armed Forces day, which was indeed introduced by the previous Government. It allows the public to express their appreciation of those who have served their country.
I was going to say that the right hon. Member for East Ranfrewshire, sorry Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy)—
Mr Robathan
Sorry, it is for me. I was going to say that he was better at running a marathon than—but then he was very consensual, so I won’t. I pay tribute to his time for the marathon. As he knows, I set him a target, which he beat very easily. Well done.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) will have to wait for the White Paper for a decision about moving 38 Signal Regiment from Sheffield. I would like to have heard more discussion from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) about the Supreme Court judgment last week on extending human rights to the battlefield. It is a subject on which Members from both sides of the House may wish to comment. I know that we will be looking carefully at that judgment, and that we have some concerns.
I was sorry to hear about the constituent of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), wrote to him only yesterday and we do not believe that this is a general problem. Leaving aside the armed forces and reservists, I thought that the Opposition had accepted that we need to make serious savings, as we have been doing over the past three years, for all the reasons that he understands. On this day the newspapers have published the letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) which says that there is no money.
Tom Blenkinsop
The Government’s policy clearly states that armed forces personnel families are supposed to be exempt but, after three months, it is clear that they are not and that councils throughout the country are interpreting the policy in such a way that only reservists count, not permanent members of the armed forces.
Mr Robathan
As I said, my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to the hon. Gentleman. They should have further discussions, because my right hon. Friend knows the details, but I fear that I do not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) made a wide-ranging speech in which he stood up for Colly, as soldiers used to call Colchester, although I think that they were referring particularly to the military corrective training centre. He also talked about bands. From the Government’s point of view, bands are an integral part of the Army, and indeed of the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. Anyone who has ever marched to a band knows how stirring that is. I remember Academy Sergeant Major Huggins at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst saying, “If the hairs on the back of your neck don’t prickle when you hear a military band, you are in the wrong business.” On the Ministry of Defence police, I saw them yesterday at Coulport. They do a good job there and I pay tribute to them on my hon. Friend’s behalf.
The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) talked about the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry. I fear that I cannot pre-empt the White Paper, but I certainly would not want any damage to be done to the recruitment of reservists in Dudley.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) talked about the proud and close relationship between the Navy and her constituency. Indeed, my undistinguished service career began at the admiralty interview board in Gosport. I thought that “Up something or other creek without a paddle” was from Falstaff, but my excellent officials tell me that I am wrong, although I am still going to check it all the same.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) does excellent work with the RAF all-party group. It will astonish many to know that I got on so well with Bomber Command that I was made an honorary member of it, so I might just drop in for a quick chat later. My right hon. Friend the Minister tells me that she will certainly receive a reply to her specific question before the summer recess.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) talked about the service complaints commissioner. I am afraid that she will have to discuss that further with my right hon. Friend, but I understand that we are looking at the matter closely.
I was glad to hear the support of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for the armed forces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and I have not dissimilar backgrounds. No Defence Minister wishes to see cuts to the armed forces or defence spending, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for coherently explaining the continued need to maintain defence spending throughout the current review. I think that he has done a pretty good job, and the story has been in the newspapers. On my hon. and gallant Friend’s point about reservists, he will also have to wait for the White Paper.
I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his service in the Ulster Defence Regiment during difficult times in the Province. He stood up for Northern Ireland, and he was absolutely right that Northern Ireland makes a great contribution—indeed, a disproportionate contribution—to our armed forces.
I share the respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for service charities, which do fantastic work. We will ensure that someone gets up to see them, but that might be my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. My advice to my hon. Friend is that a good start would be to set up a military wives’ choir, and I am sure that military husbands and the non-military could be involved.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was rather cut off in full flow, but I agree with him about the ARRC. I shall shortly be visiting it and its commander, James Bucknall, who is also colonel of the Coldstream Guards, as I am sure that that hon. Members know. On hearing about Charles Irving, I feared that the lieutenant-general whom he speared with a bayonet was British, rather than German. The hon. Member for North Durham and I have sparred across the Dispatch Box for more than three years, but his speech was the most consensual that I have ever heard him make.
I am extremely proud of our armed forces, as I know that we all are, but I am also proud of the work that the Government have done to help to improve the support that we give them. In a consensual manner, let me say that we have built somewhat on work that was done previously. We owe our armed forces our very best efforts, because that is what they give us day in, day out, wherever they are stationed and whatever the conditions. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech, the first duty of Government is the defence of the realm, and we must never forget, and we must thank our armed forces for, the service that they provide in fulfilling that duty on behalf of everyone in the House and the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House celebrates and commemorates the contribution of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and their families, in particular those currently serving overseas; recognises the important introduction of Armed Forces Day in 2006 and urges the nation to come together and champion the Services’ achievements throughout the decades; pays tribute to the UK’s Forces, their families and the charities who do so much to support them; recognises the enormous contribution of the staff who support the UK’s Forces from within Government and the workforces in industry who supply them with world-class equipment; urges all those in public life to seek additional ways to support the Armed Forces Covenant; urges the Government, local authorities, business and charities to deliver the best possible post-service support; and considers the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant essential to uphold, through public policy, the provision of welfare and frontline support.
Business without Debate
Cross-border Health Care (England and Wales)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I start by thanking Mr Speaker for kindly granting this debate on a topic of great importance to many of my constituents and to many others living in English counties on the border with Wales.
I am grateful to two of my colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who have both worked with enormous diligence on behalf of constituents of theirs who have been similarly affected. I pay tribute to my constituent the indefatigable Patti Fender for bringing this issue to my attention, and to Action4Our Care, the action group which has pressed the matter so hard in Gloucestershire.
The basic problem can be simply stated. There are more than 20,000 NHS patients who are resident in England, yet registered with a Welsh general practitioner. Of these, some 3,500 are resident in my county of Herefordshire. Many of these people, like my constituents in the village of Welsh Newton—a Welsh name, but an English village—have no choice but to register with a Welsh GP because no English practice covers their location.
These people live in England, but they are being denied access to hospital services in England. That is grossly unfair, especially as for many, if not all, of them Hereford hospital is the closest and the best place to be treated. The situation also has the damaging knock-on effect of depriving Hereford hospital of revenue from patients who are being treated in Wales. The result is a double whammy: the patients cannot receive the health care that they want and need, and Hereford hospital, already undermined by the deeply iniquitous NHS funding formula, must suffer an unexpected additional financial burden. This burden is already becoming evident. Outpatient treatments for patients living in England but registered with a Welsh GP fell by 10% to 11% in March, April and May this year compared with the same period in 2012, and the hospital expects them to fall further in the months to come.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in Chester, where the Countess of Chester hospital serves large numbers of people who live in north Wales? One third of the people presenting at accident and emergency at the Countess of Chester live in north Wales. There is no funding available for them so people in Cheshire are losing out. Does my hon. Friend think that is fair?
Jesse Norman
It is interesting to have the parallel case, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to the attention of the House.
Let us look at the issues in more detail. The relevant NHS regulations state that legal responsibility for these patients remains with the relevant clinical commissioning groups in England, but that local health boards in Wales take day-to-day responsibility for their care. The English and Welsh NHS take their guidance from the protocol for cross-border health care services, the latest version of which was agreed by Welsh and English Ministers in April this year. However, it appears that the protocol does not give full effect to the law. Specifically, point 14 of the current protocol implies that patients from England who are treated in Wales are to be seen and treated within the maximum waiting time targets of the NHS in Wales, which are of course rather different from those of the NHS in England. Why does this matter? It matters for three particular reasons.
First, as we have seen, these South Herefordshire patients struggle to get referred to the hospital of their choice. The Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Health and Social Services has openly stated that choice is not the basis of the health system in Wales.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the land border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is co-operation, although it is not full blooded, between the health service in Northern Ireland and the health service in the Republic. Perhaps the Minister should look at that to see how it can work for the situation on the border between England and Wales.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There is co-operation at the moment between England and Wales, but I think that it would absolutely benefit from further examination of the situation he describes between Northern Ireland and Eire.
The fact that the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Health and Social Services does not believe that choice is the basis of the health system in Wales means that my constituents do not have the choice of health care, hospitals or consultants that is their proper legal right.
Secondly, the Welsh NHS’s performance in meeting its own waiting time targets continues to deteriorate. In England the waiting time target is 18 weeks, but in Wales it is 26 weeks, and that is regularly missed. Some patients are not even treated within 36 weeks. For example, some 4% of patients are not treated within 36 weeks at Cardiff and Vale hospital, according to recent Welsh Government statistics for April this year.
Thirdly, the current set-up is giving rise to serious clinical concerns. Earlier this year, in evidence to the Silk commission on devolution in Wales, the Royal College of Surgeons, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing made the following submission:
“The Panel... acknowledged that increasing policy divergence between health services in Wales and England was a challenge, especially in regards to cross-border services. The Panel added that there was a need to strengthen commissioning arrangements to improve current delays for processing individual cases... It was also agreed that it made sense for some specialist facilities to be shared by both England and Wales; and to work together to deliver economies of scale and efficiency savings, including cross border sharing of procurement and use of high-tech equipment.”
However, as I have mentioned, that ban on hospital access for those patients is not merely grossly unfair to them but places further financial pressure on Hereford hospital.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend and neighbour is making an important and powerful speech and should be congratulated on securing the debate. Does he agree that when one has a national border next to one’s county, it should be treated like a coastline, because it is not the Minister’s responsibility to control the health service in Wales? But if we do not have proper funding we will suffer as a result of not only our rurality but our sparsity, and once again people living in the marches will be at a disadvantage. We have the Barnett formula, but should we not have something similar for people on the Welsh border?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for that kind intervention. I share his view that the situation needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed in the spirit of amity and co-operation between the two sides.
In 2009-10 I commissioned an independent study of the funding of public services in Herefordshire relative to other suitable comparators across the country. I was only a parliamentary candidate at the time and such a study had never before been undertaken, but it seemed obvious to me that Herefordshire suffered from a serious shortfall in public funding and I was determined to get to the bottom of the matter. The results were astounding—even frightening. The study found that Herefordshire had been underfunded by no less than £175 million over the previous five years across all public services. In health care, the underfunding was £44 million, or roughly £9 million a year. It is no coincidence, I suggest, that Hereford hospital is currently running a deficit of almost exactly that amount. It is that deficit that is being worsened by the denial of choice to cross-border patients in my constituency and elsewhere.
Why did that funding shortfall occur? The reason is that the NHS funding formula is systematically skewed against areas that are highly rural and have a large population of older people, and systematically favours urban areas with younger populations. The formula does not recognise the relatively high cost of delivering services in sparsely populated areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) indicated, and it does not adequately recognise the special costs imposed by caring for older people—particularly the over-85s, the very oldest in our society. Research by Professor Sheena Asthana at the university of Plymouth indicates that the areas of greatest health care need are those with the highest proportion of over-75s. However, the current funding formula is focused on deprivation rather than on need for health care. That means that less funding is available to treat older people with chronic diseases.
Nationally, 17% of people are aged 65 or over. In Herefordshire, the figure is already 22% and pensioners will make up a third of the population by 2030. In 2010-11, Herefordshire had the highest proportion of over-75s in the west midlands, and the most patients per 100,000 on the cancer register. It also had the lowest cancer spend per cancer patient per year—a little over £5,000—and was in the lower half of the per capita allocations.
By contrast, the Heart of Birmingham PCT had the lowest proportion of over-75s in the region, and the fewest patients per 100,000 on the cancer register. However, the spend per cancer patient per year there was not £5,000 but more than £10,000—nearly double that in Herefordshire. Thus the effect of the funding formula is that Heart of Birmingham has twice as much funding per cancer patient as Herefordshire, for a much lower incidence of cancer. That is not merely unfair; it is a monstrous injustice.
I conclude by asking the Minister three questions. First, will her Department amend the cross-border protocol and reintroduce patient choice for English residents registered with GPs in Wales? Secondly, will she acknowledge the strain that the protocol places on hospitals such as Hereford hospital? Thirdly, will she press her Department to make the case to NHS England for a fairer funding settlement, which will give older people—not merely in Herefordshire, but up and down the land—the funding for cancer and for other health care that they so richly deserve?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this debate. He has raised a number of important topics—notably, the difficulties of people resident in England who are registered with a local GP whose service is deemed to be in Wales, even though the surgery may be in England. I am fully aware of my hon. Friend’s keen interest in local health matters affecting his constituents and his tireless work to support Hereford hospital. The whole House will agree that we would all expect good quality patient care, regardless of which part of the country we live in.
As my hon. Friend knows, I am very sympathetic to the concerns he has raised about English residents who are unable to access English hospital care because they are technically registered with a Welsh GP practice—even when, as I said, for a small number of patients, that GP surgery is physically situated in England.
I am told by my officials that the NHS services that any patient can access, and their NHS rights, are determined by their GP’s country of registration. As we have heard, that is formulated through protocol between NHS England and the Welsh Assembly; it means that, legally, a person has to be registered with an English GP practice to access English NHS services.
I am very concerned that despite an English border patient’s right to register with a GP practice on either side of the border, that is not always possible in practice. I recognise that, in rural communities, patients often do not feel a choice is available, given that the most accessible practice is a Welsh one. I also recognise that many people are registered with a local GP in England but the main practice is over the border in Wales. Those people may not want to change their GP practice. Why indeed should they? We could understand why they might, because in Wales people unfortunately do not get some of the excellent access to services that we enjoy in England. I am very concerned about this. I am told by NHS England that it has asked its legal advisers to review their earlier advice on the protocol signed between it and the Welsh Government with reference to the specific concerns that Ministers—that is, me—and the Welsh Secretary have raised.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
It is very kind of the Minister to take an intervention at this stage. Will she kindly confirm that when she invites her officials to look at this issue they will take up the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and look at the valuable lessons that have been learned in Northern Ireland about the useful co-operation across a land frontier with the Republic of Ireland and a key, integral part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland?
Anna Soubry
I am grateful for that intervention and for the wise words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, as ever, brings a great depth of experience to these matters. Yes, we will certainly take that on board.
All this came about because of a meeting between me and my officials, the Welsh Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). As a result of that meeting, I have asked NHS England to work locally with GP practices in the border counties to review their practice boundaries with the aim of providing additional choice of GPs to those who do not currently have it. I am keen that all English patients are able to access an English GP if they wish or that they can register with a Welsh GP if that is their choice and they are aware of the impact of that decision. I have also asked NHS England to review the protocol as it currently stands.
I have asked the Welsh Government to review their policy on out-of-area treatments to consider an exception for English residents—specifically, that GPs operating from branch surgeries in England should be exempt from the requirement to seek prior approval for English resident patients to be referred to hospitals in England. These are all matters of concern not only to constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire but to others. We have heard about that from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), and of course I know of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean.
I am informed that since the meeting with the Welsh Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, NHS England has had several further meetings with colleagues in the Welsh Government and local health boards based in Wales to discuss these concerns so that they can be addressed. There have been constructive discussions with Aneurin Bevan local health board, which has confirmed that it will undertake a review of the application of its policy on out-of-area treatment. I understand from NHS England that work will continue on this review over the next few months, and I will of course keep everybody fully informed and up to date on any progress.
Bill Wiggin
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am really heartened by the positive things she has said, and I congratulate her on the work she has done. Will she also look at the impact of cross-border patient numbers on hospitals, which also badly affects us in Herefordshire?
Anna Soubry
Indeed. I will come to the effect on Hereford hospital, but I am more than happy to write to my hon. Friend about his specific point. The usual rules apply: if there are questions that I have not answered I will of course write to any hon. Member.
We have asked the Welsh Government to request that other local health boards along the border in Wales should similarly review the application of their own policies for out-of-area treatment affecting patients in the same circumstances. In many of those areas patient numbers are much smaller, but that does not matter; these are important issues for these individuals.
In the light of the further legal advice that NHS England is seeking, I am advised that it will review the protocol with the Welsh Government in view of my concerns and those of other hon. Members, the updated legal advice, the outcome of the local health boards’ reviews of the application of their policies on out-of-area treatment, and feedback that we have received from local NHS bodies on the operation of the protocol. The review will be undertaken in the autumn following completion of the reviews by the local health boards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire is concerned that the policy of the Welsh Government that those who are registered with a Welsh GP must use Welsh NHS services will have a direct impact on the viability of Hereford hospital. I share his concern, but I understand that a number of other factors affect the viability of the hospital and the Wye Valley NHS Trust.
I was a bit concerned when I read the next part of my brief, because it has been worded in an interesting way by my very able officials. It states that those factors include
“the drop in the numbers of young people locally leading to a lack of activity in maternity services”.
I am not sure what “lack of activity” young people have been guilty of. I think that what is meant is that there are not as many young people in the area, because there is undoubtedly a higher proportion of retired elderly people in the population. It is obvious that if there are fewer young people, people are less likely to be having babies and are therefore less likely to use maternity services. I am sure that activity remains at a high level.
As my hon. Friend is aware, Wye Valley NHS Trust published a strategic outline case in March this year, setting out the options for its future form to create a clinically sustainable model for local people. I have been advised by the NHS Trust Development Authority that it has been working with the trust to develop a full business case, which it expects to receive for consideration by the end of this month. Again, I make it very clear that I am more than happy to revisit this issue with my hon. Friend and others following the outcome of that process.
Jesse Norman
Wye Valley NHS Trust has informed me that the policy has cost it between £1 million and £2 million so far. Given that it is running a deficit of £8 million to £10 million, that is a significant sum. The work that is being done pre-supposes the current funding formula. In a way, it therefore pre-supposes the point at question, which is whether the formula is fair. As I have submitted, it clearly is not.
Anna Soubry
I do not doubt for one moment the veracity of what my hon. Friend has told me about what he, in turn, has been told. That is a substantial amount of money and it would go a long way to explaining part of the deficit. These are terribly important matters.
The funding formula has been raised yet again. The argument advanced by many Members on both sides of the House is that the formula does not take account of the relatively high cost of delivering services in rural areas or reflect the fact that many rural areas such as Herefordshire have relatively older populations. I have had a number of conversations with hon. Members who make exactly the same complaint as my hon. Friend.
I am reliably informed—this point is important—that allocations to individual clinical commissioning groups, which are made up of the GPs and other clinicians who now commission services locally, and the formula that is used to decide what those allocations should be, are the responsibility of NHS England. I am not seeking to pass the buck, but it does bear that responsibility. In making those allocations, NHS England relies on advice from the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. ACRA provides advice on the share of available resources provided to each CCG to support equal access for equal need, as specified in the mandate given by the Secretary of State to NHS England.
Therefore, NHS England does not set income for CCGs on an equal cost-per-head basis across the country. Instead, allocations follow an assessment of the expected need for health services in an area, and funds are distributed in line with that, meaning that areas with a high health need should receive more money per head. The calculation is based on the age of the populations, relative morbidity and unavoidable variation in cost. The objective is to ensure a consistent supply of health services across the country. The greater the health need, the more money is received because the more health services are needed.
I know that some hon. Members just do not accept that that is the reality with the allocations to their CCGs and, in effect, to their constituencies. NHS England plans to review the funding formula for 2014-15 and the following years better to reflect the needs of local communities and enable the best outcomes for local people. Perhaps there is hope in that. Obviously, I must say quickly that I cannot make any promises.
If anybody would like to intervene, we do have the time. Hon. Members often want to make a point, but do not feel that they can make a speech.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her kindness and I am sorry that I was not here at the start of the contribution from the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). Hereford hospital is key in delivering medical services to people in my constituency in Wales. If it had not been for the co-operation of my predecessor, Richard Livsey, the rebuilding of Hereford hospital might not have taken place, because it needs patients from the east of Wales too.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. My officials will listen to the debate and read it in Hansard. All the points that have been made about Hereford hospital—equally important points could be raised by others about the effect on other hospitals—must be considered, because they are important. It would not be right or fair if hospitals felt that they were suffering as a result of a system that is basically not fair through no fault of their own.
Jesse Norman
We have a little time, so I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Will she ask her officials to look more closely at the functioning of ACRA? The formula under which we are labouring was set up in 2002. There is a clear case to be made that, contrary to its desire, it is not delivering funding to the areas of greatest need, but to areas defined by a deprivation formula. The truth is that morbidity and age go together, not deprivation and morbidity.
Anna Soubry
I might not share my hon. Friend’s final remarks, but we know that NHS England, which is in charge of distributing funds to CCGs, is considering the formula. It will no doubt bear in mind the argument made by him and others who believe that ACRA’s formulation is not delivering in the fair way that we all agree was intended.
In conclusion, I am pleased that NHS England has responded to my concerns, and the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and others, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, with whom I had a long meeting. As a result, NHS England is doing what we had hoped it would. I am encouraged by the dialogue that has been taking place between NHS England, the Welsh Government and local health boards in Wales, and I hope to see further rapid progress. We must not let anybody drag their heels. I look forward to being able to update my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, and others who represent border communities, in the autumn. I undertake to do that once NHS England has finished its review. I once again congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on this important issue. While it might not affect a huge number of people, it is a very important issue for them and they feel that there is an injustice. It behoves all of us to ensure that we eradicate any injustice.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated level of (a) public subsidy, (b) premium payments and (c) revenue support will be during the contract extension to September 2014 agreed between his Department and c2c Rail Ltd for rail passenger services on the Essex Thameside line.
[Official Report, 3 June 2013, Vol. 563, c. 975W.]
Letter of correction from Simon Burns:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 3 June 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Simon Burns
Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£2.4 million. A profit share mechanism in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Simon Burns
Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£1.7 million. A profit share mechanism in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.
Jeremy Corbyn
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total value is of the contract extension to September 2014 agreed between his Department and c2c Rail Ltd for rail passenger services on the Essex Thameside line.
[Official Report, 5 June 2013, Vol. 563, c. 1198W.]
Letter of correction from Simon Burns:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 5 June 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Simon Burns
Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£2.4 million. A profit share mechanism is in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Simon Burns
Contracted subsidy for the interim franchise agreement is c.£1.7 million. A profit share mechanism is in place, which will capture any outperformance in revenue, thereby lowering subsidy requirement. Subsidy and premium payments are published regularly on the Office of Rail Regulation website.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
East of England Ambulance Service
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Mr. Howarth, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate and I thank all colleagues from across the region who are present today for their support in securing this debate and for pursuing this issue so assiduously.
We in the east of England are fortunate that two of our Members of Parliament are Ministers—the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—and both are well aware of this issue and have taken a great deal of interest in it. I put on the record my thanks in particular to my noble Friend Lord Howe, who has not only taken a strong interest in this subject, but helped facilitate many meetings with various bodies and the ambulance trust, and others, to explore this issue further. I know that this Minister will be well briefed on this matter and will be aware of the many and considerable concerns of colleagues in the region about the performance of the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust. She has shown strong interest in the health problems of my constituents and they will welcome her active involvement in helping to get this trust turned around.
This is a timely debate, following on from the scandalous revelations about the cover-up at the Care Quality Commission and the lack of responsibility and accountability from NHS directors. This trust has also experienced serious issues with accountability and mismanagement. It is suffering from the rotten culture that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich recently mentioned.
Before I run through many of the problems with the trust encountered by my constituents and I, and the challenges, including delays, response times, damning reports from the CQC and from Dr Anthony Marsh, I should like to begin on a positive note and pay tribute to the outstanding work undertaken by the front-line staff. Despite many problems with the trust and its board, the front-line staff have earned admiration and a great deal of respect from all our constituents. They work in difficult conditions, all made worse by the failure of the trust’s board, but they continue to save lives daily and, of course, they help patients get better.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I support what my hon. Friend says about front-line staff; I have had personal experience of that in my own family in Norfolk. The paramedics that we encountered were outstanding. Does she share my puzzlement that some of the best staff in the call centre, whom I have sat next to, were bewildered by the systems they were asked to deal with? The problem is not the front-line staff at all, who are superb, but is basically one of leadership.
Priti Patel
Of course, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. This is about management and lack of leadership and direction from the trust.
I also pay tribute to the volunteer community first responders who support the trust. I think that all hon. Members will have met first responders in their constituencies. Let us be clear that those individuals sacrifice their own time to attend to ill and injured people quickly and remain with them until paramedics arrive. I have been briefed by the co-ordinator of first responders in my constituency and am more than impressed by the actions they take to save the lives of patients in emergency situations, dealing with a wide range of conditions, including heart attacks, allergic reactions and unconsciousness. This month, the trust announced that 30 more of these volunteers had completed their two-day training course. We should celebrate that achievement and praise those volunteers for their dedication to helping the ambulance service and, of course, all our constituents. Those front-line members put the needs of patients first.
With so much devotion and commitment from the front-line staff and volunteers, of course it is more than disappointing that they have been so badly let down by the trust’s board and management. Staff and volunteers deserve more support and strategic leadership from the trust. It is because the trust’s board has failed to demonstrate in the boardroom the high level of expertise, skill and devotion required that is displayed on the front line that the trust has been brought into such a dreadful state.
The biggest danger to patients, which many hon. Members have experienced, is delays getting ambulances to them. The Minister will know that this trust has failed lamentably to meet the A8 and A19 targets. Patients with life-threatening conditions are being made to wait longer than they should for paramedics to arrive.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I agree with what my hon. Friend says about ambulance delays, but does she agree that this is a particularly severe problem in more rural areas, such as the Dengie peninsula, which I represent, where one survey of a patient group of a medical practice, the William Fisher medical centre, showed that patients had to wait for more than 40 minutes, and in some cases more than a hour, before the ambulance arrived?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right. Many hon. Members have experienced horrific delays, particularly across our rural constituencies. I know of delays in excess of two hours. That is unacceptable. Lives are put at risk.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on calling this important debate on an unacceptable level of service. Further to the previous intervention on rural areas, can we also agree that this is not just about what are called emergency services, but also about non-emergencies? Many people in my constituency, particularly elderly people, are kept waiting for up to eight hours, often in significant pain, before the ambulance gets to them.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes the point clearly about the impact on elderly patients and the unacceptable waiting times that his constituents, and those of other hon. Members, have endured.
Data from the trust show that in the last quarter of 2012-13, the A8 target for paramedic arrival to treat a patient in a life-threatening condition within eight minutes was met 70% of the time, compared to the 75% target. The A19 target was also missed, as ambulances arrived to transport patients with life-threatening conditions within 19 minutes 92% of the time, compared to the 95% target. Patients with other conditions have experienced appalling delays. In each of the 10 months from April 2012 to January 2013, the trust failed to meet the target to get 62% of stroke patients to hospital within 60 minutes. In fact, in seven of those months the figures were below 50%.
The delays in an ambulance arriving to transport patients to hospital after they have been attended to by a volunteer community first responder or paramedic in a rapid response vehicle are particularly alarming. Figures provided by the trust to me covering Essex showed that in 2012 there were 39,921 of these back-up requests, but on 12,584 occasions it took more than 30 minutes for the ambulance to arrive. In Witham alone, in 206 incidents it took more than 30 minutes for an ambulance to arrive, from 639 back-up requests.
It is scandalous that almost one third of patients needing to go to hospital by ambulance were left waiting, causing them distress and preventing the initial paramedic or volunteer who attended the scene from moving on to help other patients elsewhere. Four patients a week in Witham, 242 in Essex and many hundreds more across the region have endured those waits, and the trust’s board sat idly and did nothing while the situation got ever worse. The failures have led to the trust becoming the worst performing ambulance trust in the country. The statistics are terrible and the delays can have serious consequences for the lives of patients affected.
The Minister will have seen numerous news reports from local, regional and national newspapers highlighting devastating cases across the region. Colleagues from across the region will, like me, have seen cases all over their local newspapers and will have had numerous constituents writing to them about their own experiences.
There have been some dreadful incidents affecting my constituents who have faced not only unacceptable delays, but a devastating impact of the consequence of those delays. One constituent from Tiptree suffered lengthy delays on not just one but two occasions—in August and September—before passing away. On the first occasion, she suffered a mini-stroke, and the emergency doctor who attended her home called for an ambulance that morning, but it took more than three hours for a paramedic to arrive. The paramedic then called for a back-up ambulance, which did not come. After waiting four hours, members of my constituent’s family placed her in one of their cars to take her to hospital. Although my constituent had suffered a stroke, the trust neglected her. If her family had not taken the risk of transporting her to hospital, she may never have got there.
The following month, my constituent fell in her care home and banged her head, resulting in a lump larger than a chicken egg on her temple. The ambulance was called at 9.38 pm, but it did not arrive until almost two hours later, at 11.25 pm, despite the fact that the care home was barely five minutes from Colchester ambulance station. Once my constituent was in hospital, a CT scan confirmed that she was haemorrhaging on the brain, and she died soon after. Had the ambulance arrived sooner, my constituent would have received treatment more promptly and might still be alive today. I raised the case with the trust, but it took two months to reply, coming up with a feeble excuse and a shallow apology.
Other constituents have also let me know of their frustration about delays. Mrs Houghton, from Tolleshunt Knights, has two young daughters with serious medical conditions that require frequent hospital care. One has a condition that can lead to sudden death syndrome; the other suffers from a condition that includes supraventricular tachycardia, which can cause her heartbeat to quicken, and her treatment requires a life-saving injection. Last year, my constituent reported to me that ambulances were taking longer to arrive than they used to and that rapid response vehicles were sent instead to take her daughters to hospital. As the Minister will appreciate, these incidents have caused Mrs Houghton increased anxiety, particularly given that her daughters are children. They need an ambulance to attend promptly, but that is simply not happening.
In a separate case, a constituent who is a carer for a relative, Mrs Gladys Money, reported to me the delay Gladys experienced while waiting for an ambulance. Only two weeks ago, Gladys, who is 96 years old, suffered a fall in her kitchen. She could not reach the telephone, so she used the emergency call line button she carries with her at all times to request assistance. An ambulance was called, but it did not arrive for an hour and a half. During that time, Gladys was in much distress and could not lift herself up or even call for further help. Such delays in the treatment of elderly people are unacceptable; they are simply not right, and people cannot be treated in this way.
Another constituent reported to me his outrage when, in November, an ambulance failed to arrive after his 20-month-old grandson started hyperventilating and developed a high temperature. After two hours’ waiting and three telephone calls, he was assured an ambulance would arrive shortly, but that did not happen. After being told that ambulance crews were too busy to attend, he resorted to taking his grandson to accident and emergency himself. There are so many other cases I could mention, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members have plenty of other examples they wish to raise.
Despite the fact that the trust received complaints from Members of Parliament, members of the public and its own staff, nothing was done to address the problem seriously. What made the trust’s lack of attention to the problems all the more shocking was the fact that, in May 2012, the CQC reported concerns with response times. It clearly stated that
“the Trust had not met some of its key performance standards in relation to response times”
and needed
“to seek ways of addressing the challenges it faces in responding quickly in very rural areas and on improving turn around times at the hospitals in its region so that people receive care in a timely and effective manner.”
Senior managers, directors and non-executive directors should have seen the warning signs. They should have been working with hospitals in the region to improve handover times. They should have reassessed changes to staffing rotas and brought in new front-line staff to fill the 200 empty posts. They should have re-examined how they prioritise calls. They should have altered the allocation of resources to put more ambulances on the road. Finally, they should have got a grip on the trust’s growing deficit.
Many things should have been questioned and required serious attention. However, the trust acted only this year, following another CQC inspection in February, the report of which was published in March. That inspection came about only as a result of the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)and other Members of Parliament in the region, who pressed for an investigation into the trust. The report demanded action to improve the
“Care and welfare of people who use services”.
It concluded that since the
“last inspection the trust’s performance in relation to its ambulance response times had deteriorated and people could not be assured they would receive care in a timely and effective manner.”
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—La Pasionaria of Southwold, as she is her known in her constituency—on her role. Last October, my wife had a serious accident, and there were considerable delays in treating her. We are all aware of such things, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) agree that there is a systemic culture of failure and buck-passing not only on this issue, but, sadly, in wider areas of the NHS and the public sector? What worries me—my hon. Friend might come on to this—is that if a new board is appointed, it might well consist of recycled individuals from the quangocracy who may have failed in other parts of the country.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend’s assessment of the culture in the NHS is absolutely correct. Let us not forget that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, alluded to the rotten culture in the NHS. I will come to the fact that cultural change is required and that we must stop this revolving door and this recycling of people in the NHS.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House. Although the debate is specifically about the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, the same rationale applies across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The response by paramedics relies on data and modern technology, so it is important that funding restrictions do not limit what they can do. Does the hon. Lady feel that it is essential that funding is always available so that they can do the work they need to? Does she also feel that training is important?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Interestingly, funding was not an issue in this case; the trust is very well funded, and I will come to that. This is about professionalism and training. With the board and the trust, we have seen a complete failure of not only leadership, but skills; there is a question about the skills base of the board and the non-executive directors, and it is clear that they have failed in their duties and responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know from the Mid Staffordshire inquiry and from events involving the CQC, Cumbria and other trusts the consequences of the rotten culture of management failures, cover-ups and inept strategic leadership in the NHS, which the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, touched on. That culture is simply not acceptable, and it is about time we took the lid off many NHS trusts and started to ask questions about the failure we have seen across the country.
The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust is another trust we can add to the list of those where scandal and incompetence have put lives at risk. As I said, this is not a resourcing issue, because the trust is funded above the national average. This is a problem with senior management, directors and non-executive directors. Since the publication of the CQC report, a new interim chair, Dr Geoff Harris, has been brought into the trust. A governance review and additional support are being provided by Dr Anthony Marsh, the chief executive of the country’s best-performing ambulance trust, in the west midlands. Those are welcome steps. Of course, it was Dr Marsh’s review of governance that highlighted the extent of the scandal and failure at the heart of the trust.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the debate, and on the work that she and colleagues have done over many months. She is right to say that the issue is not money. I have heard it suggested that the problem is to do with rural ambulance services, but I assure her that constituents of mine with awful problems have had to wait an hour and a half for ambulances that were simply not available. The problem is urban as well as rural, and I know that she realises that. The solution must affect all of us.
Priti Patel
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right. The key is that there is a failed service, and it requires immediate turnaround, which must have one clear focus: putting patients first, rather than the interests of board and trust members. The issue is about patients.
I am encouraged by my initial contact with Dr Harris and Dr Marsh. It is incumbent on us all to support them, to ensure that they get the trust back on its feet.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the lead she is giving and on bringing the facts to light, although I worry that in rehearsing some of the problems we create greater worry among our constituents; but we must get to the bottom of the problem. She has mentioned Dr Anthony Marsh, and some of us recall that in the days of the Essex ambulance service there were nothing like the difficulties that there are today. It is clear from the fact that other ambulance trusts are performing better—some to a very high standard—that there should be some pressure. There is a model of how things should be done, and pressure should be brought to bear so that we can get the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust sorted out.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is right. The issue is the turnaround of the trust and a key thing is to learn from successful ambulance trusts. That means looking at skills and capabilities as well as at times, both in urban centres and rural parts of constituencies. The east of England is a big region, and we must consider how resources can be correctly allocated to ensure that patients are not left waiting as they have been in the past.
Most of the executive directors at the trust have moved on, and the former chair, Maria Ball, resigned recently after the CQC report earlier this year. However, it is deeply alarming and thoroughly disgraceful that five non-executive directors who have presided over the mismanagement of the trust still sit on the board. They are Paul Remington, Phil Barlow, Margaret Stockham, Anne Osborn and Caroline Bailes. They all seem to refuse to take any responsibility for the failure that they have presided over, and they continue to receive funds from the taxpayer to continue in their role. By choosing to remain in post they are putting their own interests above those of the public, patients and front-line staff.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the issue up for discussion. There has been a series of appalling incidents in my part of Essex as well, in Tendring. Are not all the failures further evidence that the ambulance trust is run for the convenience of the senior management on the payroll, and not that of the taxpayer who pays taxes to be provided with an ambulance? Surely we need proper accountability, which means examining the regional structure, which is too cumbersome, and perhaps adopting a system of local accountability, putting it at county level as it once was. We should also make sure that the service is not stuffed full of quangocrats, and that the people who are there to speak for the taxpayer are accountable to the taxpayer, rather than having CVs full of parasiting off the taxpayer.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes some pertinent and valid points. Transparency and accountability are key things. I have touched on the issue of the revolving door in the NHS, but cronyism is another issue. We must stop the same people being placed on and recycled around various boards in the NHS. NHS board members should put patients first, but, as the governance review by Dr Marsh concluded,
“there is a lack of focus and grip from the Board which has contributed towards the deterioration of performance across the Trust.”
The question, as we have already heard, is whose interests the board is serving. It should be putting patients first.
The Minister will know that the review is full of many other statements about the board, each of which is a damning indictment of each non-executive director and of the board. As to the quality risk profile showing that a number of outcomes relating to patient care and welfare were not being achieved, the review states at page 13:
“The Board should be taking leadership decisions and actions on these Outcomes and holding others to account,”
but of course there has been collective failure and
“this doesn’t appear to be happening.”
On page 14 the review refers to the current trust board and senior management team appearing to have developed “a sense of ‘helplessness’” and states that
“the Board have not been taking both the responsibility collectively as well as they could or should have and that Board members have not been held to account”.
On page 18 the report highlights
“a lack of confidence and trust that the Board has the expertise, experience or gravitas to respond to the substantial challenges facing the organisation.”
Page 22 contains the conclusion that
“the overall Governance arrangements cannot have been adequate for the Trust to get into this much difficulty.”
The non-executive directors’ fingerprints are, to be frank, all over the crisis. The trust is experiencing major failures, and every day that the individuals remain on the board they are being financially rewarded for blatant failure. Their poor leadership and inability to acknowledge and deal with the challenges facing the trust have led to patients’ lives being put at substantial risk. The trust’s staff survey results have demonstrated the lowest morale in the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and I wrote to Paul Remington while he was acting chair, to ask him and his fellow non-executive directors to explain their actions and what they had done about improving the trust. We wanted to give them a fair and proper chance to explain themselves in the aftermath of the CQC’s report earlier in the year. We received a substantive reply from Mr Remington two months later, on the eve of the publication of the Government’s review, and it was light on information and did not acknowledge the mess that the trust was in. It was thoroughly unconvincing. In view of those poor responses I hope that the Minister will appreciate that the presence of those non-executive directors on the board is undermining public and staff confidence in the trust. It is scandalous that they have not already been dismissed, and shocking that, despite the publication of the Marsh review, board members whose terms are due to expire this year are to be reappointed for the foreseeable future. The report of the chair and chief executive for tomorrow’s board meeting states that, during the recruitment process for the new non-executive directors,
“the TDA has agreed to extend Mr Remington’s period of service on an interim basis.”
That is utterly unacceptable. Why should Mr Remington and other non-executive directors be allowed to continue on their taxpayer-funded ride, when they have failed so miserably to fulfil their responsibilities? What will happen to the other non-executive directors, whose terms do not end this year? How much longer will they be permitted to remain in post? They refuse to do the right thing and step down, so I urge the Minister to recommend to the Secretary of State and the NHS Trust Development Authority that they should use their powers to remove them with immediate effect, before the board meets in Bedford tomorrow.
In addition to the board’s inability to lead the trust, its secretive and unaccountable handling of criticism by Members of Parliament is also disturbing.
Mr Keith Simpson
I have a question for my hon. Friend based on ignorance: there have been some extensions, but by whom were they made? Is that part of the revolving door?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend asks a valid and pertinent question, and I give him one word: accountability. His question is very good, and we need to continue to ask who is making the decisions.
In the board papers for the trust meeting tomorrow there is no reference to the fact that Members of Parliament for the region have questioned the board’s competence and called for resignations. Our correspondence is not even mentioned. The papers merely state that the chair and the chief executive have
“met a number of MPs over the last month to discuss issues such as ambulance responses”.
That is simply not good enough and fails to reflect the serious concerns that all Members of Parliament across the region have expressed in their questioning of the trust on behalf of their constituents. Decisive action is now necessary, because the trust, its front-line staff and the 6 million people who live in the east of England need to have skilful and competent non-executive directors leading the board. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister concludes the debate she will commit to ensuring that resources will be made available to help the trust head-hunt and bring in the right set of people as soon as possible to support both Dr Harris and Dr Marsh.
It is also clear to me that the problems with the board have yet again demonstrated the wider failures within the NHS appointment process. Again and again, incompetent and ineffective individuals have been placed in important roles. Some of the five non-executive directors who should be dismissed from the trust sit or have sat on other NHS bodies, and it is shocking to think that they could be recycled elsewhere in the NHS. I would welcome an assurance that those non-executive directors, who have devastated the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, will be prohibited from holding any further NHS job.
By the end of the debate, I am confident the Minister will be left in no doubt of the seriousness of the situation with the ambulance trust and of the desire of the public, front-line staff and all Members in the region to see our trust improve. I hope she can give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to help patients receive the first-class service that they deserve, to hold those in responsible positions to account and to resolve the mismanagement of the trust that we have all endured for far too long.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on her characteristically candid and very well-crafted speech. She speaks for many of us in expressing those strong arguments.
Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the paramedics, drivers and engineers—the people at the sharp end—because they have done a consistently good and professional job, despite poor leadership; they have not had the backing that they deserve. I also join her in paying tribute to the Minister’s ministerial colleague, Earl Howe, who has been very attentive to our concerns throughout.
Dr Marsh’s report is well researched and impressive. If the report has one compelling conclusion, it is that the crisis in the ambulance service trust is the consequence not of a lack of resources, but of a lack of leadership, vision and strategic direction. The comparisons that he draws with West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust are pertinent, because it is a trust with a similar population base—the population is obviously more urban—that faces similar challenges, but it has met those challenges through strong direction and leadership throughout. That is why the West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust is at the top of the pile. Unfortunately, our trust is down at the bottom.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), who said in his important intervention that recently, over a number of years, a management culture has emerged in the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust that basically deems second best to be acceptable, and consequently action that should have been taken has not been taken.
If the trust was an alternative investment market-listed company that had gone into crisis mode, the non-executive directors would have resigned on principle; if the trust was a company listed on the main stock exchange, the directors would have had to resign. It is staggering that they have somehow decided that it is okay to cling on to their jobs and stay, despite the complete lack of oversight of corporate governance and the failure to adhere to the combined code. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the non-executive directors are responsible under the combined code in the same way as directors of public companies. The trust is obviously not a public company, but it has the same corporate governance rules. Notwithstanding the fact that it is a different organisation, the non-executive directors have that responsibility. If they had any integrity, they would offer their resignations.
I hope the Minister is able to tell us that she will advise the non-executive directors, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to resign before tomorrow’s board meeting. It is no good for the interim chairman, Dr Harris—there is a whole lot of management speak here—to review the board members’ benchmarking against leadership criteria, etc. What the hell does that mean? Basically, the board needs reconstituting, and it needs reconstituting very soon. Will the Minister give us some insight into what her Department is doing to try to bring new blood—people with real ability, not jobsworths who simply get recycled around one public board after another—on to such boards?
Just as the trust has fallen way down to the bottom of the league, King’s Lynn and west Norfolk is unfortunately lagging behind the rest of East Anglia. I find that very worrying. Obviously, I accept that, in remote rural areas, there are some hamlets and remote communities where it is physically impossible for an ambulance to reach a patient within the targets. We know that. There are some places in my constituency, and in the constituencies of many of my colleagues here today, where that is absolutely impossible, even with the best will in the world. There might be a coincidence in which, for example, an ambulance is going along a main road at a particular juncture, but achieving the target may well be impossible, so it is even more important that the targets are met in the towns and bigger communities, where it might be thought perfectly reasonable to expect ambulances to get to a call within the target time in 95%-plus of cases. Unfortunately, the targets are not even being met in the towns in my constituency.
I have been given permission by my constituent Mrs Delna Barrett to refer to her case. Her husband, Chris, had been suffering from Parkinson’s disease for some 20 years. He stopped breathing in a restaurant in Hunstanton, which is the second-largest town in my constituency, and it took the ambulance more than 20 minutes to arrive. Despite numerous resuscitation attempts, he died in hospital two days later. We do not know whether, if the ambulance had arrived within the target time, he would have had a better chance of surviving. The family are not criticising the paramedics or the staff, but the bottom line is that the ambulance did not arrive within a reasonable time.
We know that many difficulties are caused by the problems at A and E, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Witham alluded in her excellent speech, and we know that those problems have been around for quite a long time. There certainly are problems at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency, and there are problems at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, where at one stage back in March all 17 of the trust’s ambulances were tied up waiting outside. All that is well documented, and it is not entirely within the purview of this debate, but we cannot consider the problem of the ambulance trust in complete isolation; we must consider out-of-hours services and out-of-hours cover.
Very often, individual family events bring home to us the different parts of the health service that are perhaps in need of improvement or are examples of best practice. Some 20 years ago, I was staying with my mother near King’s Lynn, and at about four in the morning she banged on my door and said that she was dying. She was in the most appalling pain—absolute agony. My mother is a war veteran who was in the Women’s Royal Naval Service. She is a very tough person, and she never complains about anything. She told me that she was in complete agony and could not move. I rang the local doctor, who came out within 20 minutes. He said, “You have kidney stones, and I am going to give you an injection that will put you asleep until tomorrow afternoon. I will then come back and we will take stock of the situation.” He gave her some more injections the following afternoon. The stones were broken down, and she did not even have to go to hospital.
If my mother knocked on my door now, what would I do? Obviously, I would dial 111 or 999, but so risk-averse are all those call centres that she would undoubtedly have gone into A and E. I would not have been happy with any advice from someone who did not know her medical records. The key to her treatment by the local doctor was that he knew her medical records and understood that she might be prone to that problem.
We must sort out the out-of-hours cover. We cannot go back to what we had before, when each doctor’s surgery provided out-of-hours cover, but the idea of co-operatives and mergers between GP practices to provide cover and ensure that the people who deal with patients out of hours understand their medical records and are prepared to provide service is key to sorting out the problem. Otherwise, given that the population in some parts of the country is growing, that people are living longer and that many more people have challenging illnesses and a multiplicity of problems, more and more people will have out-of-hours difficulties. Unless we sort out the out-of-hours service, we will have more and more problems.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying somewhat from the theme. I realise that it is a related matter, but he should return the discussion to the ambulance service.
Mr Bellingham
I shall do so immediately, Mr Howarth, as that is the topic of the debate. However, I wanted to put it into that context, because we cannot consider the ambulance service in isolation.
In conclusion, there is a great deal of concern throughout the region, but we take the view that the problem can be solved through new leadership if management get a grip, put common sense first and, above all, bring out the best in the people at the sharp end, who serve our constituents and take great pride in doing so. Those people set high professional standards. Given the right management, they will do the job to a high standard and give our constituents the ambulance service that they deserve. This is a turn-around situation. I wish the interim chairman and chief executive all the best in sorting out the problem. However, they require the Minister’s assistance and support, and her first step must be to grip the decision of the non-executive directors. She must then work closely with the management team to ensure that the trust is turned around for the benefit of our constituents, who deserve better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. We have four further speakers. If Members take about six minutes each, we ought to be able to get everybody in, which is my aim.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for leading this debate so well; her speech was a tour de force. I will bear in mind your time limit, Mr Howarth, although I could take the whole 90 minutes to tell the sad tale. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham). The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust is actually responsible for out-of-hours care in Norfolk, so the left hand should be talking to the right hand.
I also thank the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who started work on the issue. It was right for my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, a doctor, to take the lead on such matters in Suffolk, but pushing on, consistent performance from colleagues across the counties in the east of England has brought the issue to the fore.
As I suggest, this is a sad tale that started some time ago. My timelines of the issue start in the middle of 2011. We are driven by the experiences of our patients —those who have suffered. Let us be honest: the vast majority of people in our constituencies have a good ambulance service. Once an ambulance arrives, care is very good; nobody denies that. However, too often that excellence of service is concentrated in certain areas of the region in order to meet a false regional performance target, and almost everything else is put aside. It does not matter if only 50% of people in south Norfolk get an ambulance within 90 minutes as long as the regional target is met. That is all that matters to the leadership and the board of the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
We have had a long series of meetings, Care Quality Commission inspections and promises of change. Transparency has been lacking. The trust has been dragged kicking and screaming into showing its performance targets in a meaningful way—first by county, now at clinical commissioning group level—but that took a long time. It used to say, “You can look in the minutes of your local primary care trust to find response times.” It is unacceptable for those at the very top to say, “Well, that’s all right; we’re hitting our regional target.”
I have used the constituency of the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) to say that if it can happen in Cumbria and Cornwall, it can certainly happen in Norfolk and Suffolk. It is important that the Opposition spokesman does not try to drag party politics into this debate or talk about finances. The issue is about those at the top having wrong priorities and forgetting that every patient matters.
I have never had to call an ambulance in the east of England, or indeed at all, but I like to think that if I did, I could have some confidence that it would arrive in time. In reality, however, there are not enough ambulances and not enough staff. Mr Andrew Morgan recognised that early on when he came into office as interim chief executive. As Dr Marsh pointed out in his excellent report,
“the current leadership from the board just isn’t strong enough to take them forward…there is a lack of focus and grip from the board which has contributed towards the deterioration of performance across the trust.”
Many of the issues breaking open at the moment have been deteriorating for some time. The non-executives have not shown leadership by asking hard questions and going beneath the surface; they have relaxed and considered only the top regional performance target.
I thank our local newspapers, the East Anglian Daily Times and the Eastern Daily Press. Nigel Pickover and Terry Hunt have done good things to keep up the pressure and stand up for their readers, our constituents, who are patients of the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
Dr Coffey
And the Harlow Star, apparently.
In December 2011, we finally got a meeting with the Health Minister and a range of other people around the table who could have fixed the issue. We were promised that there would be change and more focus at county level, and that patients mattered. The postcode data released in November 2011 showed that that had not been the case. We have never been able to get data at that level since then, because the trust does not want to share it with us and, frankly, I am not sure that I should spend all my time on freedom of information requests.
One of the things agreed at that meeting was that contracts would change. That did not happen, which is one issue relating to trust. In October 2012, Hayden Newton resigned. Coincidentally, that was a week after a series of complaints, including about the case of Nora Dennington, whose family finally went to the press to get an answer after three months. To be fair to Maria Ball, the former chairman of the trust, she got answers to those complaints then and there, and within a week, Hayden Newton resigned.
However, Newton was still on the payroll until the end of March 2013, and the chair at the time gave him a glowing tribute, saying that he would be greatly missed and
“a hard act to follow”
and that under his leadership, front-line staff were still being recruited and quality of care had improved. The chair also said:
“Thanks to Hayden’s stewardship, EEAST is now a stable, sustainable and financially sound organisation”.
I am afraid that the Marsh report blows that out of the water.
I could go on about all the different meetings, but I will not, as I am conscious of the time. What I will say is that patients’ complaints were not being answered, and patients were not being treated as individuals. The board should have seen it in the survey and the climb in sickness rates, and the CQC should have done more than tick the box saying that the trust had passed staff compliance on the basis that appraisals had been done. There was an element of external scrutiny by the CQC, the strategic health authority and, to some extent, Monitor, which did not approve the foundation trust status application, but passed the trust on the governance rating. All those different regulators, as well as the leadership of the board, need to look at themselves to understand why they, in effect, let people down. The board was fixated on getting foundation trust status; it was only focused on the regional target, and it did not matter that residents in Suffolk were being failed, as long as the regional target was okay.
Moving forward, my hon. Friends who have spoken are absolutely right: it is imperative that the remaining non-executive directors resign their posts immediately and that the NHS Trust Development Authority acts on that. The ideal solution for me would be to ask Dr Marsh to come in, whether permanently or on an interim basis, to turn around our ambulance trust, because he has the skills to make that happen. I want Dr Harris to succeed; however, it is important that we do not rely on the management speak to which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk referred, but recognise that we need to clean the slate.
There are of course external factors—we need to work with GPs and A and E—but much of the problem is internal, because there were not enough training places or staff. Incidentally, it is right that Whitehall should not seek to control everything, but it is vital that MPs have confidence that the NHS Trust Development Authority will take the matter seriously. Furthermore, CQC needs to be quicker—not to be rash, but not to be tick-box driven. It failed the ambulance trust and, more recently, it decided to withdraw from a meeting with MPs to talk about its reaction to the trust plan issued in April.
I could have spoken for longer, Mr Howarth, and I have spoken for longer than you requested, but I genuinely want to ensure that our patients, constituents and residents can rest assured that we will not stop continuing pursuit of excellence on their behalf, wherever they live in our great part of the country—they deserve nothing but the best. Again, if Cumbria and Cornwall can do it, we can certainly do it in Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire. Frankly, until those non-executive directors go, we will not have confidence in the leadership of the trust to make the difference.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I give my sincerest congratulations to my near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who has led the campaign against the shocking performance of the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
The East of England ambulance service continues to give my constituents and me huge concern. As my hon. Friend said, however, I want to make it clear that those worries are not aimed at front-line staff, for whom I have nothing but admiration, especially the senior staff and the paramedics in Harlow. They do a tough job and give 100% to their work; I am proud that we have such extraordinary people living in Harlow and throughout the east of England. The staff, however, are lions being led by donkeys—that is the truth of the matter, as so brilliantly highlighted by my hon. Friend.
At the end of 2012-13, the East of England ambulance service had failed to reach its targets, whether for category A response times for calls to do with life-threatening situations, the less serious green calls or even the ability to pick up the phone on time. Not only is the trust failing to hit demanding targets, but my post bag is regularly filled with letters from local residents complaining about the service that they have received. I have also had staff contact me to complain that they feel they are offering an inadequate service because of the shocking performance of senior managers.
It is outrageous that when I have raised constituents’ problems with the ambulance service, it has taken an unacceptably long time to respond. For example, I wrote to the trust about a serious case in which one person had, tragically, died. The trust did get back to me and acknowledged that its response was unacceptable, contributing to the man’s death, but it had taken nearly five months to respond to my letter on behalf of the family—that is a disgrace.
We have to see change in three areas: we need better resources, targeted at delivering better patient outcomes; the management system urgently needs restructuring; and we need to show staff that they are valued, increasing their skills, so that they continue to make progress. Only by doing those things can people in Harlow and throughout Essex and the east of England get the treatment that they deserve.
For far too long, I have had residents contacting me about the poor level of service. Nearly all the concerns are focused on delays that their family or friends have suffered when waiting for an ambulance or during the handover time in hospital. A tragic case is that of cyclist Robert Tyler, who died by the roadside in my constituency after waiting 45 minutes for an ambulance, despite being only three minutes away from A and E. Sadly, such anecdotes are borne out by the statistics and, as I said, the trust failed to meet its operational targets last year.
I was glad to receive a letter from Dr Geoffrey Harris that claimed he is starting to see signs of improvement. I hope that is so, but on speaking to a worker from the ambulance service yesterday, it was troubling to hear that they felt that little had improved. The worker made the important point that we need more ambulances on the road, telling me that the rapid response vehicles were only being used to ensure that targets were hit. To deliver the best patient care, according to the worker, rapid response vehicles should be in addition to ambulances, not a replacement for them. That view is held across the trust, with more than 300 staff supporting a move calling on the management to claim the A19 target only when an ambulance arrives.
I was disturbed when a constituent told me about her 97-year-old mother who had fallen, hurt her leg and was unable to stand. The first responder arrived quickly and provided good care, but because no ambulances were available, my constituent was left waiting in pain for eight hours. That is absolutely unacceptable, and the new chairman must look at providing more ambulances, so that we can minimise patient suffering and provide a more efficient service.
When I speak to local staff, time and time again they bring up problems with the management structure and their dissatisfaction with it. Some have pointed to directors whom they hold accountable for the problems in the trust; those directors have not resigned, despite the strong pressure to do so. Dr Marsh’s report, as has been highlighted, is no different: he has made it clear that some trust non-executive directors need to resign. He points to an inability of the board to claim responsibility, a lack of clear vision, too much management and no tangible recruitment plan.
It is good news that the new chairman of the trust has stated that he will be making changes to the board, but I join my hon. Friends in calling for five board members to resign and, if possible, for them to be taken to court to be sued for legal negligence—I wish that could be the case. It is shocking that they have been allowed to continue when their failings have been made so apparent. They have put their people’s lives at risk and they have treated my local residents of Harlow shoddily. The board must be refreshed, replacing those members with people who have a proven track record of driving up standards.
I have heard of other problems from workers and residents. Staff are always praised, but staff morale is the worst of all the ambulance trusts in England—it is chronically low. Staff are embarrassed by how long an ambulance can take to reach patients. Sickness levels are high, with an 8.8% sickness rate—almost double the national average for ambulance trusts in England. Also, there is lack of training, with staff telling me that they feel unsupported; records show that the level of completed training days is abysmally low and last year only 45% of appraisals actually took place.
I am pleased that Dr Harris is making some changes, but action needs to be far quicker. At previous meetings with the trust, it seemed to be suggesting that Government funding was partly to blame, but Dr Marsh’s review blows that excuse out of the water. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witham says, the review found that the trust is funded above the average for ambulance trusts, possibly by several million pounds.
The board must take full responsibility for the problems that have plagued the service over the past few years. Action should be taken, including provision of a proper training programme for existing staff, a coherent recruitment plan to rebalance the staff ratio and direction of resources so that more ambulances are on the roads. I favour the ambulance service being broken up, so that there is an Essex ambulance service, because the East of England service is far too big. Genuinely, with the right management and the right resources, we can deliver some of the best care to my constituents in Harlow, to Essex and throughout the east of England.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
I will call Peter Aldous in a moment and the Opposition spokesman at 10.40 am. If the two remaining speakers before the Front-Bencher take five minutes each, that should just about cover the time.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I will try to keep to your timetable, Mr Howarth, but if I do not, please intervene.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for this debate. In the middle of last year, it hit home to me that there are serious problems with the ambulance service and that they are placing people’s lives at risk. The trickle of complaints became a torrent. When an elderly lady suffered a stroke, the paramedics and rapid response vehicle arrived within 10 or 15 minutes, but the ambulance to take her to hospital did not arrive for another 105 minutes. A gentleman in Lowestoft fell off his bike and it took 90 minutes for the ambulance to arrive from Ipswich, some 45 miles away. A 90-year-old disabled gentleman fell at home when going to bed and his 84-year-old wife was unable to help him. It took four and a half hours for an ambulance to arrive.
Only in December did the ambulance trust agree to carry out a full review of operations, and that was when I spent two evenings with crews working out of the Waveney depot in Gorleston in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). Those evenings left me with three lasting impressions.
First, all the staff I met were dedicated professionals, but they were worn down by the pressures of the job. Their pleas for understanding to the trust’s senior management fell on deaf ears. On those two evenings, we were on the go from the moment we left the depot. There was no time for meals or comfort breaks, and I was told that 12-hour night shifts almost invariably became 13 or 14-hour shifts.
Secondly, it became clear to me that the trust did not have the right balance of vehicles on the road. There were too many cars and not enough ambulances. There is concern that the cars are used to reach patients quickly and to meet targets—effectively acting as clock-stoppers. If an ambulance is then required to take a patient to hospital, there can be a long delay before it arrives, and for a stroke victim that could be very serious.
Thirdly, based on what staff told me, it was clear that the handover delays at district general hospitals are a major reason why the service is not functioning properly. On the two nights when I was out, there were no problems at the James Paget hospital in Gorleston, and I pay tribute to David Hill, its interim chief executive, who will step down shortly. Whenever I am with him at the hospital to discuss the problem, he takes me straight down to A and E to see what the situation is like at that time and to get feedback from staff. His is the hands-on, at-the-coal-face, sleeves-rolled-up management that the trust should replicate.
Although there were not problems at JPH, there were problems at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which is a Bermuda triangle that swallows up ambulances. I do not want to place too much blame at the hospital’s door, but the development of a large hospital, albeit one that provides high-quality services and serves a large rural catchment area, means that a possible weak link is inadvertently created in the health system in Norfolk and Suffolk. It is important that the new management of the ambulance trust work with the Norfolk and Norwich hospital to strengthen that weak link.
Is it any wonder that the management have become so out of touch with their staff and the service they run when they set up their headquarters in a stand-alone, business park location in the middle of the fens? In effect, they are working in a vacuum. Surely they should be close to their operational centres where they can be in day-to-day contact with those who are working on the front line. That isolation may have contributed to their pursuit of foundation trust status when the service they ran was so clearly inadequate for the needs of their patients. They were fiddling while Rome burned.
There has been a failure to work properly with voluntary first-responder groups, which play a key role in working with professional paramedics in more isolated rural areas. Rumburgh in my constituency has a dedicated team of responders with the necessary equipment provided by successful fundraising activities, but it has been unable to work properly because it has been provided with no training, no accreditation and no up-to-date maps.
As to the future, I believe that a corner has been turned, but a lot of work is necessary. The trust’s turnaround plan includes 89 recommendations and there is concern that if they are addressed in a random, scattergun way the new board might achieve nothing. It must focus on the most important issues: patients and staff. Staff are the most important asset in any organisation, and that must be remembered as we go forward.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing it. The national health service includes many people with different callings, and thank goodness for that. Some have a calling to look down microscopes and to do scientific experiments to figure out how to solve the problem of cancer. Some have a calling to work with people with mental health problems and to help them return to stability, productivity and a flourishing life. Some have a calling to help at the roadside those who are in critical danger following dreadful accidents and those of us who are unfortunate enough to face near death. Imagine what it must be like to have that calling, to feel that one’s life purpose and work is to help such people, to have the training of a practitioner in emergency medicine, but to have to hold someone who is dying because an ambulance trust does not work properly and those higher up let down the practitioners. What would be the reaction?
There would come a point when people would say, “I can’t stand this any longer. I can’t stand coming to work and failing people because those above me are failing me.” That is exactly what has happened. It is absolutely clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said when quoting from the Marsh report, that it is not about money. The problem is about leadership and accountability. I will draw out some brief points from that report. It says that
“critical decision making has ceased in some areas. The trust has lost focus of the strategic objectives, which may partly be due to the board not fully understanding the purpose of the business.”
It continues:
The management structure is overly layered and appears heavy…The trust seems to demonstrate limited urgency and pace in moving forward.”
It also states:
“Leadership does not come from Board level”.
What are they doing, and why are they still there after that damning report?
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have spent 12 years studying slow-motion disasters in various areas of Government and I have read many National Audit Office reports across the whole swathe of Government activity and public expenditure, but I have rarely read words as damning as those. Yet the people who are responsible, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said, have so badly failed those whose job it is to serve us and our constituents, are still in post. That is something I cannot understand, and I very much hope that the Minister will address it. If it is not addressed, there will come a point when people will start asking the Department of Health why it has not been addressed, because the matter is so serious.
This did not use to happen. I have been the Member of Parliament for South Norfolk in the east of England for 12 years, and until the last year or two I do not recall people regularly writing to me with complaints about ambulance delays. I do not remember regularly turning up at meetings in the House where there were 15 paramedics talking to the Minister, Earl Howe, facilitated by east of England MPs, because there was no possibility of their having a sensible conversation with the management of their own organisation. This is an extraordinary state of affairs and it requires radical reform.
There is not time in this debate to talk about the wider issues of the NHS culture, but reference has been made to revolving doors and how people lose jobs in one place and gain them in another—I have seen a lot of that myself. In addition there is the issue of confidentiality clauses and the way in which the guidance against using them has been weakened. In 1999, it was stated that confidentiality clauses had no place in NHS contracts; by 2004, it was apparently okay if the guidance was studied carefully.
In the limited time available I want to make a point about size. The ambulance trust in the east of England covers Hertfordshire, which is practically outer London, and Bedfordshire, which is also practically outer London and highly urbanised, as well as places as far away as Cromer in north Norfolk, Great Yarmouth, Southwold in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and Lowestoft in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). It is simply too big, and that is obvious to everyone.
In my rural constituency, ambulances are not just dragged away from the rural areas to Norwich. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is no longer in his place, that it is not just a rural problem; it is a rural and an urban problem. When I find that ambulances are being dragged away to Bedford and Luton, which are one hour 20 minutes, one hour 25 minutes or one hour and 30 minutes from my constituency, I know that something is fundamentally wrong. We must stop thinking so much about economies of scale and start thinking about the economy of flow—removing the blockages that stop things working properly.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship again, Mr Howarth. I intend to be fairly brief, to allow the Minister to answer many of the questions that have been put to her by colleagues. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for securing this debate, which is timely and important, as today’s attendance illustrates.
Along with other Members, the hon. Lady is right to praise the commitment and dedication of front-line staff. Their vocational example illustrates the best of everything that there is to say about the NHS. I am sure that all Members are aware of cases that have arisen through poor ambulance service performance. Members have spoken today, sometimes in shocking detail, about examples of people who deserve better care from this ambulance service, and the debate is needed because of those cases. Indeed, in opening the debate, the hon. Lady said that, right now, lives are being put at risk.
The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust covers more than 7,500 square miles and deals with more than half a million emergency calls a year. That undoubtedly presents challenges, but there can be no excuse for less-than-excellent service. As the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) said, second best is not good enough, and I absolutely endorse that.
Dr Anthony Marsh’s governance review, which was published earlier this month, is deeply worrying. He commented that the trust’s board and senior management team have developed a sense of helplessness. That is exceptionally disturbing, and it needs to be rectified. He has said that internal and external communications need to improve without delay, but furthermore, performance needs to improve.
Comparing December 2011 with December 2012, the average handover time—the time between an ambulance arriving at a hospital and the hospital taking responsibility for the patient—increased by more than three minutes to more than 20 minutes a patient. The number of patients waiting more than 30 minutes increased by 75%, from around 2,000 to more than 3,500. Even more worryingly, the wait for patients does not start there; the number of ambulances responding to the most serious call-outs within eight minutes was fewer than 70%.
Those numbers are shocking enough, but the figure that helps to demonstrate the worst type of patient experience is that, in December 2012, at least one patient waited in the back of an ambulance for more than six-and-a-half hours, and the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) raised an even worse example. It is worrying how only a few numbers can paint such a vivid picture of a service that is clearly not working as it should for the patients who rely on it, and, as has been pointed out repeatedly, who pay for it as well.
I am heartened to learn that the trust recognises that its service has not been acceptable, and I welcome the turnaround plan that was released in late April. I ask the Minister to outline any discussions that she, or the Secretary of State for Health, has had with the trust that informed the plan and its implementation. Will she explain why, when the data that I have just given, as others have freely done today, are so easily accessible, nothing has been done previously to improve performance in the trust? I also ask her to provide the details of all efforts made by the Department to help the trust improve performance, when those began and what the results have been. We are seeing all aspects of emergency care services—whether ambulance trusts or accident and emergency departments—being driven into chaos too often of late. We have just endured the worst winter performance in A and E for years, and the warnings are that next winter’s will be even worse.
It cannot be a coincidence that during December 2012—the month to which my previous figures relate—hospitals in the east of England region missed their A and E target more often than not, and almost one in 10 patients had to wait for more than four hours in A and E before receiving treatment. Pressures in one part of the service can manifest in other places—as has often been said, A and E is the bellwether of NHS performance—and there is clearly a link between poor performance in ambulance services and the pressure so clearly apparent in A and E units around the country. When a patient needs emergency care, they are being made to wait at home, then wait in an ambulance, and then wait in a waiting room. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will offer some explanation for that poor performance. I hope that she will also outline any discussions that she has had with other ambulance trusts to ensure that those failings are not repeated elsewhere in the country.
Moving on to the personnel aspect of Dr Marsh’s report, he raised concerns about the rate of sickness absence in the trust. Alarm bells should be ringing that the level is so much higher than in other trusts. Did the Department of Health become aware of that, and if so, when did it become aware and what was done about it? In April, at the time of Dr Marsh’s governance review, the acting chief, Andrew Morgan, announced plans to recruit 350 staff. He denied a staffing crisis, but admitted that the leadership was not good enough. I think that that is an understatement, given that it was widely reported in May that the trust was offering financial incentives to staff to retire early or to leave the service. The trust spent almost £100,000 on those incentives, and it is now offering staff a £500 bonus if they refer a friend to join the trust. If it needs staff, it should not be offering incentives for staff to leave. What kind of recruitment programme is that, and how does that illustrate protection of the public purse? It is an incredibly worrying demonstration of the lack of communication and oversight within the trust. The position appears to be entirely incoherent.
Dr Marsh’s report put a great deal of emphasis on the existence of a real disconnect within the organisation. As he rightly outlined,
“It is the responsibility of the Board…to ensure the Governance arrangements and the plans for the Trust are appropriate and robust enough to keep risk as low as practicably possible”,
which includes ensuring that
“all patients receive the best treatment in a timely fashion.”
It is crucial that members of the board take responsibility for that and for patient care in a wider context. Has the Minister met the board recently to find a solution to the current organisational and personnel issues that are referred to in Dr Marsh’s report?
I have outlined the poor performance of the trust from only a few key indicators from data that are widely available. The Department needs to be robust in helping to address those issues, and I hope that the Minister gives the assurances that patients need and deserve. In her response, I hope that she tells the Chamber when she expects the problems with this ambulance trust to be resolved; what the Department is doing to assist the trust with its recovery; what additional expenditure, if any, that will require; and whether hospitals that are reliant on the trust can expect any additional support, financial or otherwise, owing to the avoidable operational pressures that the ambulance trust has placed upon them. Can she guarantee that the performance of the trust has not seriously affected clinical outcomes for patients in the local area? Based on today’s evidence, I would find that hard to accept. Can she give an assurance that, once the trust is operating acceptably, the Department will not allow this to happen again? Finally, when will patients in the east of England get the ambulance service that they deserve?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for bringing this matter, quite properly, to Westminster Hall this morning, for giving an excellent speech, and for her outstanding campaign on behalf of her constituents. In simple terms, she seeks to hold the ambulance trust, which clearly has performance figures that are simply unacceptable—they are the lowest in the country—to account. There is a clear feeling of anger—that is no criticism at all; it is based on frustration. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has joined her in this admirable work, and despite raising the issue and notwithstanding all their efforts, they are frustrated and angry because they feel that it has taken many months for the trust to even begin to make some sort of attempt to address the inherent problems that it clearly faces.
Another thing that clearly emerges from the many interventions and excellent speeches by hon. Members this morning is that there is wholesale support, and many tributes, for the staff—the front-line workers. Nobody is for one moment saying that there is any failing on their part. The failing is clear: it is failing at a leadership level and at board level. There is a failing of leadership, which must be addressed as a matter of some urgency.
I only have about 12 minutes to address the many points that have been made, so the usual rules apply: anybody who has asked a question that I am not able to answer in my short speech will, of course, get a written answer. I just want to deal quickly with the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who asked whether the usual rules that apply to non-executives on public limited companies, or on companies that are listed on the stock exchange and so on, apply to non-executives who are appointed to NHS trusts. I must tell him that the rules are not the same; their responsibilities and duties are different. I will provide more detail in a letter to my hon. Friend, but it is not as simple as it is when people are non-executive directors on other bodies, where it could be said there is much more accountability and much more of a duty on them to resign when there have been the sorts of failings that we have heard about today—if that was applied to a business, for example.
Anna Soubry
May I just make one other point? Then I shall be more than happy to give way, although the clock is against me, as my hon. Friend will appreciate.
Here we have another issue that should concern, as I know it does, all hon. Members, on both sides of the House. It is the culture that is now becoming clear. I take the view that it is not a new culture. I suspect that it has been there for many years. It is just that it is now being exposed, often through the admirable work of Members of Parliament and because of the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. That is a mates culture, where people’s priority is to protect their mates, systems and procedures, as opposed to what should be the absolute priority for somebody in the NHS, which is to protect the patient—not their friends and the structures, but the patient—and also, of course, the hard-earned money of the taxpayer.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend will have heard me set out the treatment of Harlow residents. Does she agree with me and with our hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) that the East of England ambulance trust is too big and should be broken up, and that we should restore the Essex ambulance service trust?
Anna Soubry
That is a good point, but it is not for me to say whether it has any merit that should be taken forward. But clearly it is an important point, which must now be considered.
May I quickly pay tribute to all the very helpful interventions from hon. Friends? My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) talked about the buck passing in the NHS and the recycling. We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made an excellent speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal also made an excellent and important speech. There were interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). There were speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow, for North West Norfolk and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon). They all made important and good points.
We know that overall in England in 2012-13 the number of emergency calls to ambulance services was 9.08 million—a 6.9% increase. That is an important figure, I would suggest. We know that overall, in England, the performance figures are stable. That does not really assist in this debate, of course, because we also know that the East of England ambulance trust and, I have to say, my own, the East Midlands ambulance trust, have serious failings and the performance figures are simply not good enough.
The best that I can say of the performance of the East of England ambulance trust is that it has not been good. It is clearly recognised as the lowest-performing ambulance trust in England. As with the national picture, its overall poor performance figures hide huge discrepancies between the services and response times in the urban and rural areas that it covers. There are too many stories—we have heard many today—of patients in distress having to wait hours for ambulances, or solo paramedics being sent when an ambulance is needed. Solo paramedics cannot transport patients and might not, for instance, be able to lift or move a patient unaided. It is simply not good enough.
It is clear to me that some hon. Members and many patients might be forgiven for thinking that the trust seems to have forgotten that it is there to serve all patients and not only tick the performance boxes as far as it can. Concentrating resources in towns and effectively abandoning people in the countryside is simply unacceptable.
Anna Soubry
May I make some progress? Then I will take an intervention. The latest figures, as we have heard, show that the East of England ambulance trust failed to deliver two of the three response time standards. The exception was the performance against Category A Red 1—immediately life threatening—calls, where the 75% standard was achieved, with 75.8% of calls responded to within eight minutes.
Mr Bacon
The phenomenon of people forgetting what they are there for, which my hon. Friend alluded to, is of course what would happen in a mates culture. I have had the feeling for a long time that there has been the growth of what we might call a self-serving nomenclatura that looks after its own interests first. Then I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) on the radio the other day referring to a mafia within the top of the NHS, looking out for their own interests. What I want to know is, as this is a recognised phenomenon—I do not think we are going mad—what is the Department going to do about it?
Anna Soubry
In short, what I will say is that the Secretary of State has made it clear that it is a culture that he will not accept, and that no member of his ministerial team will accept. He is now becoming undoubtedly the champion of the patient. We are seeing that. We saw it last week with the CQC and then of course we saw the change: the names of people who had been put forward in the report were made public and people are now being held to account. We are beginning to see at least a tackling of this culture; we now need to see some results.
Mr Keith Simpson
My hon. Friend has alluded, as have other hon. Friends, to leadership. Is the NHS thinking of positively recruiting from senior retired people from the armed forces, who display leadership and the ability to get people to work together? A brigadier had to sort out BSE over 10 years ago, because nobody in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could.
Anna Soubry
That is an excellent point, extremely well made. I shall certainly take it away and speak to the Secretary of State, because this really is important, but to be fair to the NHS, it does have its own leadership academy, where it seeks to bring on people. That is within the NHS. But I think that we should involve far more people from other fields, who could come into the NHS—people with huge skill sets, who have proved those in other walks of life. I am thinking of, for example, retired judges, who would have an invaluable role to play—people who have shown real leadership and not been afraid to make tough decisions in the right circumstances. All these people should now be being looked at actively to play a role.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she has been very generous. There is a specific issue not just about leadership but about accountability with this trust. Is the Minister able to tell us what is preventing the current non-exec directors from resigning their posts immediately?
Anna Soubry
I know of no reason why they should not. Of course, it is a matter for their own consciences. I am not one who normally shies away from giving an opinion, as my hon. Friend, I hope, would agree, but I think that in this instance it is very important that Ministers do not give an opinion and do not get involved. I think that would be quite improper. It is for those people, or anybody who has come under criticism, to examine their own role and their own conscience and act accordingly.
We might well ask why some ambulance services with comparable funding to the East of England trust—this is not about funding, cuts or money; it is about leadership and poor management—and the same mix of urban and rural areas can provide a good level of service and others cannot. I believe that the ambulance staff will generally be the same in their dedication to caring for patients, so as I said, it is all about effective—or in this case, ineffective—management.
The trust has recently had the benefit of an excellent governance review prepared by Dr Anthony Marsh. I pay public tribute to him and thank him for that. I have referred to it already, as have other hon. Members. It is a clear and professional account, and I will arrange for a copy of it to be placed in the Library. Dr Marsh is, as we know, the chief executive of the West Midlands ambulance service and he chairs the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, so he knows what he is talking about. His report, as we have heard, reveals how poorly the trust has been managed and how the valiant efforts of front-line staff have been undermined. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow described them as “lions led by donkeys”.
Results from the 2012 staff survey for the trust underline that. Only one key finding improved; nine key findings became worse. The East of England ambulance service trust had by far the worst staff survey results of all ambulance trusts in England, with 13 of the lowest scores. Its sickness levels—I think this is a very important statistic; it says it all—are nearly twice the average of those in other trusts. However, I am pleased to say that Dr Marsh will be working closely with the trust over the coming months to ensure that the necessary action is taken, and taken quickly.
The NHS Trust Development Authority—it is called the TDA—provides the line of accountability from local NHS trusts to the Secretary of State for the performance of the organisation. Steps have already been taken to address poor performance. As we know, a new interim chair, Dr Geoff Harris, has been appointed; he took up his post at the end of May. His first task is to review the trust board and ensure that the right people are on it. He needs, if I may say so, to be quick and decisive. To make the necessary changes, the board needs to be fully capable of radically improving its performance. I am fully aware that many hon. Members hold strong views about the role that board members play, and I have made my comments accordingly. The duty of the trust board is to add value to the organisation, enabling it to deliver health care and health improvement within the law and without causing harm. It should do that by providing a framework of good governance.
Earl Howe, as we have heard, is the Minister responsible. He has taken a close interest in the matter and visited the trust at the end of May. He has met hon. Members. He is committed to convening a second meeting towards the end of this year, when we all expect to see real evidence of changes for the better. We will of course continue to monitor the situation closely.
Habitats Directive (Bats and Churches)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of bats in churches and the impact of the EU habitats directive. The House will not be surprised that I wish to do so, given my role as the Second Church Estates Commissioner. At the outset, I want to make it clear that as far as I am concerned, bats are part of God’s creation. Indeed, there are three specific references to bats in the bible: Leviticus, chapter 11, verse 19; Deuteronomy, chapter 14, verse 18; and Isaiah, chapter 2, verse 20. Bats are part of the interdependence of God’s creation, but the numbers of some bat species in the UK are under pressure, which is why the EU habitats directive applies.
Bats are mammals, and one of the things I remember about mammals from my A-level zoology course is that they can be distinguished from other species by seven characteristics, two of which are that mammals defecate and urinate. The blunt reality is that bat faeces and bat urine have the potential to cause and do cause enormous damage in churches. English parish churches and cathedrals have significant holdings of monumental sculpture that date back to medieval England. Bat urine and faeces are extremely damaging to church monuments, as they are to other important artefacts in churches. Bat urine decays to form dilute ammonia, which is alkaline, chemically aggressive and can cause pitting, staining or etching on porous or polished material. Monumental brasses are particularly affected by the urine. It causes corrosion, evidenced in a disfiguring spotted appearance to the surface, as on the brass at the church at Elsing in Norfolk—one of the finest brasses in England.
Sculptured monuments are also being damaged by bat urine and faeces. The small number of medieval wooden effigies that survive in England are susceptible to damage to the pattern of the surface, which has been built up over centuries. Bat urine can also harm precious original paint and other surface finishes on historic monuments. For example, the church of St Peter ad Vincula at South Newington in my constituency has some very fine—almost unique—medieval wall paintings, which were spared by Thomas Cromwell’s men, but having survived the ravages of the Reformation, these irreplaceable parts of our national heritage are now threatened by bat urine. A build-up of bat faeces on the porous surface of monuments, especially marble and alabaster, is also problematic. The excreta hardens and is then subject to moisture, which is common in churches. Bat faeces can cause marked discolouration and other harm. Of course, it is possible for monuments to be protected to an extent by covering them with sheets of plastic, but that is unsightly, prevents them from being seen and enjoyed by the wider public, and can produce a microclimate that leads to other conservation issues.
Importantly, churches are places of worship; they are not field barns. I fully appreciate that one of the challenges for bats is that some of their natural habitat is threatened, but there has to be a balance. Churches are active community centres; indeed, the Church of England is making every effort to ensure that as many churches as possible can be centres for community use and community life, used throughout the week, not just for a few hours on a Sunday. Churches play host to a wide range of events, such as children’s playgroups and lunch clubs for the elderly, for which a domestic level of hygiene is expected.
Large internal roosts of bats have significant financial and human costs to those who worship in church buildings. The cost of cleaning, bat monitoring, delays to building work and bat mitigation measures are significant and must be funded by weekly church collections, at the expense of the other pressing demands of sustaining the church community and church buildings. The amount of monitoring and mitigation required, before even basic repair works can be undertaken, can act as a disincentive to the ongoing maintenance needed to retain a church building in good condition. Such delays are not only costly, but disheartening for church congregations and communities, who work hard to keep church buildings alive and fit for community use. Many of the churches affected by bat infestation are approaching a situation where their buildings may be unsustainable as places of worship. It is sometimes said that excluding bats from churches will render the bats homeless, but there is every chance that church congregations will find themselves homeless and without a place of worship, with listed buildings left unoccupied. That solution is surely undesirable for both bats and people.
The costs are not insignificant. St Hilda’s, Ellerburn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has so far spent some £29,000 on mitigation repairs. Another typical example is St Andrew’s church in Holme Hale, Norfolk, which was forced to spend £2,600 in a single year on cleaning costs to clear up after its resident bats. The mitigation work associated with church repairs over three years for just one architect—just one architect!—totalled £57,000.
The situation is summed up in a letter sent to me after I had an exchange in the House with my hon. Friend the Minister. I posed the question:
“Do Ministers consider it acceptable that a number of historic English churches are being made unusable as a consequence of bat faeces and that mediaeval wall paintings and other historic monuments are being irretrievably damaged as a consequence of bat urine? Churches are not farm barns. They are places of worship and should be respected as such.”
The Minister responded:
“I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and share his intense frustration. I am glad to say that we are moving forward with one church in Yorkshire, where we think we may have found a resolution, and some churches in Norfolk. It cannot have ever been the intention of those who imposed this directive on us to limit the ability of people to worship in a church that has been there for centuries.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 1112.]
That exchange prompted a number of people to get in touch with me, including Mr Thompson from East Keal in Lincolnshire, who wrote:
“My local Church is St Helen’s Church, East Keal, and we like so many Churches have problems with bats. The pews have become damaged and the organ pitted with their urine and droppings. We are lucky in so far as we have a dedicated team who clean the Church weekly. The Church goes back to 1067. Recently we had the Tower blocked to keep the birds out. We however were required to make slots convenient to the bats to come into the Church. Having the bats means any work to be carried out on the roof can only be carried out during a small timescale. We now need a new roof and are trying to get a grant from English Heritage. We are trying to get a toilet and kitchen but in the interests of Health & Safety, we should be looking to have bats removed from the Churches.”
We will all have enormous sympathy with the congregation and the community of East Keal in Lincolnshire who are confronted with those challenges.
What are the policy issues here? Bats are a European protected species under the habitats directive 1994. In most circumstances, it is a criminal offence to disturb bats or to damage or destroy their breeding site or resting place deliberately. The criminal offence in English law, with a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment, is provided by regulation 41(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Natural England has the power to grant a licence, the effect of which is that bats can be deliberately disturbed, or their breeding sites and resting places damaged or destroyed, without its being a criminal office. The existence of such a licence constitutes a defence to the criminal charge. There are four possible grounds on which Natural England can issue a licence. For the purposes of
“preventing serious damage to...property”,
a licence can be granted under regulation 53(2)(g). I would have thought that if bats were fouling a church, or otherwise making it, or parts of it, unusable, that would constitute “serious damage” to property.
I cannot see why a licence cannot be issued if it is for the purposes of preserving public health. A licence can be granted under regulation 53(2)(e) on such grounds, and if it can be shown that the use of a church, and the public health of the congregation and the general public, have been damaged by bats, it should be possible for Natural England to grant a licence.
There is also provision for granting a licence, if there are
“imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and…of primary importance to the environment”.
In such circumstances a licence can be granted under regulation 53(2)(e). I would have thought that being able to use a church as a church, and being able to have churches not only as places of worship but increasingly for use by the wider community, was a matter of overriding public interest and importance. Moreover, as far as the second part of the test is concerned, when one has regard to grade I or grade II* listed churches, the removal of bats will make possible the preservation and enhancement of a listed building, which is of particular importance to the higher grades of such buildings, and to our national heritage.
I appreciate that Natural England cannot grant a licence under regulation 53(2) unless it is satisfied of two further matters. The first is that there is no satisfactory alternative under regulation 53(9)(a), but I cannot see that being a problem. Obliging churches and church congregations and communities to co-exist with bats is plainly not a “satisfactory alternative”.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am finding the debate very interesting. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many churches do co-exist with bats? Is he aware of the work of the Bat Conservation Trust and its national bat helpline, in helping churches to adapt to having a bat population? I appreciate that protecting both historical buildings and a protected species is difficult, but the trust does some good work.
Sir Tony Baldry
This debate would not be necessary, and I would not be detaining the House by raising the issue, if it had been possible to sort out satisfactory bat mitigation measures. If the hon. Lady would like to visit with me some of the congregations and communities whose lives have been made difficult and whose churches have been made unusable as a consequence of bats, I will most certainly arrange that.
The Bat Conservation Trust has singularly failed to solve the problem as, in my judgment, has Natural England, and that is why it has been necessary to raise the issue and to continue to press the Minister to find a solution. Only this week European Union Heads of Government were giving thought as to how to protect freedom of religion within the EU, and I cannot believe that the European Commission and the Commissioner would want a situation in which it was not possible for congregations to worship in churches that go back to the time of the Conqueror, because of bat infestations.
The second matter to which Natural England must have regard to grant a licence is that, under regulation 53(9)(b), the interference with the bats
“will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range”.
Again, unless the bats were of a particularly endangered species—for example, Greater Horseshoe bats—it is difficult to see how that provision could cause a problem to Natural England. For far too many churches and communities it seems to be taking far too long to achieve the reasonable mitigation or exclusion of bats, with practical difficulties and expense involved in seeking permission and getting licences, without any guarantee as to the outcome. I cannot believe that if I were to get in touch with the EU Commissioner they would consider it appropriate that churches were being treated in that way. There needs to be a significant reduction in the costs, along with a simplified process for securing a licence from Natural England.
As I have already indicated, mitigation work associated with church repairs over three years for just one architect in one church totalled £57,000 and, prosaically, a replacement of a broken window quarry with a lead back-flap cost £140 rather than the £5 it would have cost for plain glass, which is the equivalent of four weeks’ collection in the rural parish church of Wiggenhall St Germans. At the moment, the expense of getting a licence is prohibitive and, as a consequence, the law is inoperable.
I wish to make it clear that this is not simply a matter of aesthetics, of ancient monuments, irreplaceable pictures and wall paintings being damaged. A paper published by the Royal Society earlier this year entitled “A comparison of bats and rodents as reservoirs of zoonotic viruses: are bats special?” was unambiguous. The abstract states:
“Bats are the natural reservoirs of a number of high-impact viral zoonoses. We present a quantitative analysis to address the hypothesis that bats are unique in their propensity to host zoonotic viruses based on a comparison with rodents, another important host order. We found that bats indeed host more zoonotic viruses per species than rodents, and we identified life-history and ecological factors that promote zoonotic viral richness. More zoonotic viruses are hosted by species whose distributions overlap with a greater number of other species in the same taxonomic order…Specifically in bats, there was evidence for increased zoonotic viral richness in species with smaller litters…greater longevity and more litters per year. Furthermore, our results point to a new hypothesis to explain in part why bats host more zoonotic viruses per species: the stronger effect of sympatry in bats and more viruses shared between bat species suggest that interspecific transmission is more prevalent among bats than among rodents.”
The potential for bats to spread disease is of significant importance to churches that provide food and drink in their buildings, and have old people’s and children’s and toddlers’ groups. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is as anxious as we all are for a solution to be found. This is a serious problem; it is not a joke. The issue is getting more difficult, more frustrating and more challenging for more communities all the time, and we look to the Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come forward with practical proposals to ensure that churches and communities can worship and flourish unimpeded by bats.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry)for raising this important issue. It is always a pleasure to see him, but I was dismayed that not long ago he had to bring yet another delegation to my office—a Trollopian group of senior clerics and others—to talk about the problem yet again. I would have hoped it unnecessary to have this debate, but I recognise that the problem persists, and I hope to be able to reassure him that we are tackling it.
The simple way to look at the issue is to say, “We can interpret the regulations how we like, and if the European Union doesn’t like that, we will see it in court,” but that is not a sensible approach to such directives, as my hon. Friend well knows from his experience in my Department. The alternative is to seek to change the directive and its implications for churches and other places of worship. That approach may have merit, but it is a longer-term route down which we need to go in a proportionate way because, as I will go on to say, we should be mindful of the species that we are discussing and the serious declines that they have suffered. The third way is to seek to find a solution within the framework of the directive, but one that is quick and effective, and I hope to give him some comfort about that in the remaining minutes.
I stand by every word that I said in reply to my hon. Friend’s question in the House. It is clearly not acceptable that people’s rights to worship in buildings that were consecrated many centuries ago and are used for that purpose should be affected in such a way. Equally, it is not acceptable that priceless artefacts or the furnishings necessary for a church to function as a place of worship should be damaged or put at risk. He clearly outlined that that is happening in many churches because of the presence and impact of bats.
The way in which I look at churches has changed since the problem was brought to my attention. My mind now occasionally strays from the sermon, and I look up to see the impact that bats may be having in my church or elsewhere. In the vast majority of places of worship, it is managed perfectly well: either the quantity of bats is small or the species does not affect the premises, or the bats are properly dealt with by those who manage the building, but in all too many cases there is a serious problem. My hon. Friend is right to raise a problem that causes great distress to people who value places of worship not just for their heritage and religious importance, but for what they do for their communities.
Like my hon. Friend, I support bat conservation. As he said, bats are another of God’s creatures and are part of our natural heritage: 17 species of bat are resident and breed in the UK. I want to say a few words to put into context the protection that they enjoy before I turn to the specific issue of bats in churches. Until very recently, the number of bats in this country had suffered a dramatic decline, most notably because of changes to habitats, such as the loss of many of our hedgerows in the last century and the destruction or refurbishment of many traditional buildings. Those changes, particularly the loss or alteration of other old buildings, have resulted in bats increasingly making use of and seeking refuge in some older churches. In turn, those buildings have in some cases probably become more important to the survival of bats.
Although the presence of small numbers of bats in churches rarely causes any problem, larger numbers certainly can result in intolerable problems in some churches. Given the reduction in the number of bats and the threats that they face, all species of bat have been listed in the EU habitats directive, but as my hon. Friend said, there are a number of derogations from otherwise prohibited actions, including activities that cover public health and safety or the prevention of serious damage to property. Natural England is the licensing authority for such cases in England.
One or both of those tests would clearly seem to be met in the circumstances that we are discussing, but the directive and our implementing regulations require some checks and balances to ensure that harmful or unnecessary actions are not permitted, such as that the action must not negatively affect the conservation status of the species and that there are no alternatives to the actions proposed. Although many people may agree with my hon. Friend’s points about the likelihood of bats finding alternative roost sites and, indeed, about the unacceptability of the alternative of doing nothing, the tests are not easy to meet, as is clear from some European Court cases. Frustrating though that is, it is a fact.
As my hon. Friend and I have inferred, the problem may be that some affected populations are the rarest and are in locations of particular importance to the species. Like him, however, I simply do not believe that those who drafted the habitats directive intended to render places of worship unusable to congregations or to impose unreasonable financial burdens on them. That cannot have been the purpose of the directive, and we must find a way round it.
It is clear that the granting of permission—for example, to destroy a bat maternity roost by blocking access to it—might result in challenge and delay. Nobody, least of all parishioners, wants a long drawn-out debate; they want solutions. To achieve solutions and resolution to such intolerable problems sooner rather than later, we are taking action on two fronts. First, we are making sure that the guidance offered by Natural England and the national bat helpline is clear, proportionate and unambiguous. Secondly, we are undertaking specific actions at several churches to find means of moving bats away from sensitive areas.
Unfortunately, there are examples of costs and delays occurring, as my hon. Friend has mentioned. For that reason, I have asked Natural England to look again at the guidance that it provides to churches about the sort of operations that can take place without a licence or a bat survey. The figure that he mentioned of the cost to a small rural church is intolerable: the process has to be quicker and cheaper, which I am doing everything I can to ensure.
To make sure that unnecessary costs are not incurred, I have asked Natural England to provide guidance on the nature of surveys that may be required or the sort of actions to prevent impacts on bats. I believe that many problems come not from Government agencies, but organisations such as building companies or architects who say, “Oh, you need to do this,” or “You will get into trouble if you don’t do that.” We need to get to those people as well, because they advise church wardens and others about what they can and cannot do. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is required.
I have also asked Natural England to look into reports of over-zealous advice being given to churches. It has assured me that it will investigate any such instances. I rely on my hon. Friend, in his position as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, to keep me informed of the dafter stories.
Better guidance will go a long way to minimising the impact of bats on most churches, but as we have heard, large populations of bats cause serious concerns in too many churches. In those cases, dealing with them is not just an expensive chore; they can make the church unusable at the worst times. That cannot continue, so we are funding research to find ways to move bats to less sensitive areas of churches.
In a two-and-a-half year project, a team led by Bristol university is investigating the combined use of deterrents and alternative roosting sites, such as bat boxes, to encourage bats to move away from sensitive areas in churches. The study, which is taking place in eight Norfolk churches, began in 2011, and the project trialled the use of three types of deterrent—lighting, acoustic and radar—last year. For those who think that we can just block bats out of churches, that is more difficult than they possibly imagine. Many of the buildings are mediaeval and have more ways in than we can imagine.
The most dramatic effects were found when using 500 W halogen lamps: the bats simply refused to come out of their roosts. That solves one problem, but it might create another by entombing the bats, possibly resulting in the presence of rotting carcases within the infrastructure of a church. Therefore, the Bristol university team will trial smarter uses of lighting this year to see whether such a relatively cheap method could be used effectively by churches.
Based on last year’s results, acoustic devices appear to present the best hope for a solution. To date, those devices have been used only for short periods, but they were effective in moving the bats from their maternity roosts to other parts of churches and, in some cases, in moving them out of churches. This year, acoustic devices will be used for longer periods to prove, I hope, that the bats do not habituate or get used to the devices and simply start to ignore them.
At the same time, Bristol university has initiated work to explore the use of a prototype acoustic device that would be portable and cheaper to use. I am hopeful that extended trials this year, together with the production of portable devices, will finally produce a permanent solution to the problems that many churches have had to put up with. I look forward to seeing the results of the work at the end of this year and to sharing those results with my hon. Friend and the Church. Those deterrents may not, however, provide solutions for all churches.
I conclude by mentioning one situation that my hon. Friend raised—that of St Hilda’s, Ellerburn, in North Yorkshire. St Hilda’s is a single vestibule building, and in such a case there is simply no possibility of moving bats to a less sensitive area. To resolve the problem there, Natural England has let a contract to gain the necessary evidence to enable the complete exclusion of bats from the church. It was hoped that the exclusion would occur before the bats begin to arrive in a week or two’s time, to avoid entombing the young bats. If, because of the unpredictable weather, insufficient data were gathered before the summer to support an exclusion at St Hilda’s, work will continue over the summer to ensure that there is enough information to reach an absolutely clear resolution of the problem in that church.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to outline a problem that I am absolutely determined to resolve. I really respect my hon. Friend for how he introduced the debate, and for his work to resolve this problem.
Royal Mail
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Davies, to see you in the Chair and to have secured this debate on the privatisation of Royal Mail. I should declare an interest here. I am chair of the Communication Workers Union’s parliamentary group. Members may well be aware that only last week in a consultative ballot on Royal Mail 96% of CWU members voted to reject the Government’s proposals in relation to privatisation. Other organisations such as the National Federation of SubPostmasters have also expressed concerns about the Government’s plans and have called for a delay in the proposals. It says that post offices will face an “extremely uncertain future” should the proposals go ahead. Given the concern in the industry about the Government’s plans, Parliament should have the time and the opportunity to debate such issues.
In addition to the concerns that I have just outlined in relation to post offices, the affordable six-day service is under threat and would be less secure if Royal Mail is transferred into private ownership. The Government claim that the universal service is enshrined in law, but many aspects of the universal service obligation are set by the regulator and can be easily changed. The track record of the regulator to date does not inspire confidence. The regulator has recently consulted on user needs from the universal service. It looked at ways in which the universal service could be changed to make it cheaper to run, including getting rid of first-class mail and therefore next-day service, reducing quality standards and cutting delivery days from six to five days each week. The regulator stepped back from making any changes, but a privatised Royal Mail under severe pressure to compete and to generate a return for shareholders is likely to lobby for such changes.
In the coalition agreement, the Government said that they would aim to inject private capital into Royal Mail. The Postal Services Act 2011, which was passed by Parliament in the last parliamentary session, enables the Government to proceed with the sell-off of the 497-year-old postal service.
In January 2012, during the passage of the 2011 Bill, I secured a debate on the privatisation of Royal Mail that focused on the impact that privatisation might have on the post office network.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am sure that, later on, my hon. Friend will touch on the matter of the remote areas of this country, such as Cornwall, Devon and the isles in Scotland. Under the proposals, many people will not get regular mail and will therefore feel cut off, especially when it comes to receiving giro cheques and other such things and communicating with their families.
Katy Clark
As my hon. Friend will be aware, I represent a constituency which has, as well as many deprived areas, rural and island communities. I am aware of the concern in such areas over the implications of privatisation should it go ahead.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Although this proposal is an opportunity, it also has some costs. My concern is that rural and island areas such as mine would face problems. Is it the case that keeping the service with Ofcom provides a guarantee and means that there will be no change?
Katy Clark
I hope to explore some of those issues in today’s debate. The fear is that the current regime, which was set up under the 2011 Act, will not give the kind of security that many of us feel is required.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for being so gracious in giving way and congratulate her on securing this debate. The fact that so many Members are here indicates the interest in the matter across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Is she aware that the annual profit of Royal Mail has risen by up to 60% in the past year, which shows that we now have a more viable and stable business? Does she also think that, perhaps for older people in rural areas, the post office represents more than just a place to go to buy their postage stamps and that the impact on them will be greater than on anyone else in the population?
Katy Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, which I hope to explore in my speech. The point that I was making 18 months ago when I previously secured a debate on this issue was that no other country in the world has attempted to do what the Government are doing here, which is to separate the mail service from the post office network. At that time, a great deal of the concern over the proposed privatisation related to the already vulnerable post office network. At the time, there were many warm words from the Government about how post offices would not suffer as they would become the front of house for the Government. Indeed, the Government said in that debate that they were looking at a range of both national and local government services that post offices could provide. They said that post offices could act as the front line for users in local communities.
One of the major reasons why the National Federation of SubPostmasters is now saying that there should be an immediate delay in the privatisation plans is that the Government have failed to deliver on that promise. Its concern is that post offices remain highly dependent on Royal Mail transactions. It says that both post offices and a stand-alone Post Office Ltd would have a highly uncertain future should privatisation of Royal Mail go ahead.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Integral to the whole postal and Royal Mail industry is the cross-subsidy, which is justified because the industry is, at least in part, a public service; it is not just a commercial service. Does she agree that if it is a public service and there is cross-subsidy, it does not fit with the private sector?
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
May I add an additional factor? My hon. Friend and I are on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and last week, we took evidence from Royal Mail on the impact of the independence referendum, which is due to take place after the timetable for privatisation. The representative was unable to provide any scenario planning by Royal Mail should the referendum result be a positive one for independence, or to tell us what the consequences would be for Royal Mail. Does she not agree that that was utterly astonishing?
Katy Clark
I thank my hon. Friend, who serves with me on the BIS Committee. I was also astonished by that fact. There are specific issues for Scotland, given its demographics and its large rural areas. My fear is that if Royal Mail was allowed to be privatised, the consequences in Scotland would be particularly harsh.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has been generous with her time. I agree with the points that were made earlier about the separation and atomisation of the whole post office network between post offices and mail delivery. Is she aware that those of us who are fighting to defend our post offices, such as the one in the Holloway road in my constituency, are told that the solution is to hand it over to a supermarket, get rid of the staff and bring in staff on lower wages who will share what is already a very busy post office with the supermarket. The proposals are nonsense and are claiming all kinds of losses that I do not think exist to justify privatisation of a valuable public service.
Katy Clark
My hon. Friend clearly expresses the risks that exist in city as well as rural areas.
Before I move on to the next part of my speech, I call on the Minister to outline what work has been done to date to provide more Government work to the post office network and to say what work is in progress and will be completed prior to privatisation going ahead.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. However, will she not acknowledge that under the previous Government many post offices were closed with inadequate consultation? In my constituency, we saw several closures. At least under this Government there has been an end to those closures. Also, contrary to what the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, in my constituency we are working with some very good supermarkets to bring back a post office counter service that will deliver 95% of what a traditional post office would have delivered, and surely that is a benefit.
Katy Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. Of course, I served with her on the BIS Committee for a considerable period. Clearly, she is making a party political intervention. Unfortunately, we are still seeing post offices closing as a result of the vulnerable situation that they are in, and we must not be complacent. We need to ensure that we put in place a framework whereby the Post Office is able to survive and our mail services can operate in such a way that they have a long-term future.
Katy Clark
I will take one more intervention, from the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).
Mr Weir
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and she is quite right that some post offices are still closing. However, many other post offices are suffering from having to offer reduced services, because they are being moved on to the Post Office Local model, and in some cases the Post Office is approaching local postmasters and asking them if they want to change or retire and consequently downgrading the service.
Katy Clark
The hon. Gentleman puts his point well. I will now move on to discuss some of the issues relating to Royal Mail itself, because I think that we have fully explored some of the challenges that the post office service will face if this privatisation goes ahead.
Since the legislation was passed, the Government have taken a considerable number of steps to prepare Royal Mail for privatisation. Royal Mail Holdings Ltd, as it is now known, is currently a 100% publicly owned UK-wide company, which was established as a sister company to the Post Office. This restructuring took place as part of the preparation for privatisation. A legal framework has been created that makes Royal Mail responsible for the collection, sorting and delivery of letters and parcels under a universal service obligation. The Government have indicated that they intend to sell shares in Royal Mail in the financial year 2013-14. Indeed, in a written statement in April, the Minister said that the Government would proceed with the sale of shares at what he called a fair commercial price.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. Earlier, she made a compelling case about who stands to lose from the Government’s sell-off of Royal Mail, but I am pleased that she has turned her attention to who stands to gain from it. Does she share my concern that the Government are refusing to answer questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) about the involvement of Goldman Sachs and UBS, and that—despite repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act—they will not reveal the fees that Goldman Sachs and UBS stand to make from the sale of Royal Mail?
Katy Clark
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, that was one of the questions that I was going to ask the Minister, and she has saved me from putting it to the Minister in my speech. I very much hope that he will address that issue when he responds to this debate.
In the Minister’s letter to all MPs dated 17 May, which enclosed a copy of a speech that he had made to the Policy Exchange, he stated that the Government’s policy was not ideological and a number of assurances were given to MPs. It would be useful if he could provide the House today with a great deal more information about what the Government plan to do and how many shares they will sell off.
Royal Mail is unique in the UK postal market in that it is the only universal service provider. The 2011 Act has enabled a regulatory framework to be created, so that persons are automatically entitled to provide postal services provided that they notify Ofcom and comply with the conditions set by that organisation. This is a serious threat to Royal Mail, as competitors are now entering the end-to-end market.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate her on securing this very important debate. I am sorry that I missed the early part of her speech. Does she agree that the current approach is really about privatising profitability but nationalising debt—in other words, corporatism?
Katy Clark
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, the profits currently being made by Royal Mail have already been highlighted in an earlier intervention.
Many MPs will be very aware of some of Royal Mail’s competitors, such as TNT, which for many years have had a role in the postal market through what have been called downstream access contracts. Of course, many MPs will be aware of that from their annual visits to post offices at Christmas, where they will have heard of the frustration of those who work in sorting offices at having to deliver items for TNT and other organisations for what is called “the last mile” or so, and at a financial loss to Royal Mail. There is a very strong view that this practice is unfair and that it is unreasonable to expect Royal Mail to carry out that work at such a loss-making rate. My experience of meeting delivery staff working for Royal Mail is that they have a very high level of public service ethos and wish to see the highest possible standards in service to the public. There was real frustration that Royal Mail was being forced to operate with its hands tied behind its back in this way.
Now, however, TNT is also being allowed into the end-to-end market. TNT has set up a delivery service in west and central London, and it recently announced the extension of that service to south-west London. Of course, TNT is able to win business because it can choose where, when and what to deliver, without the quality of service standards and by undercutting the jobs, pay and conditions of other postal workers.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I hope that she will get some response from the Minister. However, I must say to her that it is not only in rural areas that we are concerned about the loss of what is the universal standard; it is also in urban areas. We could be facing the prospect of just one or two deliveries a week—far fewer deliveries than at the moment under the present certainties that we have.
Katy Clark
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
It may well be possible for TNT to provide a service by undercutting in places such as London. However, it is highly unlikely that they would ever be able, or willing, to provide a similar service in areas such as North Ayrshire and Arran, or indeed in many other parts of the country. The TNT model of competition means cutting costs at the expense of decent jobs. TNT employs staff on zero-hours contracts at below-living wage standards. In London, I understand that TNT pays £7.10 per hour, which is £1.45 below the living wage. I am also advised that TNT over-hire staff to ensure that there are more than enough people to do the job every day, so that each day workers on zero-hours contracts are turned away.
Kelvin Hopkins
On this question of TNT and other private deliverers, they openly admit that what they provide themselves is the local deliveries, which are cheap, and anything that is long-distance they throw to the Royal Mail.
Katy Clark
The Government claim that Ofcom will regulate entrants into the postal services market, but there has been no attempt to prevent TNT cherry-picking in this way or to regulate the use of zero-hours contracts and other poor contractual conditions.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. Does she agree that probably the first thing that the private sector would cut from the Royal Mail service is our unique Saturday delivery?
Katy Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend that that is indeed something that many people are fearful of.
Frankly, I say to the Minister that it is completely unacceptable to proceed to develop our postal services in this country in the way that TNT is operating at this time. We all know from our own experiences that if we allow sectors to offer poor conditions and poverty pay then it is the state and society as a whole that end up paying the price by subsidising bad employers. If the Minister is saying that his policy is not ideological, surely he must accept that allowing operators to come into the market in this way is highly damaging, both to the universal service obligation and to the public sector employer, which takes people on with better terms and conditions of employment. This cherry-picking of work is undermining the Royal Mail service and the universal service obligation.
If a privatised Royal Mail were to operate in a similar way, which we can only presume it would given that its main motive as a private company would be to maximise profits for its shareholders, then we can only expect it to try to cherry-pick, given that it has to compete with the TNTs of this world. This is incredibly bad news for our mail service.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Another thing to consider is the pension fund and its future, particularly regarding effects on Royal Mail employees. A reasonable pension fund will be a magnet for a lot of asset strippers.
Katy Clark
The fact that the Government have taken over responsibility for the pension fund has made Royal Mail a far more attractive prospect to anyone who wants to buy shares. I believe that that was why the Government decided to go ahead in that way.
In the run-up to privatisation, price controls have been removed from the cost of stamps. The cost of first-class stamps increased from 46p to 60p in April 2012, and second-class stamps have gone up 36p to 50p, although there is a 55p cap on the cost of those. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, of which I am a member, expressed concern, in our report on stamp prices, about the impact that this will have on vulnerable customers.
On 29 May, the Government announced the appointment of advisers to the Government for the sale of Royal Mail. We understand that they are working on a flotation with a value close to £3 billion. This will be the largest privatisation in the UK since the railways in the 1980s. However, the Government have not specified what the form of that sale will be, whether an initial public offering or a sale to private equity, although they have said that an initial public offering is their preference. Will the Minister give an update to the House on the Government’s thinking on this aspect?
The Minister took the unusual step of saying that Royal Mail may be sold to a foreign buyer if the communication workers continue with their campaign against privatisation. Can the Minister say when a decision will be taken as to what the form of a sale will be?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) highlighted, there has been a great deal of concern about the costs associated with privatisation, which are likely to be huge. Barclays, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and UBS have been employed to work on the sale. It is believed that the banks alone will receive £30 million in fees. No detail has been provided to the House. Will the Minister outline in detail all costs that will be incurred by the taxpayer in the process of this privatisation, and undertake to ensure that all costings are put into the public domain?
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She said that the Minister said that Royal Mail could end up being sold to foreign companies. Is that not the case, because as we have seen with railway privatisation this week, 64% of what was British Rail is now owned by foreign companies? Does the Minister, and does my hon. Friend, think that the public in this country are aware that our Royal Mail could be owned by foreign companies?
Katy Clark
My hon. Friend is well aware that many parts of the public sector that have been taken into private hands have ended up being owned by both private people abroad and by foreign countries. That is not in the public interest.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I apologise because other business in the House detained me, although I know that my hon. Friend’s speech will have been excellent so far. I congratulate her on securing this debate. Does she agree that there is also quite a strong possibility—indeed, a probability—that because of Royal Mail’s land assets and buildings, often in central locations in our cities, we could end up seeing the complete dismantling of what we currently know as the Royal Mail, with bits being sold off, left, right and centre?
Katy Clark
My hon. Friend highlights a real threat.
The original Hooper report in 2008 identified a number of issues with Royal Mail that needed to be addressed, many of which have now been dealt with. We have already heard that the Government have taken over the pensions deficit and that regulation has been put in place. The Government’s case now seems to be based on the need for capital. However, Royal Mail is doing well in the public sector and, contrary to the Government’s claim, there does not seem to be any good reason why Royal Mail should not be able to borrow the capital it needs to invest, while remaining in the public sector.
We have heard that Royal Mail’s operating profits increased from £152 million in 2012 to £403 million in the last year. The state aid approval that enabled the Government to take on the pension deficit also gives them authority to write off almost £1 billion of Royal Mail’s debt, as £1.1 billion was allowed and only £150 million has been used so far.
Any revenue from the privatisation would go to the Treasury, not the company. If the Government believe that Royal Mail will be strong enough to borrow in the private sector, why do they not believe it will be strong enough to borrow in public hands? Network Rail, for example, is to all intents a public company, but it has borrowed more than £30 billion from private markets. This borrowing does not count towards public debt.
I have asked the Government today to confirm how many shares they intend to sell off. For example, should only 50% of the shares be sold, does the Minister believe that Royal Mail could borrow from the private sector, or does he believe that all the shares need to be sold off to do that?
The service to the public is severely put at risk by a privatised Royal Mail. No doubt, the Minister in response will explain the protections of the inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and the Post Office. However, he will also be aware that there are few safeguards to ensure that that agreement is not watered down significantly a few years down the road. The Government may say that this proposed privatisation is not ideological, but given the risks of proceeding down this path, surely the Minister must accept that it cannot be in the interests of the public for this privatisation to take place at this time.
I ask the Government to answer a number of questions. Will they explain whether the legal requirement for the provision of universal service is a UK-wide obligation or could it be met in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland alone? How frequently will Ofcom, the regulator, be required to carry out a review of the universal service requirement, to ensure it reflects the reasonable needs of postal service users? Will Ofcom be required to seek the Minister’s approval before it can carry out a review of the universal service requirement?
Will prospective purchasers be allowed to divest Royal Mail of its international parcels business, General Logistics Systems? Will Royal Mail purchasers be allowed to divest the business of the postcode address file? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the universal service is protected following privatisation? What steps are the Government taking now to publish the terms of the sale of Royal Mail and how they intend to proceed, so that Parliament can give proper scrutiny to what is going to happen in the next few months?
Several hon. Members rose—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. At least seven hon. Members wish to catch my eye. I intend to go to the shadow Minister no later than 3.40 pm. I shall not impose a formal time limit at the moment. I ask hon. Members to be considerate to each other, which will mean about five minutes each, as a guideline. If they can keep to that, that will help everyone get a fair crack of the whip.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this important debate.
As the hon. Lady says, Royal Mail is an essential part of Britain’s social and economic fabric. One of the UK’s largest companies, it has more than 150,000 employees and a turnover approaching £9 billion. In 2012, research from the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that, in terms of Royal Mail’s economic footprint, its core UK business ranks as the eighth largest organisation in the UK. It contributes nearly 0.5% to the UK’s total GDP, rising to 0.7% when its wider economic impacts are included. That means that, for every £1 Royal Mail pays in wages, an additional 57p is generated elsewhere in the economy; it is a massive organisation by anyone’s standards, and one that is operating in a fast-moving and ever-changing marketplace. Like any business of that scale, the key to Royal Mail’s future success is access to the flexible capital that it needs to innovate and invest.
My first real involvement with Royal Mail came back in the ’90s, when I was running my own small business. In the days before e-mail, as I am sure everyone recalls, we had a daily collection for franked mail, through which we sent out all our mailshots, quotes, artwork and invoices, as well as the products that we manufactured. Now, all those things, other than the products themselves, are sent electronically. My business, like many others, has seen a massive fall in its use of the post. Conversely, of course, there are other small businesses across the UK for which the internet has been the catalyst for a massive increase in their use of Royal Mail, with the growth of online shopping, eBay and mail order.
On average, the spend on post by small businesses is quite low—just £9 a month for the average micro-business. Royal Mail has always kept the needs of business customers at its heart, as far as I can tell. Prices of franking services used by businesses have lagged behind inflation for many years and continue to do so. Franking customers benefit from good prices and significant discounts, but even so, as the hon. Lady said, the marketplace is increasingly competitive. Many large businesses, such as banks and utility companies, already employ one of Royal Mail’s rivals, such as TNT and UK Mail, to collect bulk mail. According to its website, UK Mail is the UK’s self-styled leading alternative mail service provider and claims to handle more than 2 billion letters per annum and to support more than 1,000 businesses. To survive in the face of such competition, Royal Mail needs flexibility to act in the most businesslike way possible.
I was also on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s visit to Glasgow, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) mentioned a moment ago, and I was struck by how unbusinesslike the Royal Mail’s spokesperson was in his approach to potential Scottish independence. I found that shocking. Royal Mail must act in a more businesslike way, and it needs to improve its efficiency to invest and innovate, which means that it needs access to the capital that other large companies enjoy so that it is sustainable over the long term.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is accurately outlining the change in the business climate in how often small businesses use the post, but she is also outlining Royal Mail’s need to be adaptable. Does she understand that, as we have already heard, Royal Mail’s profit in the past 18 months has increased considerably in the face of all that she has just outlined? It is in the public domain that Royal Mail is earning a significant profit, which should continue to be the case.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, but for any business to continue, it cannot just look at what it is doing now; it must consider future challenges. As we have already heard, the self-styled rivals to Royal Mail offer daily challenges, and any company with long-term aspirations must be able to innovate, invest and grow in the future. That is the problem. At the moment, Royal Mail is competing for scarce public capital against other priorities such as schools and hospitals. Unless Royal Mail can access equity markets, every £1 that it borrows is another £1 on the national debt.
Robert Flello
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, but I do not recognise some of the things she is talking about. From my experience, the work force in Stoke-on-Trent have gone through incredible change and have adapted to new systems. Indeed, they are so efficient that I sometimes wonder how on earth our postal workers manage to do some of the things they are being asked to do. There is new equipment and new vans. There has been huge investment, and the work force have adapted incredibly to very stringent business standards. I really do not recognise the picture that she is painting when I see for myself what is happening in places such as Stoke-on-Trent.
Caroline Dinenage
I am sure Stoke-on-Trent is a fabulous paragon of what our wonderful mail services do—as is Gosport, I hasten to add. I do not think anyone today is in any way casting aspersions on either the service or the quality that Royal Mail delivers; we are talking about how to ensure that Royal Mail is able to continue doing that in the long term when we are facing other challenges to the public purse. Clearly, adding further to the national debt would not be responsible in the current environment, especially when Royal Mail can run on a fully commercial basis and already has the capacity to be profitable, as we have heard.
Royal Mail has the highest service specification of any major European universal postal service: 93% of first-class mail is delivered the next working day and 99.9% of delivery routes are completed each day. But I argue that the quality of service framework that applies to Royal Mail under public ownership would continue to apply under private ownership. We talk about private businesses being interested only in shareholder profit, but having run a private business for more than 20 years, we are also very keen on quality of service and maintaining our customers, which must be taken into consideration.
Leading postal operators that provide universal postal services in other European countries have moved into the private sector and been successful. The Austrian postal service and Deutsche Post, for example, have delivered consistently high mail profitability since flotation, and Deutsche Post is perceived as being in the vanguard of digital transition. Furthermore, levels of service have remained consistently high. In 2012, for example, the proportion of letters delivered the next day in Germany and Austria was 95%, compared with the 93% regulatory target in the UK. Those and other international examples show private sector investment delivering competitive, profitable postal frameworks without necessarily compromising on service levels.
The Government say that their overarching objective is to safeguard the one-price-goes-anywhere, six-days-a-week universal service, to deliver taxpayers value for money and to deliver customers the quality of service that they are used to. The best way to safeguard the universal service for future generations is to combine the best of both the public sector and the private sector and to give Royal Mail the independence, flexibility and, above all, access to the investment it needs to face future challenges.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I start by declaring an interest: I am proud to say that I am a member of the Communication Workers Union, and I am also a member of the Communication Workers Union all-party parliamentary group. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who chairs that group, on securing this timely and important debate and on her passionate opening speech.
Of course, this debate is timely in that it closely follows the result of the ballot held last week. The result should embarrass the Government, as 96% of postal staff rejected their plans, despite the cash bribes that Ministers said postal staff would receive. That is a reminder to the Government that principles cannot be privatised, which I know is not something many Tory MPs understand. For them, privatisation is a panacea to every problem, whether or not the problem is even genuine. I say that because this debate strikes more than a passing resemblance to the debate on the privatisation of the east coast main line, with which I will draw some parallels to make my points even stronger.
Just as with the east coast main line, the Government want to privatise a key national asset against the wishes of the vast majority of stakeholders, and just as with the east coast main line, the desire to privatise clearly owes more to dogma than to the bottom line. The east coast main line has flourished under public control since the collapse of the private operator and has generated hundreds of millions of pounds in returns to the Treasury while requiring little subsidy and ploughing tens of millions of pounds from the remaining profits into service improvements. Similarly, last month we saw that Royal Mail profits are also showing hefty improvements —up to £324 million—as a result of modernisation and the increasingly buoyant internet sales market. Royal Mail has made a total of more than £0.5 billion over the past two financial years.
The east coast main line and Royal Mail are not failing monoliths or drains on public resources; they are valued services that can and should provide an ongoing contribution to the public purse. Yes, we should always look for them to be better, but private does not necessarily mean better and in many cases may well mean worse. In both cases, the fear is that the Government are opting for a short-term, one-off cash boost ahead of the election, rather than retaining assets that can and should generate ongoing returns to the public purse for years and decades to come. I am sure the Minister will say that that is not the case. Why, then, do the Government plan to pursue the sale of shares in Royal Mail during this financial year, while markets are still quite shaky, rather than waiting until the time is right, to ensure that the best value can be achieved for taxpayers? If Royal Mail is sold off in the next few months, what guarantees do we have that that would represent a good deal for the country? I know there is a difference between rail franchising and a flotation, but what guarantees will we have that the taxpayer will not be called on to foot the bill for private failure, if it comes to that, as happened with the east coast line?
It should not be forgotten that, in pressing ahead, Ministers are not only forgoing the decades of returns that could be realised, but undermining the job security of more than 100,000 postal workers. They are also putting at risk the future of a service that millions of people rely on, despite having no electoral mandate to do so. As always, a Tory Government are putting private profits before people.
My constituents want their Royal Mail to continue to represent their monarch, not to operate in the interests of overseas royal families as part of their investment portfolios. They also want their Royal Mail’s directors to concentrate on improving services, not the bank balances of shareholders, which they would have a duty to do. Finally, they want their Royal Mail to concentrate on maintaining local delivery offices and on keeping services affordable because of the social benefit they bring, not on stripping assets to satisfy the demands of institutional investors. I believe that the Minister’s constituents also want that and that he does too, if his infamous letter to his constituents represents his personal view.
The legislation may be on the statute book, but that does not mean that we have to rush into using it; I would rather that we did not use it at all. Let us at least wait until we can be sure that using it will bring real benefits to Royal Mail and the country as a whole.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Davies. I would like to start by paying tribute to the Post Office and Royal Mail for the hundreds of years of service they have dedicated to the nation. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to the sorting office in Stourbridge. I visited the delivery office early one morning last summer, and it was an eye-opener to see the incredible hard work, commitment, organisation and efficiency that characterised it. I then went with a postman on his delivery round, which topped off the visit for me; indeed, it was one of the most rewarding visits in my constituency calendar last year.
Mention has been made of the price of stamps, and I was on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee at the time the proposal was made to raise the price of first-class stamps to 60p. The Committee was concerned about that proposal, and I shared that concern, but if we are to guarantee a universal six-day-a-week collection and next-day delivery service, 60p is a fair price, and a favourable comparison can be made with other items we might purchase for a similar sum, such as daily newspapers.
The need for part-privatisation was accepted under the previous Government. Richard Hooper was appointed back in 2008 to conduct an independent review of Royal Mail’s future, and his report under the previous Government made the case for part-privatising the Royal Mail service to guarantee its future sustainability. The former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Mandelson, was passionate about going ahead with part-privatisation at that point, firmly believing that Royal Mail was not sustainable in the form it existed in at that time. The current Government are merely taking on that unfinished business so that Royal Mail can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said, seek private capital on the stock market. We can surely all agree that we do not want to add in any way, shape or form to the country’s debt if that can be avoided. If private capital can enable the Post Office and Royal Mail to innovate to meet the challenges of the future, that is surely to be preferred to increasing the debt burden on the taxpayer.
On the opportunities for staff, I do not accept that the 10% employee ownership proposal is a bribe. I am impressed by certain models of capitalism—notably the John Lewis Partnership, which is a model many people in the Government respect. Lessons can be learned from that way of doing business. Members of the important staff stakeholder community have an interest in the business for which they work. I think that model will come to be appreciated with the passage of time.
Mr Anderson
Does the hon. Lady accept, though, that there has been a full democratic ballot of the work force, with a 74% turnout, which is probably more than for any of us at the last general election, and 96% of the people balloted said they did not want to get involved with these plans? Surely, the Government should listen to them; the people we expect to deliver the service do not want to go down the road the Government are suggesting.
Margot James
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. No doubt there will be many pressures and issues on the minds of people who work in the Post Office and the Royal Mail, and they came to their conclusion, although I do not know what the precise wording of the question in the consultation was.
I was talking about what would happen in the fullness of time. I think most employees who get a stake in the business for which they work—especially one with a good future, such as Royal Mail, which has a rosy future now that the Government have taken its huge pension obligations to one side—would welcome such participation.
I am impressed by the protections that the Government are putting in place. Royal Mail will still be regulated by Ofcom. There is the second-class postage cap. The VAT exemption will remain. The service will remain free for blind people and those serving in the forces. There is also a commitment on the Post Office side to maintain 11,500 branches. As I said—I am sorry the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) thought this was a party political point—I have seen with my own eyes in my constituency what has happened at several post offices. Only last Friday, I opened a branch that had been upgraded and renovated. We are also keen to get a Post Office Counters local service back in an area that had its post office taken away a couple of years ago, and we are close to achieving that.
There is, therefore, great promise for the future. I look forward to Royal Mail staff having the opportunity to take a stake in their business and the taxpayer having a fairer solution in terms of an ongoing commitment in the future.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I am pleased to appear under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who made a fine speech in introducing this important debate.
I served on the Committee that considered what is now the Postal Services Act 2011. I opposed privatisation at the time; nothing that has happened since has persuaded me to do otherwise, and I still strongly oppose privatisation. Areas such as mine have seen major changes in postal services, with reductions in mail collections and ever later deliveries. I live in a town, but I do not now get my mail until about 1 pm; in rural parts of my constituency, it is much later. For me, it is a minor inconvenience, but deliveries are crucial for many businesses in my constituency.
It is the business side of the matter that I want to comment on. Royal Mail is not a drag on public spending, but an important economic driver, especially in rural areas. In his evidence to the Committee that considered the Postal Services Act 2011, Richard Hooper quoted the point that I made to him at the outset of his 2008 investigation of Royal Mail, during the Labour Government. I observed that the universal service is crucial to businesses in rural areas, and have argued that point ever since. It colours my whole attitude to the issue; the service is crucial to rural areas throughout the UK.
Mr Hooper made a point about a young lady with a mobile phone and laptop, and wondered why she would need anyone’s physical address. Perhaps she has now moved on to a smartphone, and I empathise with that view, because young people are no different in Angus from anywhere else. They use e-mail and texts. Mr Hooper made the point that only about 10% of mail is private letters, and about 8% of that is sent around Christmas—it is mainly cards. That is a sobering fact, and I suspect that things have deteriorated since then. It seemed to me that there were fewer Christmas cards about last year. Perhaps that was because of the rising cost of postage, or perhaps I am simply less popular—I do not know. The youngster with the phone and laptop may never feel the need to write a letter, but I am almost certain that if they live in a rural area they will use the internet to order books, CDs or DVDs, even though those may be under threat from digital streaming, and, increasingly, fashionable clothing—not a problem I have. There are very few outlets for entertainment and fashion items in rural areas now.
It is sobering that when last Christmas I, like many others, visited my local sorting office, I was struck by the fact that it was stacked with packages from Amazon and similar online retailers. That is where the great growth in mail delivery is happening. The important point for areas such as mine is that the process works both ways. Not only do people in rural areas use the post to get items delivered; crucially, small and medium-sized businesses in those communities use Royal Mail to get their products out. In many cases they do not have an alternative. The other private companies do not offer a service in many parts of rural Scotland. The universal service is crucial to those businesses, and it is crucial to those of us who hope that businesses will be created and sustained in rural areas.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) said that the regulations under the Bill were sufficient to enable a universal service obligation to be maintained. I am afraid I do not accept that. There are many aspects of the Bill that cause me great concern. That is nothing new, because under the previous system Royal Mail investigated the introduction of a zonal pricing system. I must ask what protection the customer really has. Ofcom has already removed price caps from all Royal Mail products, apart from the second-class universal mail service, with the result that that is now the only truly universal service. First-class mail can be priced out of the reach of many, and with the price of a first-class stamp already 60p—one of the highest in Europe—how many people or, crucially, small businesses will send first-class mail?
The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has noted a substantial increase in the small packages rate, which is affecting many small businesses in rural areas of Scotland; and things could get worse. There is nothing in the 2011 Act to prevent Royal Mail or a private owner from introducing zonal pricing. I took that point up with Ofcom, which confirmed in a letter to me:
“Ofcom does not have any powers to restrict Royal Mail from introducing this pricing variation related to user location, as the Postal Services Act 2011 limits our regulatory powers to universal services and access”.
That is from the horse’s mouth—from the regulator that oversees the service. There is nothing to stop such a variation in price being introduced now, never mind after the service falls into the hands of a private operator.
The Government have talked about an initial public offering, but they have not ruled out a sale to one of the major international companies, such as TNT and Deutsche Post. The Communication Workers Union in its document in relation to the Bill made the views of some of those companies about the universal service very clear: they amount to an intention to get rid of it if they can, because they consider it to be an anchor on their business.
Ministers have previously argued that the universal service is a benefit to Royal Mail, as it is the only carrier that guarantees a delivery to every address. However, that ceases to be true when other companies take on the most profitable routes. A couple of months back I met a man delivering mail on the stairs of the block of flats where I live in London. He was wearing a postal uniform, but not a Royal Mail one: it was a TNT uniform. Ofcom has already, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, sanctioned trials in areas of London for other companies to run an end-to-end service. Quite how that fits in with attempts to sell Royal Mail to such companies I am not sure, but it is a sure sign of the huge pressures on the USO that will come with privatisation. You can bet the mortgage on the fact that they might do it in London, but they will not do it in rural Scotland.
I remind hon. Members that section 43 of the 2011 Act allows Ofcom to review the USO and recommend, among other things, a review of the minimum requirements —which amounts to cuts in what the USO must deliver. Royal Mail should be seen as part of our national infrastructure—an economic driver, not a drain on the public finances. It should remain in public ownership.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on obtaining this debate on a serious matter.
It would be a nice change if in this place we listened to the people who know: the people who deliver a service. The service we are talking about has been delivered for 497 years, and I reiterate what my hon. Friend said: what is happening is bribing people with public money—asking them to take shares in an organisation. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), 96% of the members of the union who were balloted said, on a 74% turnout, that they did not want that. Even Boris Johnson, who constantly lectures the unions about ballot thresholds, could hardly argue against those sorts of figures.
I have no doubt that people will say, “It’s self-interest. They want to remain where they are,” but the bosses of Royal Mail said—pigs may fly one day—that the terms and conditions of the workers will not be affected; so they cannot be accused of self-interest on that point. Perhaps their self-interest is based on their pride and faith in the service. They believe that Royal Mail is not just a brand to be bought and sold in the marketplace; they believe in the principles and ethos of public service. So do many other public service workers. In the past 25-plus years the House has ignored their voices. We have always known better. For example, in 1992 the public services trade unions argued against the private finance initiative. Hardly anyone in the House today would speak in favour of PFI as a wonderful success, but for 25 years when the trade unions said anything the response was, “Ignore them—they are just looking after their members.” They were right when they said it would not work: it has not worked.
Likewise, members of the National Union of Mineworkers said, “If you close the mines in this country and privatise them, what will you end up with?” We can see what we ended up with: there are three coal mines left in this country; we import 50 million tonnes of coal from some of the least secure regimes in the world; and the reality is that the lights of this country may go out. Similarly there was the “Tell Sid” debacle: “Tell Sid” to have shares, and we will transfer all the risk to the private utilities. What did we end up with? The voice of the work force was ignored, and the utilities sector is not fit for purpose. There is a £200 billion bill—we will have to find that to make sure we can power our country for the future—and a pricing regime that has pushed millions of people into fuel poverty.
Exactly the same process that is now being suggested for Royal Mail was carried out in the deregulation of bus services. In my part of the world we had something called Busways. We were told clearly, “Sell the shares to the work force—it will be their company.” What happened? In a few short months there was a management buy-out. Four people walked away with millions of pounds; the people on the ground were left with worse terms and conditions, working bad shifts with lower numbers, a poorer service for the public, a worse deal for the work force, and huge hikes for those using the service.
It is not just on the privatisation agenda that the voice of the workers has been ignored. When the Care Quality Commission was mooted, people in the health service said it would not work; and of course they were ignored. We saw what happened last week, but I will tell you what: I bet the two previous Health Secretaries—and probably the present one—wish they had paid a bit more attention to the people who actually work in the service than they did to those who advised them. But our arrogance as the political élite is overwhelming. We assume we know better than those who have dedicated their lives to delivering a service to the people of this country.
I make a plea to the Minister to stop rubbishing the voice of Royal Mail’s dedicated work force and accept the fact that they have been flexible in recent years. They have accepted huge changes to their working practices, shown huge experience and commitment, engaged much better with the modernisation programme and delivered much better industrial relations than in the past. They might just know something that we in this place do not. I ask the Minister to listen to the voice of the workers, and of the public. I am convinced that the people of this country do not know that this is being done, and they will not support it if they are made aware of it.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly to the pointed questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. I look forward with almost as much keenness to what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), has to say, as I know that he is committed to the agenda of not privatising Royal Mail.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this important debate.
The Government are pushing ahead with plans to privatise Royal Mail and hope to do so within the 2013-14 financial year. Members have declared interests. My interest is anti-privatisation. I am absolutely opposed to privatisation in any guise, for the right reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) mentioned, we only have to look at the coal industry, which has been completely obliterated, and the electricity industry, in which the big six companies make billions of pounds in profits, while millions of people head toward record levels of fuel poverty. We only have to look at the privatisation of telecoms and of the railways, where fares are sky high and investment is completely lacking. Privatisation fails this country. The record is there to be seen. That is my declaration. We should stop kidding people that privatisation is in the best interests of consumers—as though calling them consumers makes them feel more important. We should really call them the general public.
The Government are desperate and seeking to generate as much finance as possible to get them out of the hole that they created. Consequently, they are determined to press ahead with the fire sale of Royal Mail, which is scheduled for this autumn. The decision to sell and when has been dictated by what is politically expedient for the Tories and the coalition in the short term, not what is best for the country. For the record, Royal Mail is making a profit. It is a profitable and efficient business. Its operating profits were £403 million last year, up from £105 million the year before. It is not a failing business; it is a very successful one.
Looking back on what has happened since the Government argued for privatisation, the original Hooper report of 2008 identified a number of issues faced by Royal Mail. Many of those issues have been resolved, notably the pension deficit and regulation, which leaves the Government’s case resting entirely on Royal Mail’s need to access capital. Royal Mail is doing well in the public sector, and it is my view, and I am sure that of most people in the UK, that it is a public asset and should remain so.
I thank the Royal Mail work force, who have embraced much change in the name of modernisation. They have done everything that has been expected of them to turn Royal Mail around, so turning it into the successful business that it is today. I have visited the Royal Mail in my constituency and been on a round with the men and women who do that fantastic job.
Contrary to the Government’s claim, there is no good reason why Royal Mail should not be able to borrow the capital that it needs to invest, while remaining in the public sector. That would not be at the expense of public sector spending, and it would not need to count towards Government debt. In 2008, the Hooper report identified five problems with Royal Mail that it argued needed to be fixed: the pension deficit, the relationship with the regulator, pricing, modernising performance and industrial relations.
The report made three proposals: that the Government should take on the pension deficit, that the regulator should be changed and that Royal Mail should be part privatised. On privatisation, the only remaining step not implemented, the Hooper report argued that Royal Mail was trying to improve industrial relations and the quality of management, reduce political interference, introduce commercial and financial discipline and allow access to private capital. On pensions, the Government took on the assets and liabilities of the pension scheme in March 2012. Since then, Royal Mail’s annual pension spending has fallen by up to £300 million as a consequence.
It is worth reminding the House what Communication Workers Union employees were asked. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) said that she was not sure what was on the ballot paper. It said, “Do you oppose the privatisation of Royal Mail?” Can it get any simpler than that? It was pretty simple and not ambiguous in any way. The result was a 96% vote yes. The work force are totally behind it, and rightly refused to be bribed by the Government’s offer of shares or finance to privatise Royal Mail. We cannot continue to allow the likes of TNT and other companies that ignore good industrial relations with the trade unions and the workers and that pay well below the living wage to undercut such a fabulous service as Royal Mail.
Thank you, Mr Davies, for allowing me to speak. Put simply, the Labour party opposed the privatisation of Royal Mail while we were in government, and we continue to oppose it in opposition.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this debate. I suppose that I should declare an interest as the proud parent of a Royal Mail employee.
For me, this goes back to the 1980s, the last time a Conservative Government decided to go on a privatisation binge. I saw it up close, personal and at first hand when I was an employee of British Telecom and the Conservative Government at that time decided to sell it off, supposedly to make it leaner and more competitive. I saw job losses, closed depots and lost opportunities for a future generation to secure good employment in my neck of the woods.
Like the last time, these sell-offs have been driven by a desperate need for money to plug a gap left by failing Government policies and to pay for the rising number of unemployed. The current group of state-owned businesses proposed for privatisation could fetch nearly £9 billion, £3 billion of which would come from the sale of Royal Mail. The original rationale for privatising the Royal Mail was that it was making a loss. We now know that that is no longer true. Annual profits are up more than 60%, and figures show that the amount of mail being sent has risen.
Royal Mail still needs investment. The coalition’s policy does not make economic, political or social sense. Ministers are motivated by ideological blinkers and the desire to make a quick buck, not by the long-term best interests of the taxpayer, the Royal Mail or the public. Under privatisation, there will be no obligation to deliver the 26 million letters a day that Royal Mail currently handles. Service will worsen, especially in rural areas.
Red pillar boxes are a symbol of Britain and give people a connection to the past not only of the GPO and the Royal Mail, but of their own community. There are no Government safeguards to prevent the organisation from falling into foreign hands. Royal Mail is more than a business; it is a service. To cite only one of the services provided, I can identify our posties, who we see every day up and down the country. They do more than just deliver mail, and they go in early to set out their walks and deliver their full mail sack; some of the private sector firms, however, after too much time into the day will take the mail back and not deliver the full amount. Posties are the ones who we see in the community and who are recognised as part of the community; they are the ones who see that the curtains are still closed and that the milk is on the doorstep. They provide more than a mail service; they are part of the community, which would not be the case under privatisation.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is great to see you in the Chair again, Mr Davies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who set out a compelling case for keeping Royal Mail in the public sector.
I also pay tribute to the Royal Mail staff, who have worked tirelessly alongside their management to create a leaner, fitter and more modern company. As we have heard, the recent results, with profits in excess of £300 million, are testament to not only the hard work of the staff, but the steely determination of management and staff working together, in partnership with the trade unions, to make the Royal Mail service the best it can possibly be. It would be wrong of me not to mention especially the Royal Mail staff in Edinburgh, who got the best performance stats in Scotland only last month, so I say congratulations to them.
As we have heard this afternoon, Royal Mail is a much treasured institution, with a universal service obligation covering all parts of the country—whether north, south, east or west—for one uniform price. It dates back to 1516, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who mentioned that, was there at the time. It touches all of us, whether through birthday or Christmas cards, letters to friends, bank statements or the Liberal Democrats’ “We’re winning here” letters—given that, no wonder delivery volumes are dropping. Royal Mail also happily delivers my letters to the Minister, six days a week at one uniform price. It is the last major publicly owned business, which is something that we should cherish and protect.
Royal Mail of course has challenges. Letter volumes are falling fast, as everyone turns to electronic communications. It has some way to go to complete the modernisation programme, to make itself the best it can possibly be. There is of course the risk of industrial action, given the industrial relations issues that we heard about in the CWU survey just last week. The maintenance of the USO is of course expensive, and the position of Royal Mail on delivering that USO is compromised by the ability of other companies to come in and cherry-pick the most profitable end-to-end services. One of the critical things, which has not yet been mentioned, is that Royal Mail service standards are much higher than the standards of any of the businesses coming in, which makes cherry-picking easier and, obviously, a lot cheaper.
There has been a lot of talk about the Hooper report, including by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James). That report, however, if we analyse what has been done since, shows that the company can be viable in the public sector. The issues raised by Hooper deserve a bit of attention. The pension fund assets have of course gone into the public purse, so the public purse is now responsible for the liabilities. In essence, having just nationalised the liabilities to the taxpayer, the Government now propose to privatise the potential profits. The regulatory environment has improved, following the transfer of responsibilities to Ofcom, and we have seen that in the deregulation of pricing, with the exception of second-class stamps; a lot of the profits over the past year or 18 months have been directly attributable to freeing up Royal Mail from some of those industrial strangleholds.
Furthermore, industrial relations and quality of management have improved. We must pay tribute to the management, the chief executive officer, Moya Greene, and the CWU for again working in partnership to ensure that industrial relations were improved and the modernisation programme taken forward. That was not an easy task for anyone, but they have come through it with aplomb, and the profits have helped. On the other side, the explosion of the parcel business, which was highlighted by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), has given a real opportunity for Royal Mail to become even more profitable. I am slightly disappointed that he did not tell us what the cost of a parcel or letter would be in an independent Scotland.
Ian Murray
I will not be taking an intervention, because I do not have much time, but perhaps on the next occasion that we debate Royal Mail, the hon. Gentleman might come prepared with some of that information.
The environment therefore has changed since the Hooper report in 2008. That is why we should allow Royal Mail, under its new regulatory regime and its new environment, the opportunity to thrive in the public sector.
What is the real purpose of privatising Royal Mail? First, ideology—there is an ideological thirst for privatisation in the Government—and, secondly, to plug a hole in the Chancellor’s funding gap, because he is borrowing £245 billion more during this Parliament, owing to his failed economic policy. The fire sale of Royal Mail is the opportunity for him to plug that gap.
Let us analyse who is against the proposals. The late Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, the architect of ideological privatisation in the Conservative party, said that it would be a step too far. More recently, the Bow Group, a right-wing think tank to which the Minister might give much credence, said:
“It is likely to be hugely unpopular, prices will rise at a time when people cannot afford it, an amenity that many communities consider crucial will be removed, it will undermine the heritage of Royal Mail. The privatisation of Royal Mail is likely to move swiftly from a poisonous legacy for the Government now, to a poisonous legacy for the Conservative Party going forward”.
I would include the Liberals in that.
Ian Murray
I will not, if my right hon. Friend does not mind, because I have only 10 minutes and I want to try to give the Minister an extra minute to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. I apologise for not giving way.
In future, the privatisation of Royal Mail is likely to move swiftly from being a poisonous legacy for the Government to being a poisonous legacy for the Conservative party. That will include the Liberal Democrats, even though the Liberal Democrat manifesto was against the privatisation of Royal Mail—in fact, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke against it not that long ago.
We heard about the CWU consultative ballot this week, which produced a clear result from 96% of the very staff whom the Minister wishes to bribe with 10% of the shares. I hope that they are not shares for rights, which is a whole other subject for debate. Before the Minister jumps to his feet to say that the CWU ballot had a low turnout, it was some 78%, but this is not just about the posties. Unite, which represents a number of managers in Royal Mail, heard serious concerns expressed by management and senior management, who have also been saying that they have significant concerns about privatisation.
Concern about the rise in stamp prices has been expressed by the Countryside Alliance, the National Pensioners Convention and the Scottish Family Business Association, which are all becoming increasingly worried about the pace of the privatisation. The cross-party Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which many Members present serve on, was also against the speed of the privatisation. Critically, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which originally supported the Postal Services Act 2011 when it was going through the House, said that it no longer supports the separation of the two businesses and the privatisation of Royal Mail, because of the potential impact on the post office network. That includes the 10-year inter-business agreement and the £360 million a year that goes into the Post Office by having that inextricable link between the business and the delivery units. The Minister needs to address that and to let us know the impact on the post office network of the privatisation of Royal Mail.
If there is any doubt at all that the Minister does not believe the Countryside Alliance, the Bow Group, the late Baroness Thatcher, the CWU or Unite, why does he not believe himself? In February 2009, when in opposition, he said clearly in a letter reported in the press:
“I certainly do not support the…plans for privatisation”,
with reference to Royal Mail. Even with the Hooper environment getting better, the Minister now says that he is not against it. He might pop to his feet to say, “That is because we’re giving 10% of the shares to the staff,” but if that is the justification for changing his stand from being against privatisation to fully privatising Royal Mail, it is a weak argument.
The Government have also failed to address a number of critical issues with regard to the justification for privatisation. On the timing of the sale, why now? I claim that it is because the Chancellor needs the money in his Budget come April next year. I hope that the Minister can dispel that myth. The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said that Royal Mail has to compete with schools and hospitals and everyone else for public money. It does, but the future profits of Royal Mail could be building schools and hospitals and every other piece of infrastructure that this country might put together. Public services are not always a drain on resources; a profitable Royal Mail could contribute to the Government’s resources, to build schools and hospitals.
There are unresolved competition issues and questions about what happens if the Royal Mail falls into trouble in the regulated environment. The USO is expensive and the most profitable parts could be cherry-picked by other end-to-end deliverers, so that it might become unaffordable. What happens then? Does it revert back to the Government and the public purse, as happened with the east coast rail line, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) mentioned, with the company handing back the keys? This is a huge issue, and there is an impact on customers and the post office network. If all that is put together, the strongest compelling case is to keep Royal Mail in the public sector, and that is what we will fight to achieve.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this debate, and I thank hon. Members who have contributed to it. It has been a good debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues raised and to explain why the Government intend to sell shares in Royal Mail in this financial year.
The Government’s overarching objective is to secure the future of the universal postal service: the six-day-a-week service at uniform, affordable prices that delivers throughout the UK. The service is vital to our economy. The Government’s reforms go back to Richard Hooper’s independent review of the postal sector which was commissioned by the Labour Government because the volume of mail was falling. That review concluded that there was a substantial threat to Royal Mail’s financial stability and that the universal service was under threat. It recommended that action should be taken as a package to secure the universal postal service with responsibility for postal regulation being transferred to Ofcom, the Government tackling the historic pension deficit, and Royal Mail entering into a strategic partnership with one or more private sector companies to give it commercial confidence, access to capital and corporate experience. The Labour Government accepted those recommendations.
In 2010, following an updated report by Richard Hooper that confirmed his initial findings, apart from the need for a strategic partnership, the new Government introduced a Bill to enable implementation of the package of recommendations. Since the Postal Services Act 2011 received Royal Assent in June 2011, we have implemented two elements of that package by establishing Ofcom as the regulator with stronger powers to protect the universal service, and by taking on Royal Mail’s historic pension deficit. By removing those major barriers, Royal Mail has begun its journey to long-term sustainability. It is now profitable, as hon. Members have said, and its overall financial position has improved.
The challenge now is to maintain that positive momentum. We should not forget that in recent history the Royal Mail group has swung between profit and loss. Royal Mail’s core UK letters and parcels business suffered losses in five of the last 12 years. During that period, overall losses were around £1 billion and around 60,000 jobs were lost, so resting on the current year’s profitability is not enough. The core UK network made a margin of 3.9% in that financial year, which was an improvement, but it was well below international peers such as Deutsche Post and Austrian Post with a margin of more than 8% and Belgium Post with a margin of 17%.
A more profitable Royal Mail will be better able to weather any future market weakness and, more importantly, will be able to take advantage of new opportunities. The company needs future access to private capital to be able to continue its modernisation programme and to seize opportunities for growth such as the boom in on-line shopping. The final phase of our reforms and implementation of the Hooper recommendations is the sale of Royal Mail shares, which will give Royal Mail future access to private capital.
That is the way to put Royal Mail’s future on to a long-term sustainable basis. It is consistent with developments in Europe where privatised operators in Austria, Germany and Belgium have been profitable and continue to provide high-quality services. Only last week, there was a successful sale of shares in the Belgian post operator, bpost. The Government’s decision to sell shares in Royal Mail is not ideological. It is a practical, logical and commercial decision, just as the Labour Government’s decision was in 2009. What they got wrong and what everyone opposed, including me and most Labour MPs at the time, was of course their proposed implementation.
I will turn to some of the more detailed questions that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran asked. She asked about the effect on the Post Office, which is now a separate business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said, we put an end to the closure programme. I am looking forward to re-opening the refurbished Otford post office on Friday. It is winning a range of front-line service contracts from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Skills Funding Agency, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Border Agency and many others.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran asked me about the type of sale. We have not made a decision on how much of Royal Mail to sell, nor what form the sale should take. I assure hon. Members that when we decide, we will make a statement to Parliament and under the legislation we must lay a report to Parliament at the same time. The hon. Lady asked about the fees involved. If there is an initial public offering, the fees will be set out in a prospectus. I assure her that we will be very careful to keep them as low as possible.
The hon. Lady also asked whether the universal service provision is UK-wide, and the answer is yes. She asked whether Ofcom can review the universal service provision and throw it up into the air at any particular point, and whether ministerial approval is required to do so. The answer is that Ofcom may review it at any time, but cannot change it. Only the House can change the universal service provision—
Michael Fallon
When I was interrupted, I was replying to the important question from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran on what triggers a review of the universal service requirement: could Ofcom do it at any time or does a review need ministerial permission and so on? The answer is that Ofcom can review user needs at any time and it must carry out such a review before it can modify any part of the universal service order, but it cannot modify the order in a way that changes the minimum requirements. That can be done only by Parliament amending the Postal Services Act 2011, which gives all of us the protection we need, and that protection continues irrespective of the ownership of Royal Mail.
The hon. Lady asked about disposables. The directors of the company—a privately owned Royal Mail—must act in the best interests of the company. The Royal Mail is already clear that it sees the postal access file as an integral part of the business. It is separately regulated by Ofcom, and that separate regulation continues irrespective of the particulars of ownership. If I have missed any of her questions, I will write to her after the debate.
The Royal Mail is a business with a £9 billion turnover, which employs more than 150,000 people, and of course, a company of that size and importance to the British economy should have access to the flexible capital it needs: to continue to modernise; to become more efficient and competitive; to innovate and invest; and to seize opportunities presented by new markets, such as the rapid growth of online shopping. Over the past years, Royal Mail’s investment in the business has increased from £555 million to £665 million. As I said earlier, Royal Mail is profitable, but its margins are still behind those of its competitors. Investment remains crucial if it is to continue to improve margins and provide the services that customers demand.
No responsible party would propose that in the current environment Royal Mail should have to compete for scarce public capital against other services, such as schools and hospitals. Royal Mail, run on a fully commercial basis, has the capacity to be cash-generative, profitable and perfectly able to raise the capital it needs from the private sector. A sale of shares will also reduce the possibility of any future Government interference in the operations of the company. It is time for Government to step back from Royal Mail, to allow its management to focus wholeheartedly on growing the business and planning for the future. We will give Royal Mail the commercial freedom it has needed for so long.
Mitochondrial Disease
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am pleased to be able to lead a debate on this most important subject. I shall speak about mitochondrial disease, the devastation it causes and the new techniques developed by Newcastle university to prevent it. I declare an interest in that my father studied medicine at Newcastle, so I am a natural champion of that great university’s medical research and innovation. I am here primarily to champion not Newcastle university however, but the interests of my constituents struck down by mitochondrial disease, and indeed all those who suffer from it.
The subject is technical and I will attempt to be as clear as possible in setting out the arguments. Mitochondria are found in every cell in the human body, except red blood cells. They are the batteries generating energy for the cell. Mitochondria convert the energy of food molecules into the energy that powers the cell’s functions. About 200 children are born every year with a mitochondrial disease. Such diseases are passed from mothers to their children and are caused by faulty mitochondria. Like all DNA, the DNA in mitochondria can mutate and mothers can pass those mutations on to their children. Faulty mitochondria mean that the cells are unable to function normally and the diseases caused by them can have a devastating effect on families. The diseases tend to affect parts of the body that use a lot of energy, such as the brain, muscles, nerves, liver, kidney and heart, and vary widely in severity, from life-threatening to having few or no obvious symptoms. Symptoms vary, but can include poor growth, muscle weakness, tiredness, poor co-ordination, and sensory, respiratory or cognitive problems.
There are no effective treatments available for serious mitochondrial disease. When the cells go wrong, it can result in serious conditions, including blindness, fatal heart failure, liver failure, learning disabilities and diabetes, and can lead to death in early infancy. Prevention is the only realistic option. In 2010, Newcastle university scientists, with funding from the Wellcome Trust, pioneered research into variations of in vitro fertilisation procedures that could prevent the transmission of the genetic mutations that cause these devastating disorders. The techniques use part of an egg donated by a healthy individual, to replace the faulty mitochondria of the affected mother. The intention is to give affected families a chance to have healthy children that are genetically related to them, but born free of mitochondrial disorders. Such techniques are not currently permitted in the UK, but legislation allows the Government to introduce secondary legislation that would allow the treatments to be used.
Mitochondrial disease can blight families for generations, because, as I said, it is passed from the mother to child during pregnancy. The techniques could put a stop to it, by preventing the faulty mitochondria from being passed to the embryo. Mitochondrial disease affects about 6,000 adults in the UK. In my constituency, four families—Bumstead, Cass, Bland and Mahmood—suffer from mitochondrial disease. Although every effort is being made to help them, there is no cure. For example, Lily Cass, who is in her 70s now, has five brothers and three sisters, and one brother who died at 56. They are all affected in different ways by mitochondrial diseases, and some more severely than others. Some days, Lily can hardly move due to lack of energy caused by her faulty mitochondria, which takes all her strength away. She has four children, including a daughter, who is likely to pass the disease on to her children. She worries about that all the time.
For those women and their families, the most important help we can offer is potential treatments, to prevent the next generation of patients from being affected. The opportunity to have their own children free of disease is something that the patients understandably want.
As with all such advances, it is right that the ethics are properly considered before techniques are adopted, and the Minister will be aware that concerns have been raised. There are those who argue that the techniques create children with three parents, but the embryo would carry only a small number of genes from the donor—just 13 out of 23,000, or 0.056% of the genetic material. How much of a parent is that? The function of the 13 genes is restricted to powering the mitochondria; they do not affect personal characteristics such as eye or hair colour, or behaviour.
Last June, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced a report that found that the technique would be an ethical treatment option for affected families, as long as research showed that treatment was likely to be safe and effective, and families were offered full information and support. The council’s report found that no strong cultural or social emphasis is generally placed on mitochondrial inheritance as a specific element of personal identity. Many of the social and biological aspects that typically imply a “parent”, and may be relevant in egg donation for reproduction, do not apply to mitochondrial donation. The council therefore suggested that if the treatments were made available, mitochondrial donors should not have the same status in regulation as reproductive egg donors.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a good case about the serious effects that the diseases resulting from the condition have on families. If we think forward to any children who are fortunate enough to be born without disease because of the treatment, would there be any possibility that they might consider themselves to have three parents, whether or not they had any traits from the third one? Has thought been given to how that would be considered if it should happen?
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend is right. There has been some debate about the status not only of the donors but, most importantly, of the children. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics says that families must be offered full information and support, and that must also apply to the children, so that they understand the scientific nature of the very limited gene inheritance from the donation.
If mitochondrial donors were not given the same status as reproductive egg donors, it would be not legally required for them to be identifiable to people born from their donations. The council concluded that the proposed treatments would be a form of gene therapy that would permanently cure the disease in future generations. Changes resulting from the replacement of mitochondrial DNA would be passed on not only to the resulting children, but to the descendants of any girls born from the techniques, via their eggs.
Dr Geoff Watts, who chaired the inquiry, said:
“We understand that some people concerned about the idea of germline therapies may fear that if such treatments for mitochondrial gene disorders were approved, a ‘slippery slope’ would be created towards comparable alterations to the nuclear genome.”
That is an understandable fear, but he went on to make a very important point:
“However, we are only talking about the use of these techniques in the clearly-defined situation of otherwise incurable mitochondrial disorders, under strict regulation.”
In 2012, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—HFEA—launched a public consultation on mitochondria replacement. It interviewed almost 1,000 people, and a further 1,800 completed questionnaires. It also organised public workshops around the UK and spoke to individuals affected by the diseases, to gauge their views. It published the results in March of this year, and found broad public support for the use of the technique.
The HFEA asked four main questions about attitudes to the gene treatment of mitochondrial diseases. When asked about attitudes to the selection of embryos based on testing, 65% of those questioned were positive or very positive, with only 8% negative. When asked about altering the genetic make-up of an egg or an embryo, 56% were positive or very positive and only 10% were negative. Attitudes to the use of genetic material from a third person showed that 44% were positive or very positive, with only 15% negative. The HFEA therefore advised the Government that there was broad support for mitochondrial replacement being made available to families at risk of passing on a serious mitochondrial disease. It also advised that if treatment were to be authorised by Parliament, it should be under certain conditions, such as its being available only in licensed clinics.
The HFEA recommendations have been widely welcomed by campaigners. For example, Dr Marita Pohlschmidt, director of research at the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, said:
“We welcome this outcome. There is currently no effective treatment available for mitochondrial diseases, and at this time, prevention remains our strongest option. By taking forward research into pro nuclear IVF, we move towards giving women living with these devastating and unpredictable conditions the choice to bear their own unaffected children. This technique does involve a step into new scientific territory. But it is a calculated, specific step with the sole aim of preventing a potential fatal condition from being passed down to the next generation, where possible.”
We are now waiting for a decision from the Government about whether secondary legislation that will allow the techniques to be licensed for use in patients will be introduced in this parliamentary Session. It has taken years to get to this stage, and it is important that progress does not stall because families are waiting for this. Introducing regulations now will ensure there is no avoidable delay in the treatments reaching affected families once research is completed and the HFEA considers there to be sufficient evidence that the techniques are safe and effective.
I called this debate to hear an update from the Minister on the progress that she has made, and to ask when we can expect a decision, and when we can expect to see legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) not only on securing the debate but on highlighting the impact of mitochondrial disease on families, and the potential of the new techniques to prevent suffering and premature death and bring hope to the many families who seek to prevent their children from inheriting these sorts of diseases in the future. The hon. Lady does everyone a service in raising the issue. It is a controversial issue, and she has asked me some direct questions.
The Government fully recognise the sensitivity of the issues, and since researchers first approached my Department in 2010 requesting that we make regulations, we have been collecting expert opinion and public views. I will be up front, and say straight away that the chief medical officer has given the issue her careful consideration in the light of the advice and the findings of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, following the consultation period. I anticipate that she will set out the Government response before the summer recess and, even with my poor mathematics, I can work out that that should certainly be within the next few weeks.
I emphasise that the Department of Health has given careful consideration to the advice and information passed to us by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on 28 March. We have also taken account of other published reviews, such as the one in 2012 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in its report on “Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical review”.
Our considerations are being led by the chief medical officer. It is right, if we are to move forward, that she should be the person to lead on the proposals—she may reject them—and, as the CMO, to make any announcement and to be at the forefront of any decision. I am told that her considerations are almost complete.
We recognise that allowing the treatment would give an opportunity for women who carry mitochondrial disease the choice—it is important to state that if regulations are introduced, they would have a choice—to have genetically related children without the risk of serious diseases; I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving examples of those diseases, and it is the understandable desire of many parents, especially women, not to allow them to be inherited by a child.
This issue is about giving women a choice on whether or not their DNA is put into another woman’s egg. In effect, a woman would be hijacking the batteries, because mitochondria are the batteries that provide the energy, and when they do not work, they cause these diseases. This is not about any kind of genetic engineering, about which people would rightly be concerned.
When the science and the real benefits are explained to people, and the fact that the child who is born has the same genetic background as their mother, they will see that the press have perhaps been a bit misleading in saying that, if it all goes ahead, some children will have three parents. They really will not: they will have their biological mother and father. It is simply that the batteries have been taken from another woman’s egg so that they are sure that any child does not bear some of the very serious diseases that often lead to premature death.
We recognise the concerns that have been raised about whether such techniques are a form of germline or genetic modification in human beings and about whether it would be ethical to allow them in treatment, and those considerations are important. Technically, the resultant embryo would be formed from the eggs of two women, but the genetic material that relates to the child’s characteristics would have been removed from the donor egg, so the child will have genes from the patient and her partner—in other words, from the child’s mother and father—but they will also have healthy mitochondria.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister very much for the constructive form of her response and for the new information. Her point about the child not having the genetic material is very important. Will she emphasise that the process is nothing like changing the eye colour or height of the unborn child? An important point to get across is that there is no genetic modification in that sense.
Anna Soubry
I absolutely agree. I am perhaps putting the subject in simple terms, but that is how it is. This is actually about the fact that if someone is effectively carrying this particular disease, the mitochondria—the batteries that charge things—are replaced to make sure that they do not have these diseases. Because the mitochondria cannot be taken out of the mother’s egg, a donor egg has to be found. The DNA is removed from that egg and the mother’s DNA is put in—taking those good healthy mitochondria or the batteries—so that she has a healthy egg that, in due course, can be fertilised by the father in the normal way. It is absolutely right that the genetic make-up of a resultant child will be the mother’s and father’s. That does not of course guarantee that the child will have the same colour eyes as their mother, as we all know, especially me as a blue-eyed mother with two brown-eyed daughters. As ever, Mr Davies, I digress, but this is a serious matter.
I pay great tribute to researchers at the International Centre for Life in Newcastle. The hon. Lady should not hesitate to do so, whether her father was there or not, because it is a fine institution. They have been developing their groundbreaking expertise for many years. In anticipation of significant advances in this field, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was amended in 2008 to introduce a regulation-making power that, if implemented, would enable mitochondria replacement to take place in treatment.
The powers are therefore there, but it is important to say that they would not be implemented in some secondary way. I understand that the matter would have to come to this place and that, in any event, there would be a debate. That is my understanding, but if I am wrong I will correct that, as you would expect, Mr Davies.
In 2010, Newcastle researchers approached the Department of Health and, in the light of their progress, requested that we consider introducing regulations to allow mitochondria replacement in treatment. In response, the Department asked the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to get independent advice about the safety and efficacy of the techniques.
An expert advisory group was established, and a report was passed to the Department in spring 2011. It found that the techniques were not unsafe, but it recommended that further research be undertaken. After careful consideration of that report, the Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills commissioned the HFEA in autumn 2011 to undertake a comprehensive set of public consultations to identify the public’s views about and understanding of this complex and sensitive issue. That consultation was held between July and December last year. It looked at the social and ethical issues raised by mitochondria replacement, as well as addressing a range of practical regulatory issues.
In collaboration with Sciencewise, which has a key role in helping the public to understand complex scientific issues, the HFEA took many different approaches to ensure that it gathered public views on the issue. It held workshops with members of the public, tracking their views over time and in response to new information. It ran what is called a representative survey, an online public consultation, two public meetings through which interested groups and individuals could express their views, and a focus group with families who are personally affected by mitochondrial disease, because their views are extremely important.
The HFEA report was published on 28 March and was passed to the Department. It provided us with three separate strands of advice: the outcome of its public dialogue and consultation; a scientific update on the safety and efficacy of the new techniques; and the issues to consider in introducing an appropriate regulatory framework. The public consultation indicated, overall, that there is general support for allowing the treatment techniques to be used, as long as they are safe and carefully regulated.
We appreciate and recognise, however, that a range of views, not all of which were in favour of a change in regulation, was strongly expressed through the consultation. A significant response came from the religious community, which was not in favour of allowing the techniques, whereas the scientific community, bioethics groups and patient and family groups were in favour.
The expert panel, which was reconvened by the HFEA, concluded that although there continues to be nothing to indicate that the techniques are unsafe, further research on some specific aspects should be undertaken. All the recommended research is currently being undertaken either in Newcastle or Oregon in the United States. The expert panel expressed the view that insufficient research is currently available to recommend one particular technique above another. It also recommended long-term follow-up monitoring of any children born as a result of the techniques.
I conclude where I began by saying that we anticipate that the CMO will announce the Government’s response very soon—before we break for the recess—which is at least some good news. As the hon. Lady said, the issue has been ongoing for several years, so it is important to find out whether it will reach the sort of conclusion that she wants, and we anticipate that that will be very soon.
Horn Lane, Acton
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I am delighted, Mr Davies, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I can scarcely believe that I am back in Westminster Hall with the same issue that I first raised with the Minister some two-and-a-half years ago—the outrageously high pollution levels on Horn lane in Acton. For years, they have blighted the lives of local residents who, while fortunate in many ways to live in this part of west London, suffer the severe misfortune of living next to perhaps the most unfriendly neighbour imaginable. That neighbour is a polluting industrial site, which is home not only to a waste transfer company but to a construction aggregates company, a cement company and a metal recycling plant, too.
The site sits slap bang in the middle of a residential community and is a throwback to a time when Horn lane was home to factories rather than the flats and houses that are there now. As forum posts on the local residents’ website frequently demonstrate, the community there cannot fathom how or why that industrial remnant is still allowed to be there. Residents have had enough of the disappointing performance of the local authority and the Environment Agency in getting anything significant done about the consistently excessive pollution that emanates from the site. They are able to provide numerous examples of the negative effects it is having on local people’s health.
Ask Vib Patel, a chemist on Horn lane, and he say that sales of inhalers for customers there are appreciably higher than those at his other shops in Tufnell Park and Victoria. That can be of no coincidence when we take into account the number of times so far this year that operators have again breached air quality objectives with their activity. Horn lane has been up there yet again as the most polluted area in the whole of London. A simple look at the readings broadcast on Ealing council’s own air quality webpage confirms that Horn lane is an outlier when compared with other sites, and all the while Ealing council is bidding to become an air quality exemplar borough, but more on that later.
As I know from previous attempts to get something done about this difficult site, responsibility for monitoring and taking enforcement action when necessary is conveniently shared between a public body, the Environment Agency, and the local authority, Ealing. I say conveniently because, as the Minister admitted in his response to me last time, this creates a complex and all together confusing picture, which I am afraid all too often leads to spectacular inaction. I do not think it is overly cynical to say that that suits almost everyone concerned apart from the residents who have to live with the effects of the site. I am back again to say that this time enough really must be enough. I am sick of the excuses. What we need now is meaningful action. Either we get some proper enforcement against those persistent polluters or we should completely rezone the area for business and residential use, a perfectly sensible and achievable ambition, especially with Crossrail set to arrive at Acton mainline station in the next few years.
As the Minister knows from my brief potted history of the saga last time, a group of determined and committed local residents decided that they needed to find a way of upping the ante and applying pressure on those with the power to take enforcement action against the operators at the site. They banded together to form an action group, SHLAP, or Stop Horn Lane Air Pollution, and I secured a series of meetings for them with the Environment Agency and an Ealing council officer here in Parliament. Together we tried to get to the bottom of various licensing agreement conditions and were presented with endless pages of monitoring statistics from the various monitors installed at the site as part of an attempt to control the operators.
It was a frustrating exercise in which we learned from the Environment Agency that because of potential legal action from any company that was threatened with losing its licence because of regular pollution breaches, it rarely, if ever, wanted to go down that particular route. As it said, it would have been necessary to be able to prove precisely which operator was to blame for any pollution infringement. As that would be nigh on impossible in such a complex area, it was never really going to be a starter.
We were left feeling that really the only lever available was monitoring and more monitoring, and many of us feel that monitoring without consequences can become rather pointless. This just is not good enough. How can the public continue to be told that there is unacceptable pollution at a site, but that nothing can be done about it or, at least, that no agency is prepared to do anything about it?
The issue has continued to simmer away, but things really came to a head in April when it came to the attention of local residents that Ealing council had put in for City Hall funding, from the Mayor of London, to the tune of nearly £500,000 to become an air quality exemplar borough. Imagine their surprise when, reading the report presented for a Cabinet discussion on the issue, they discovered there was not even a mention of Horn lane. Imagine their frustration. It really did beggar belief that Ealing would put itself forward as an air quality exemplar borough with absolutely no reference at all to the shocking pollution levels on Horn lane. Only when that was pointed out to the council did an addendum to the report magically appear, finally mentioning the site. It was a classic example of the prevailing attitude, showing a cavalier approach to the health of the local residents.
In fact the local authority’s casual attitude to the problems of this site and the concerns of local people is reflected in the way in which officers continue to reach for the convenient excuse that it is all to do with heavy traffic in the area. A large part of the problem is its failure to accept that the unusually high pollution levels in the area are caused by the Horn Lane industrial site, and I am sorry to say that that was a feature of the Minister’s response back in 2010 as well. The now familiar refrain, or a useful get-out clause is my view, is that there are numerous other potential sources of PM10— particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter—close to the monitoring station at the Horn Lane site. Examples cited are the nearby A40 and the Hanger Lane gyratory system and the heavy traffic in the neighbourhood.
In the Minister’s previous response he said:
“In the case of Horn lane, there are several potential sources of PM10 close to the monitoring station, including transport from Horn lane and the nearby A40, other transport sources such as buses and trains, and pollution from the industrial site, which has several units engaged in concrete production, aggregate supply, scrap metal and waste transfer, and also heavy vehicle movements. That combination of sources adds to the load of dust and pollution and requires that several agencies work together with operators to control it.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 295WH.]
In other words, this is a complicated picture. There are lots of sources of potential pollution and we cannot really be sure how bad or how responsible the Horn Lane site is for the actual breaches of air quality targets. However, if anyone spends five minutes on Ealing council’s air quality website, they will find all the evidence they could possibly want to show that that excuse simply does not stand up.
The website helpfully allows people to compare monitoring data on PM10 particulates on a graph that shows the monitoring stations at the three locations I have just mentioned: Horn lane; the Hanger Lane gyratory system; and the A40. The results speak for themselves. Horn lane always comes out as being at least two to three times more polluted than the other two locations. This month is as good an example as any. The latest readings show an average of between 100 and 200 micrograms per cubic metre for Horn lane, compared with less than 50 micrograms per cubic metre at the other two sites. I encourage the Minister and his team to have a look at the website.
How much longer do we have to go on hearing that traffic is the root cause of the problem at Horn lane when the facts clearly demonstrate that that is plainly not the case? Of course, much of the heavy traffic in the immediate Horn Lane area is actually generated by the industrial site itself. Moreover, there are many other major roads in other parts of London with similarly heavy traffic that do not generate the high readings that Horn lane does. It is also worth noting that Horn lane is a small connecting road, whereas the A40 is a main arterial road and Hanger lane a major gyratory system.
Obviously, general traffic in the Horn Lane area, plus the trains, ensures a degree of pollution that in itself might be problematic, but clearly it is the addition of the local industrial site that tips the levels around Horn lane over levels that would be acceptable. That is why attention must be focused on bearing down on that source of high pollution.
There is real frustration that no one seems prepared to get to grips with what is a serious problem. As I have already said, the Environment Agency has been busily monitoring the situation and it is only fair to say that it has succeeded in reducing the amount of tonnage going through the waste transfer facility. Despite this, however, on many occasions the spikes in air pollution remain as high as ever, so clearly the Environment Agency has not got to the bottom of the problem. Indeed, despite the engagement of the agency with the local SHLAP group, local residents are still being exposed to unacceptably high levels of pollution. The official monitoring statistics continue to register pollution levels that regularly breach requirements.
Similarly, Ealing council has consistently failed to do anything about a road that—under its watch—has fast become what is often the most polluted road in London. For example, it is quite extraordinary that Hansons, the cement plant, got away with expansion without planning permission, and it was only after local pressure was exerted that the council is now insisting on a retrospective planning application. That just goes to show how disinterested the local authority has been in what goes on at the site.
I know the council will say that since 2005 there has been an improvement. That is true—to an extent. However, that improvement seems to have tailed off since 2009. Equally, residents say that that assessment sounds like the council is resting on its laurels. The breaches continue to happen on a regular basis. Whenever they occur, and however often they occur, they are totally unacceptable and the council needs to be far more active than it has been.
As the Minister knows, I tabled a couple of questions recently that specifically asked about the role that local authorities should play in tackling persistently high levels of pollution, and what powers are available for them to do that. His answers could not have been clearer. He said that this is an area of local authority responsibility and there is a wide range of powers available to local authorities, including under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010; under the Clean Air Act; under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and under the Noise Act 1996. These powers would seem to cover all bases, so why are they not being used to maximum effect?
Notwithstanding the inaction so far, I have pursued a further meeting with the Environment Agency and Ealing council, which we are holding at the Horn Lane site on 12 July as a last-ditch attempt to bang heads together. It is no use the council launching new and costly consultations about what new monitoring or green infrastructure measures might help to ease the problem. We have already had eight years of monitoring. At the very least, what is needed is action against the pollution perpetrators and, more importantly, greater thought to be given to a site that should be a regeneration priority for the borough, especially when we consider the fantastic opportunity that a new Crossrail station in the area presents.
However, there is a real fear that Ealing council will continue to make noises about small, remedial measures to ease the problem, which anyone who has followed this issue closely knows will do precisely nothing to ease the problem. Also attending the meeting on 12 July will be representatives from City Hall and I hope that Ealing council will be prepared to discuss with the Mayor’s team the wider planning considerations of a rezoning of the site for residential and business use, and to promote the obvious benefits that a rezoning might bring.
I understand that when a rezoning is being considered there are implications for the Mayor’s London plan, which make things more difficult. In particular, the site also operates as an important railhead for freight transport, which takes a degree of pressure off all the roads going into central London. Clearly, that element of the site might have to remain, but why should that preclude proper consideration being given to the rezoning of the rest of the site? After all, if we were planning from scratch, would we put this industrial site right in the heart of a residential community? I do not think we would. The benefits of a flagship new Crossrail station in the area—the last one before Paddington—are obvious. The council recognises and is planning for the Crossrail benefits in Ealing town centre. Why can it not see the potential for Acton too?
To sum up, surely there is something that we can do about this problem. We need a vision for the future of this part of Acton, and we need leadership to carry that vision through, which will require determination either to rezone or to crack down, to provide an enhancement of the quality of life for the local residents that they certainly deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) for raising this issue. In one sense, I am dismayed that she has had to raise it. I recall our earlier debate; as she said, it was more than two years ago. It is clearly a matter of genuine concern that this site continues to be a problem for residents in the Horn Lane area. At the end of her speech, she talked about the need for “leadership”. Quite clearly, she is giving great leadership to her constituents, and she should feel reassured that that is something I recognise. Indeed, I recognise not only her determination to continue to push at the agencies and authorities that can have control of this matter but to look holistically at this problem, to see that we are not just talking about an issue relating to the problems of today but one that relates to the development of the area in the future. She has not only considered the benefits that could come from the Crossrail development but the wider need to take a proper strategic view about the long-term use of this site in relation to the local people who live around it.
To set this issue in context, the Government recognise the impact that poor air quality can have on public health and we have an ongoing commitment to work towards compliance with EU obligations on air quality. In a way, that is rather a low level of aspiration. We want to do something not because we want to fulfil an EU obligation but because we care about residents in communities such as the one that my hon. Friend so eloquently describes and stands up for.
We have seen considerable improvements in pollution over many years now. Measures to reduce pollution from transport sources, industrial sources and other sources have ensured that the UK now meets EU standards for annual limits of particulate matter pollution, or PM10, and daily limits. In particular, measures to reduce transport pollution, such as increasingly tight European standards, have been effective in controlling particulate matter pollution, and, in London, actions such as the Mayor’s low emission zone, fitting diesel particulate filters to London buses and other measures have all made important contributions.
However, we also know that particulate matter pollution especially has health impacts beyond EU standards, and local hot spots such as Horn lane provide a continued challenge. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the London borough of Ealing has overall responsibility for air quality in the area, and for developing management plans to improve air quality and to meet other environmental concerns. I remember from our previous debate on this issue that the council has maintained a monitoring site at Horn lane since 2005, and her frustration that this continual monitoring does not seem to be delivering benefits is understood.
The Horn Lane site is particularly plagued by high levels of particulate matter pollution, or PM10, which is composed of dust and other fine materials from transport sources and other sources. However, I absolutely concede my hon. Friend’s point that it is industrial processes, such as waste management, construction and demolition, that she is concerned about in this area. PM10 is not visible to the naked eye, but it can be monitored and it impacts on human health, particularly vulnerable groups with respiratory problems. She made a very good point about the number of inhalers that are being sold locally.
The UK has set national objectives for levels of particulate matter and these should not exceed an annual mean of 40 micrograms per cubic metre. The UK has also set a level of 50 micrograms per cubic metre for daily mean levels of particulate matter. It is recognised that on some days this daily level might not be achieved because of particular local circumstances or weather conditions, and we therefore allow up to 35 days’ exceedances at those sites to take account of these instances.
In 2005, the Horn Lane monitoring site recorded levels of dust in excess of the national daily objective on 205 days. These levels were unacceptable and it was clear that rapid and urgent action was needed. In 2012, thanks to action by the EA and site operators, no more than 53 days were recorded as being over the daily objective. This is a significant reduction on the 2005 figure, but it is still too high. So far this year, there have been 36 days recorded in excess of the daily objective.
I want to outline what action has been carried out by various agencies since 2010, when we last spoke, and what action is being taken now with the Mayor, who is the strategic lead for air quality in London, and my Department. The Horn Lane area and the industrial site comprises several industrial processes adjacent to residential properties and a number of arterial roads and railways. These present several potential sources of PM10 close to the monitoring site at Horn lane, including waste transfer, scrap metal, aggregate supply and a concrete batching process. In addition, there are various key transport pollution sources in the area, including traffic on Horn lane and on the western A40; buses along Horn lane; and trains on the adjacent railway. But I concede my hon. Friend’s point that, although those may be part of the problem, they are not the significant driver, because plenty of other areas in her constituency with the same transport issues do not have this problem. One does not have to be a scientist or to have any particular knowledge about PM10s to know where the problem is coming from. Major construction works in the form of Crossrail and, recently, roadworks in the vicinity of Horn lane may have contributed.
We must remember that all these activities are important for growth, ensuring waste is recycled and construction materials are produced. I know that my hon. Friend is mindful of this for the benefit of Londoners as a whole and for the wealth of her constituency, but it is about where we locate such activities and the practicalities of doing that. These activities provide valuable employment opportunities, both locally and across London, and return money to the local economy. However, this combination of factors has also contributed to a perfect storm of pollution potential, making this location among the most challenging for operators to control and for the Environment Agency and the London borough of Ealing to regulate. This control must be achieved and it is the responsibility of operators, with support from other agencies, to ensure that their activities are properly managed.
I am staggered that a major change has taken place without planning permission. In an area as contentious as this, that seems to be an extraordinary state of affairs and it is right that my hon. Friend raises it.
At Horn lane, the Environment Agency regulates part of the aggregates site run by Yeoman aggregates, the waste transfer station of Gowing and Pursey, and Horn Lane Metals scrap merchant. The London borough of Ealing should also regulate part of the Yeoman aggregates site and a concrete production site, with Transport for London having responsibility for reducing pollution from transport sources.
The Environment Agency produced an amenity action plan in 2010, which is regularly updated with details of the actions taken to reduce emissions from the sites it regulates. These measures have significantly contributed to the reduction in levels since 2005.
Enforcement action has been taken against sites that are not performing appropriately and further legal enforcement has been taken and further enforcement remains an option. Since 2010, the Environment Agency has issued several notices to ensure waste transfer operations at the site are properly controlled. We rely on my hon. Friend to continue to keep us informed, where she thinks that this is not happening fast enough and where her direct dealings with the Environment Agency do not yield the correct answers. I remain on hand, and my colleague in the House of Lords, who has direct responsibility for these issues, will certainly follow up matters, as and when she informs us.
The agency has worked with Gowing and Pursey to install monitoring equipment and alert systems, so that the operators can respond to instances when dust levels are approaching dangerous levels; it is important to be able to monitor it before it becomes a major problem, and that is what is sought. The agency has also worked with those responsible for other sources of particulate pollution on the site, to promote improvements.
In 2012, the EA worked with the Greater London Authority and Transport for London to introduce a programme of deep cleaning, including the use of calcium magnesium acetate dust suppressant, to control dust levels at the site. The work was successful and showed a 36% reduction in the level of particulates in the area. Following a brief period where the site appeared to be contributing to dust in the area, an enforcement notice was served to bring the site back into compliance with its permit within one working day. This has been effective and at the time of the last inspection on 22 May, the site was clean and all waste was contained within the shed. Although particulate matter has reduced, all the parties recognise that levels continue to be above national objectives and continued action is needed to ensure the gains made are sustained and further reductions achieved.
The GLA represents the Mayor’s interest in improving air quality. It does this working with national Government and with London boroughs and the Environment Agency, as well as other stakeholders, such as business. Last week, the Environment Agency and the GLA co-ordinated a meeting, which my hon. Friend mentioned, of the key regulators responsible for this site, together with Department officials. A number of key actions were identified from that meeting and these will be taken forward by the key players concerned. We really want to make sure that these work and that a quantum leap is made in trying to resolve this problem.
The Environment Agency and the London borough of Ealing, as the main regulatory bodies, agreed to intensify their inspection regime to ensure that permit conditions were being met. I understand that this will include joint inspections, to be held monthly, and further action by the London borough of Ealing, agreed to reduce emissions from the wet concrete batching facility and the private haul road. There is similar action by the Environment Agency at the local metal waste site, and manual and mechanical sweeping, and further use of CMA spray, on the site to control dust. These and other detailed measures will help ensure that pressure is imposed to reduce particulate pollution. This site continues to concern us and we will continue to monitor it and my Department will continue to take a close interest in ensuring progress is maintained.
As we can see, this site presents a complex challenge. It is necessary for the local authority, the Environment Agency, the GLA and operators to work together to identify and control pollution sources. The regulators must also ensure that the responsible operators on the site comply with the control measures and monitor levels of pollution. Outside the site, ongoing action is being taken by the GLA to reduce transport emissions.
The continued action from my hon. Friend and local residents has been helpful in ensuring this. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue again today. I would have to be obtuse not to get the frustration that she feels on behalf of her constituents who live in this area. It is a complex site—an industrial site—that, in an ideal world, would not be in a location surrounded by residential accommodation. I assure her that this issue is on our radar. We want to ensure that the leadership that she has shown is reflected by leadership from all the agencies, some of which we are responsible for, such as the Environment Agency. However, we are not responsible for others and we look to my hon. Friend to continue to hold their feet to the fire on this.
We want this matter to be resolved. We do not want my hon. Friend to have to bring this back to the House, but I commend her for doing it.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Environment Council
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
My noble Friend Lord de Mauley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Resource Management, the Local Environment and Environmental Science, represented the UK at the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 18 June. Paul Wheelhouse, Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change, also attended.
After adopting the list of legislative and non-legislative “A” items, Environment Ministers adopted council conclusions on the Commission’s strategy on adaptation to climate change, making only one change to the text. Member states and the Commission shared the view that the conclusions represented a good balance of opinions. Portugal called for inclusion of specific examples of the impacts of climate change in the text. This received broad support and the conclusions were adopted with this amendment. The Commission urged Environment Ministers to be aware of discussions on the uptake of adaptation measures in other policy areas, for example in the common agricultural policy. Member states underlined the importance of taking action on adaptation, with many expressing sympathy to those member states who had recently suffered from severe flooding, and praised various aspects of the Commission’s strategy, especially on mainstreaming adaptation into EU policies and improving knowledge sharing.
The Irish presidency then introduced its progress report on negotiations to amend directives relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and the promotion of energy from renewable sources, in order to address the indirect land use change (ILUC) impacts of biofuels. The presidency acknowledged that there were diverging opinions, but hoped that consensus could be reached. Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard defended the Commission’s proposal, arguing that it represented a reasonable balance between delivering greenhouse gas emission reductions and respecting existing investments in biofuels. The presidency invited brief comments from member states, but indicated that substantive discussion would take place at working group level. Several member states, including the UK, intervened. Points raised included the need for robust action; the proposed 5% cap on crop-based biofuels; the advanced biofuel sub-target; and mutual recognition of national biofuel certification schemes.
On the follow-up to the United Nations conference on sustainable development (“Rio+20”), Ministers endorsed Council conclusions on the overarching post-2015 agenda and exchanged views on the links between the UN Secretary General’s high-level panel report on the post-2015 development agenda and the elaboration of the sustainable development goals. Commissioner Potocnik welcomed the Council conclusions and noted that they gave a clear signal for an integrated framework. He drew particular attention to six issues: the promotion of drivers for the green economy; the role of sustainable consumption; the need for planetary boundaries to be respected; the need for an integrated approach in developing the future framework; improving the financing of the post-2015 framework; and the need to speak with one EU voice. Member states were broadly positive about the Council conclusions. Ministers also responded to the presidency’s questions on the links between the UN’s high-level panel of eminent persons on the post 2015 development agenda and the elaboration of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The presidency noted strong support from member states for the high-level panel report, for a single development agenda, and for the five transformational shifts—particularly for the focus on sustainable development. The presidency noted that there was no consensus yet on the priority areas but that it was important to more fully integrate the environment into the goals.
Under AOB items, the Council took note of the Irish presidency’s note on the aviation emissions trading scheme. The Commission called upon Ministers to agree upon a regional market-based system; indicated that it was important for the EU to speak with one voice in international negotiations; and highlighted the importance of foreign airlines being included in the “stop the clock” system. The Council then took note of the presidency’s progress report on negotiations on the fluorinated greenhouse gases proposal, with the Commission referencing the recent US-China agreement on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). On the environmental impact assessment (EIA) directive, the presidency summarised the discussion so far. The Commission observed that everyone wanted the EIA to be more effective and efficient, and that harmonisation across the EU was necessary to create a level playing field. On access and benefit sharing of genetic resources, the presidency recapped the discussion that took place at March Council. The Commission was confident that progress made under the Irish presidency would be a good basis for discussions with the European Parliament after the summer.
Continuing with the AOB items, the deputy ambassador from the Netherlands introduced an information note to the Council on micro-plastic litter in the environment. Italy, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark intervened in favour of the Netherlands proposal, while the UK encouraged further voluntary action with industry. The Commission welcomed the Netherlands initiative, and indicated that it would look into the issue in the context of its Green Paper on plastic waste. Hungary then introduced its information note on the forthcoming “Budapest water summit”, which will take place 8-11 October 2013. Finally, the incoming Lithuanian presidency set out its work programme for the coming six months.
Ministers then broke for a working lunch, during which the marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) was discussed. Professor Laurence Mee, director of the Scottish Association for Marine Science, gave a presentation on the main challenges for implementation of the MSFD. A wide-ranging discussion followed, with an emphasis on blue and green growth. Commissioner Damanaki (DG MARE) spoke about the common fisheries policy, and about the importance of working together to tackle marine pollution. The Commissioner confirmed thatj its current view was that targets on marine litter would not be mandatory, and that any consideration of targets would be on a Europe-wide basis rather than at a national level.
Drugs Update
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
New psychoactive substances have the potential to pose serious risks to public health and safety. They are often marketed as legal alternatives to controlled substances, but users can have no certainty of the health risks that will arise from using them, nor the legal status of these substances.
The market in new psychoactive substances poses challenges due to the rapid development of new drugs. The UK published an NPS action plan in May 2012 which committed us to a range of measures to address the threat, including galvanizing international partners and institutions to meet this global challenge.
The UK has played a leading role in meeting this challenge and building international partnerships. Over the past two years we have successfully led two UN resolutions to foster international action and collaboration. We have also taken the opportunity of the G8 presidency to progress our response to this threat with other G8 member states, the UN and the EU. We are engaged in a very positive exchange, sharing our understanding of the market and different approaches to protect the public and exploring opportunities for collaboration going forward.
The sharing of information among international partners on the emergence of new substances, their impact on public health and the supply routes is invaluable in addressing the challenge. I am pleased to inform Parliament that the G8 have agreed a statement of intent to progress our close joint working on this. The statement is available on the Home Office website.
Civil Aviation Authority (Air Navigation Guidance)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
When the Civil Aviation Authority is exercising its air navigation functions it is required under the Transport Act 2000 to take account of environmental guidance given to it by the Secretary of State. The current guidance was issued in January 2002 by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Since its publication, there have been some significant developments such as the creation of both the future airspace strategy and single European sky and the aviation policy framework which need to be reflected in the guidance.
On 17 January 2012 it was announced therefore that there would be a consultation on a revised version of the air navigation guidance following the publication of the aviation policy framework. I am pleased to announce the launch today of this consultation on our proposed new version of the guidance which has been developed with the technical assistance of the Civil Aviation Authority.
The proposed new guidance has two key objectives. The first is to provide the Civil Aviation Authority with additional clarity on the Government’s environmental objectives relating to air navigation in the UK, including the need to improve the efficiency of our UK airspace network. The second is a reaffirmation of the need to consult local communities near airports when airspace changes are being considered in the vicinity of these airports.
The consultation will run from Tuesday 25 June to Tuesday 17 September. Anyone with an interest is invited to take part, although the guidance is aimed at both the Civil Aviation Authority and those organisations likely to make airspace change proposals in the future.
A copy of the consultation document and instructions for responding can be found on my Department’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications.
An electronic copy has been lodged with the Library of the House.
The responses received to this consultation will be used to help refine the guidance which is expected to be presented to the Civil Aviation Authority by the end of the year.
Pension Protection Fund (Compensation Cap)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
On 4 December 2012, during the Adjournment debate on the position of the Visteon pensioners, I announced that I would be conducting a review of how the Pension Protection Fund compensation cap operated, particularly in relation to those who have been members of a pension scheme for a long time.
The Government accept that the PPF compensation cap could have a disproportionate effect on some people who were members of a scheme for a long time. As a result, I propose that the compensation cap will be increased by 3% for every full year of service above 20 years. There will still be a maximum, which will be double the standard cap.
It is my intention to bring forward legislation to revise the compensation cap as soon as parliamentary time allows.
This revised compensation cap will not be backdated: anyone covered by this change who is already in receipt of capped compensation will get any increase from the date the relevant legislation is in place. The revised cap will also affect any scheme that does not enter the PPF, but only where it begins to wind up or enters the PPF assessment period after the revised cap is introduced.
For example, a person who has been a member of a pension scheme for 40 years and had accrued a pension of £50,000 would, if they took their compensation on reaching age 65 today, be paid a capped amount of £31,380. Following my proposed change, this person would see their compensation increase to £45,000.
House of Lords
Sterling: Exchange Rate
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to bring about a lower exchange rate for sterling.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the UK does not have an exchange rate target. The Government’s macroeconomic framework includes an independent Monetary Policy Committee responsible for monetary policy that seeks to deliver price stability through an inflation target of 2% as measured by the 12-month increase in the consumer prices index. Under this framework the exchange rate is allowed to adjust flexibly.
Lord Empey
It is a great source of disappointment to me, and I am sure to many in your Lordships’ House, that the export-led recovery which we had all hoped for has not yet occurred. Does the Minister agree that while we take no action with our exchange rates and play by the Queensbury rules, our principal trading competitors in China and Japan are not so constrained as they deliberately manipulate the value of their currencies to the grave disadvantage of our exporters? Will he join with US President Obama, who in the past few weeks has expressed similar concerns?
Lord Newby
The UK exchange rate has fallen by about 20% since 2007. It was hoped that that would give a big stimulus to exports; it has given some, but not as much as we would have liked. On China, our trade to China over the past three years has increased by 76%. In April, for the first time, trade in goods to China reached £1 billion in a month. The access to China is proving rather better than the access to some other countries.
Lord Peston
I congratulate the noble Lord on his answer, which seems to me for once to be entirely right. The exchange rate did collapse but it had no noticeable effect on improving the balance of payments, as he said, because the supply side of our economy has not been able to respond. Apart from that—theoretically—we do not know whether it is the balance of payments that affects the exchange rate, the exchange rate that affects the balance of payments, or whether it is the two interacting. In other words, we do not know very much about this at all. A sensible Government will therefore concentrate on trying to improve the supply side of the economy and leave the exchange rate to go where it will.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I would just say, however, that we have been successful in reorienting trade towards the BRICS countries. China trade has increased by 76% while trade with Russia has increased by 71% and trade with other countries has increased by an almost similar amount. The problem we have been up against more than anything else is that the demand in our principal market area, the EU, has been very flat and declining. There has been a rebalancing of trade, and as the EU comes out of recession later in the year we hope that we will be able to pick up exports there as well.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, considering the massive devaluation of sterling since 2007 and the present state of our trade balance, is it not evident that devaluation is a tool of limited use in dealing with our economic problems?
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is a tool of limited use but that does not mean it is of no use at all. Obviously, you cannot have over a prolonged period all countries devaluing or competitive devaluation becomes a race to the bottom. The Governor of the Bank of England and the MPC would argue and have argued that without that devaluation our trade position would have been worse than it has been.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, is not the truth that the price devaluation of sterling can hardly be zero and that saying that price does not matter in export markets would make a nonsense of the whole argument about competitiveness? Would it not be more true to say—here I echo my noble friend Lord Peston—that when it comes to our manufacturing in particular exports, where the ratio of visible trade is 2:5 against us, we must have a policy on both sides? We must be competitive in price, which might require the pound to go down further, on that argument, but we must also give a massive shift of economic priority towards manufacturing as against the financial services industry.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government have been clear from the start that we want a shift away from financial services towards manufacturing. To a certain extent, that is happening. For example, we had an export surplus in cars last year for the first time in nearly 40 years.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the last thing we want is a further devaluation of sterling? Who is thinking about the interests of people who do the right thing and save, but who find that as a result of the programme of quantitative easing the returns on their savings are minimal? Pensioners who go for annuities are robbed blind because they get very little return on their savings. Surely the last thing we need is a weaker pound and the prospect of more inflation, which would hit people on fixed incomes.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government have no policy in terms of the exchange rate. Equally, the MPC does not target the exchange rate. However, the Governor of the Bank of England, before he retired in recent months, said on a number of occasions that he thought that the level of sterling is, in his view, now about right.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Is it not the case that under the brilliant economic management of this Government we have got the worst of all possible worlds? We have had a devaluation and the classic cost of that—an inflation rate which is about twice the eurozone average—but we have had none of the advantages: the balance of payments has got worse; the deficit has increased not fallen; growth has been imperceptible; we have the third lowest rate of capital investment in the EU; and under the most recent growth and employment figures, it appears that productivity is either static or declining.
Lord Newby
I do not agree with the noble Lord. The April trade figures show a deficit in goods and services of £2.6 billion, compared with a figure of £4.6 billion 12 months ago.
Lord Blackwell
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, according to macroeconomic theory, one of the drivers of a trade deficit is a government deficit, because any public borrowing tends to be offset by savings from overseas savers? Would not those noble Lords who are concerned about the trade deficit, rather than trying to manipulate the exchange rate, be better off supporting the Government’s efforts to reduce the government borrowing level?
Lord Newby
My Lords, that is a very sensible point. I think that everybody is agreed that we need to do everything we can, as UKTI is, to promote exports, because growing exports means growing jobs, greater growth and a smaller deficit.
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Funding
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the success of their initiatives to increase funding to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Lord Popat
My Lords, the Government are helping more small and medium-sized businesses to access financial schemes including Funding for Lending, the enterprise finance guarantee and Enterprise Capital Funds. The enterprise finance guarantee scheme has enabled £1.2 billion of lending to 11,700 businesses, the Enterprise Capital Funds scheme has invested over £110 million in over 80 companies, and Funding for Lending has supported many more. The Government recognise that more can be done and are launching the business bank with £1 billion of new capital to bring the schemes together.
Lord Sharkey
The fact is that net lending to SMEs is down again. That may not be surprising. Only a quarter of all SMEs are aware of the Funding for Lending scheme. The banks must know that you cannot sell a product if your customers do not know about it. Does not the figure of 25% of SMEs aware of the Funding for Lending scheme strongly suggest that the banks do not actually want to lend to SMEs?
Lord Popat
My Lords, the Government’s own research shows that awareness of the access to finance schemes has fallen in recent years. This is why we are launching a tailored marketing communication campaign to increase the awareness of many government access to finance schemes available to small and medium-sized businesses. This activity usually results in a highly successful brand. The launching of the business bank next year will solve part of that problem.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, has the Minister seen the recent survey by BDRC, which showed that only 23% of SME companies knew anything at all about the Government’s initiative? The survey also found that of SMEs applying for the first time, only 50% were accepted. Does he have some new initiative that might help?
Lord Popat
My Lords, my answer is no different from that to the previous question about awareness. Yes, we are doing everything possible through the Bank of England and the clearing banks to make their customers aware of the different schemes available to SMEs to borrow money through government incentives.
Baroness O’Cathain
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sharkey is absolutely right: knowledge of the funding available does not seem to be percolating through. That is a real shame, because SMEs account for some 98% of all businesses in the UK and internal market. They also account for so much activity, and there could be a huge opportunity for growth and for employment, because if every SME in the UK, and where possible in the internal market, took on one extra employee, there would be no unemployment. The combination of getting the banks to let go of some funding for SMEs, plus trying to encourage more employment by the SMEs, could get us out of trouble very quickly.
Lord Popat
My Lords, since the banking crisis in 2008, the banks are a little risk averse. They do not want to have excessive lending. At the same time, the SMEs are risk averse too; 61% do not actually borrow money for their businesses, mainly because they have retained profits to run their business but quite often because they use their own capital. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that awareness is key. This is where we have partly failed, and we are taking steps to ensure awareness. Having said that, we launched the Funding for Lending scheme this time last year, and so far we have lent £16.5 billion through it. That is a pretty good record for the Government.
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, we have already heard from noble Lords about the deplorable situation with respect to Funding for Lending. Loans in general to SMEs year on year are down by more than 3%, and Funding for Lending in the last quarter was down by £300 million. Billions of pounds are being drawn down by participating banks, but precious little is getting through to SMEs. It simply is not working. What we really need in this country is a fully fledged business investment bank with a strong regional presence. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Popat
My Lords, the Funding for Lending scheme is working. As I said, we have lent £16.5 billion in the past 12 months. We have also got other banks to join the scheme. Given time, it will prove to be successful. We have £80 billion allocated for that scheme. It is the best scheme available for SMEs. I also said that the banks are risk averse. They do not want to go through the crisis that they went through in 2008. SMEs are partly risk averse too. Not many SMEs are borrowing, which is why there is a little contraction in actual lending.
Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the banks scored an own goal not after 2008 but over 20 years ago, when they took the managers out of the branches and that in fact there is nobody for the average SME to relate to but a relationship manager at the end of a telephone, whose only word is no? The real problem we have is to bring back a relationship between the banks and the small firms. The Government are trying to do that—we are introducing growth vouchers and a whole lot of other measures—but unfortunately it is the banks that have let them down rather than anything else.
Lord Popat
My noble friend makes a very important point and I agree with him. In fact, when I was at an SME 20 years ago I had direct contact with my branch manager, and it was the manager who did the lending. Now, most banks have corporate offices and half the decisions are made on their computers rather than by human brains. I agree with my noble friend, but the good news is that we have set up competition within the banking sector and that the new banks—Shawbrook, Aldermore, Metro and Cambridge & Counties—all have branches with branch managers now.
Lord Cotter
My Lords, this point may have been made already, but it is worth making again. Does the Minister not accept that many small businesses do not know how to get different sources of funding, as there are so many that are potentially available? Specifically, what is being done proactively to let businesses know what is available out there for them to tap into? I know from running my own small business that you have very little time indeed when you are running it and trying to survive in this day and age; you do not have time to do this work. Are local enterprise partnerships and others doing this to help?
Lord Popat
My Lords, we are launching a tailored marketing communication campaign to increase awareness of a number of government lending schemes available to SMEs.
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]: Impact
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on insurance companies’ balance sheets of paying mesothelioma sufferers 100 per cent of the compensation to which they are entitled under the terms of the scheme set out in the Mesothelioma Bill [HL].
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, over the first 10 years of the scheme, a tariff set at 100% of average civil compensation would total £451 million. That is £129 million more than the current proposals, which are forecast to cost £322 million.
Lord Wills
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Indeed, I thank him for all that he has done personally to advance the cause of all those suffering from this dreadful disease. However, does he recognise the deep frustration felt by many in your Lordships’ House, and many outside as well, that the Medical Research Council seems unable to launch fundamental research into this dreadful disease, even when the insurers are prepared to pay millions to fund it? Does he also recognise the deep sense of injustice felt by so many that the insurers are refusing to pay 100% of all claims to all those who are entitled to them?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the point about research is that it is pretty complicated, one reason being that the Medical Research Council is constrained by the quality of the research proposals presented to it. There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation going on, as I see it, and I am working with my noble friend Lord Howe and the British Lung Foundation to break that situation. We are hosting a seminar on the importance of mesothelioma research shortly to try to stimulate the proposals for funding. As for the second aspect of the question, clearly there has been much debate on the exact level of compensation. In the end, this has been a very complicated and intricate deal to make sure that we can get good sums of money. We are getting an average of £87,000 a head to people who suffer from this terrible disease who have not been able to find any compensation whatever.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, those who have suffered industrial lung diseases get the full level of compensation under the 1979 pneumoconiosis Act, when they cannot identify their former employers to sue them, so by virtue of what reasoning should there be a scaling down for those who suffer from mesothelioma and cannot identify their insurance policies? They suffer equally and have great need of those funds.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I know that everyone in this House would agree with the proposition that we want to get as much money as we possibly can to mesothelioma sufferers, particularly those who, through no fault of their own, have not been able to trace the insurer that should be paying them the employers’ liability compensation. The reality is that we cannot trace the insurer in roughly 10% of cases. We are trying to make sure that we trace as many as possible. They will get the full amount, and then get a payment—not quite as much as I would want, but a safe, sustainable payment, for this group of people, and that is a lot better than the nothing they are getting currently.
Lord German
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on bringing the good insurance companies to provide compensation for this fatal industrial disease for those who are non-traceable or wayward in their insurance. Will my noble friend tell me what guarantees he has that the insurance companies will not simply pass on the costs to their customers in their bills? If he has no guarantee of that, it might well happen anyway. Surely it would be worth the little extra it would cost to bring that 70% closer to 100% in order to be able to give compensation and help to sufferers and their suffering families.
Lord Freud
My Lords, as my noble friend pointed out, this scheme is based on a levy on insurers who are active in the market today, not those who may have actually been responsible for the historic liability. It is very difficult to assess who takes the real burden of the cost. I have been very anxious to get to a position where I am as assured as I can be that the bulk of that cost is carried by the insurance industry, not by British industry as a whole. The risk is that if the levy is too high, the amount would have to be passed on by the industry.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, not so long ago, I was at the bedside of one of our clergy who died of mesothelioma, having not been diagnosed until very late. Will the Minister tell us what part sufferers themselves, their relatives and support groups will play in managing what sometimes comes over as an agreement and arrangement between government and insurance agencies?
Lord Freud
Let me make it absolutely clear that we have been acting as the agents of the sufferers in our discussions with the insurance industry. The idea that there is some kind of cosy relationship between government and the insurance industry is absolutely not true. It has been a really tough business to get a deal through. I talk regularly to victims’ groups and lawyers. I get their support and as we develop the next stage, which is a practical process, I will be getting their views and having them very much in mind.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Will the Minister confirm that with people dying of mesothelioma at a rate of 2,000 a year the Government have predicted a further 56,000 deaths over the next 30 years? Will he tell the House the total level of compensation that will have to be paid out during that period to meet those claims? Will he contrast that with the not a penny piece that is currently being spent on research into finding cures for mesothelioma? In that context, will he give further consideration to the letter sent to him by more than 20 Members of your Lordships’ House from all sides of the House asking for public and insurance industry money to be used in order to do more to find a cure for this terrible disease that will take a further 56,000 lives in the next 30 years?
Lord Freud
My Lords, that is precisely the point. This is a terrible disease. It is about to peak in the next couple of years. That is why I have been in such a hurry to provide a scheme for those who cannot get compensation. I cannot do the sums in my head, but the payments are clearly in the many hundreds of millions. We have had much discussion about the lack of research in this area compared with other cancers. It is something that I and my noble friend Lord Howe are concerned about. We are going to try to launch that. There are two aspects: whether the Medical Research Council will find it valuable to do the research, and the insurance industry, which has been providing the only substantial source of funding until now in this terrible area.
Armed Forces: Human Rights
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice and directions are being given to Armed Forces personnel following the Supreme Court judgment on 19 June that human rights legislation, and in particular the right to life, may apply to Armed Forces personnel engaged in operations abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, urgent cross-government discussions are taking place to consider our options. We will provide advice to members of the Armed Forces as soon as possible. The Government are concerned that the ruling creates uncertainty and will continue to defend their position against ill-founded legal claims, while continuing to provide our forces with the equipment they need, and ensuring that, where casualties occur, generous provision is made for troops and their families through the Armed Forces compensation scheme.
Lord Craig of Radley
I thank the noble Lord for that not very reassuring Answer. Can he advise on this situation? A commanding officer orders a soldier to take part in operations overseas against an armed enemy, so clearly there is a risk of injury or loss of life. Is that officer’s order lawful? If the soldier disobeys the order, is he liable to a charge and court martial under Section 12, possibly, of the Armed Forces Act because he did not go into the operation? Is the officer liable to be charged or found disciplined under the human rights legislation because the soldier followed his instructions but was killed in battle?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I hope that I can give the noble and gallant Lord some reassurance on his questions. While the judgment will create uncertainties, we are determined that it will not undermine the authority of commanders in the field to give orders required in often fast-moving circumstances. I do not expect it to be open to a soldier facing a charge of failing to follow orders to argue that his human rights trumped those orders, nor do I believe that officers acting in good faith would ever face disciplinary action in the circumstances that the noble and gallant Lord has described.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the ruling is that the families of the Armed Forces personnel concerned can take action against the Ministry of Defence, since the court ruled that the doctrine of combat immunity should be interpreted narrowly. The individual claims concerned will now return to the High Court and it remains to be seen what the exact outcome will be. While it is essential that the MoD and the Armed Forces have a duty of care to service personnel, the concerns that have been expressed by the Defence Secretary and senior military figures on the potential military implications of the ruling should give pause for thought. Can the Minister say whether any consideration is likely to be given by the Government to the legislative position in the light of the court ruling, and is he aware of any of our allies who are in a similar position to the one in which we now find ourselves?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I said in my initial response, urgent discussions are taking place in the Ministry of Defence. We are meeting lawyers and trying to work out the best way forward for members of the Armed Forces. As regards our allies, we know that they are very interested in this issue and we will share the conclusions of our discussions with them as soon as possible.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, lawyers representing relatives said that the ruling meant that the Ministry of Defence owed a duty of care properly to equip service men and women as they went to war. Will the Minister comment on whether this interim judgment creates a risk of making the MoD more cautious with its engagements and less effective in peacekeeping? Will the Minister also confirm that the MoD is aware of its responsibilities towards our service men and women to provide them with vehicles and equipment suitable to the areas of conflict?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, with regard to making the MoD more cautious, looking around the House I can see noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords who, in their time, had to take very difficult operational decisions on land, at sea and in the air. I am sure that they would agree that we must ensure that commanders have the confidence to take decisions that often must be made in the heat of combat to obtain their objective with the least possible loss of life.
As for the equipment, the most important priority is the protection of our troops. Since this litigation started, the wide range of protective vehicles, including Mastiff, Ridgeback, Husky, Wolfhound, Jackal and Foxhound, have been available to commanders to match the most appropriate available vehicle to a specific task, based on the assessment of operational risk. Every effort is made to bring troops’ kit up to spec for the job they do and continuously to update it as technology advances.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, 31 years ago my ship was bombed and sunk close inshore in the Falkland Islands during the amphibious landings, and its AA weapons systems were totally inadequate in the position in which it was placed. I knew that, as the commanding officer, and my task group commander knew that, but it is the duty of military men to fight the war they are in with the equipment they have. It is clearly a total nonsense that one can use human rights legislation to go against that. Indeed, if we had not done that, we would not have won that war. Will the Minister not agree that it is totally bonkers to apply this sort of legislation to war?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord rightly raises the issue that we are grappling with at the moment.
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 11, Schedule 1, Clause 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 21.
Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:58 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 186 - Amendment 1 agreed.
16:57 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 188 / Noes: 209 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I remind those leaving the Chamber that they are expected to do so quietly. I also take this opportunity to remind those from the Cross Benches and the Labour Benches who are leaving that it is a custom of this House not to walk in front of the person who has risen to speak. I wonder whether they might perhaps remember that courtesy on another occasion, since plainly it is too late to stop them today.
Amendment 1
Lord Ramsbotham
“ProbationProbation service reform: Parliamentary approval
No alteration or reform may be made to the structure of the probation service unless the proposals have been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, as I have said on a number of occasions, this is a curious Bill. While the whole House welcomes its intentions, many of us are deeply alarmed at the absence of detail about their cost and how and whether they can be implemented in the timeframe depicted on page 34 of the so far undiscussed Transforming Rehabilitation White Paper. I have received many letters of concern about this, including a number from serving members of the National Probation Service, who are understandably worried about what is being done to them and their service, 31 of whose 35 trusts are adjudged to be performing well, with the remaining four performing exceptionally well.
Last Thursday, the Minister was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the revised impact assessment, which I have to admit I find as disappointing as its predecessor, because it is still so thin on analysis of impact, cost or risk. I note that, yet again, the Government’s justification for not releasing more details is that to publish estimates would put contractual negotiations at risk and so prejudice the effectiveness of the competition for delivery of offender services. Indeed, compared with what has been put to Ministers, as disclosed in articles in the Times and Guardian today, it feels rather more like a ministerial pat on the head of a recalcitrant child.
In drawing the attention of the House to the inadequacy of the initial impact assessment, I questioned whether, because it was published on the same day as the Bill and the White Paper to which it referred, it had been available to Ministers during their analysis of risk, or added later. I have to ask the same about the draft strategic risk register, prepared for a rehabilitation programme board on 21 May, referred to in the articles. If a board saw a draft only 12 days after the Bill was published, when were the risks that it assessed seen and discussed by Ministers?
I presume that the impact of these risks was excluded from the impact assessment, because it refers only to the Bill, not to the whole programme—a clever piece of parliamentary games playing. In asking the Minister when he and his colleagues considered these risks, I also ask whether a proper business plan for the implementation of their ambitious proposals has been drawn up, telling Ministers—and so the public, whom it is their duty to protect—exactly how, when and by whom they are to be implemented.
That leads on to the question of why, throughout this Bill’s progress, I have felt so deeply uneasy about the way in which this House is being used. We all want reoffending to be reduced, but we do not want to see any programme with that end fall flat on its face because understandable concerns about the viability of untried theories, in the uncertain world in which many offenders live what can only be described as chaotic and dysfunctional lives, have been ridden over roughshod in the desire to satisfy a party politically directed timetable that pays no attention to practical reality.
There is also the importance of taking people with you, particularly those whom you employ. Loyalty, like responsibility and accountability, is a two-way process. You cannot expect people to be loyal to you unless they know that they can rely on your loyalty to them. The loyalty of the probation service is being pressed to limits that would make every soldier shudder. Indeed, since 9 May, they, I and others who have asked questions have felt rather like that Chinese student who, trying to stop something relentless, climbed on to a tank in Tiananmen Square, whose crew could appreciate what he wanted but were not be deflected from their directed purpose.
I wonder whether the real reason why the Secretary of State is unwilling to reveal an objective assessment of the impact of his proposals is that he dare not, because they are so undermined by the sheer scale of the risks as assessed by his own officials in the Ministry of Justice. He cannot have welcomed the chairman of the Justice Select Committee in the other place saying last week that the Ministry of Justice, responsible for carrying out his ambitious plans, displayed naivety about the contracting out of key services and lacked the capacity to know what it was doing.
In Committee I tried to encourage the Minister to delay further consideration of the Bill until we had had a more satisfactory impact assessment, and answers to the many questions raised at Second Reading, many of which matched risks raised by officials, who described the whole process of transforming the National Probation Service as a,
“complex, large-scale change programme to be completed within an aggressive timetable”.
As I have long suspected, the change programme that has been laid before us is far from complete, because officials say, in a document issued only this month:
“We are undertaking further work on statutory responsibilities, to determine if there is an obvious split between the public sector probation service and competed Providers, and will come back with further advice on this, including on how we ensure that providers meet these obligations”.
Surely it is a bit late for that, when work on the Bill is so far advanced.
Officials spell out a breathtakingly long list of details of what this complex unresearched change programme entails, which, according to the White Paper timetable, have to be completed in little over a year. Those include the implementation and testing of the new operational model, but not payment by results, by three probation trusts; the establishment of the so-called new probation service; the establishment of 21 government companies; the recruitment and appointment of new senior management teams for the National Probation Service and the government companies; the allocation of staff into roles in the new organisation; and the transfer of 18,000 staff to new employers. Probation trusts are to have agreed the national and competed functional split, and identified the proportion of staff and assets to be allocated to the public sector or government companies, by the end of August, and to have implemented the new operating model, while remaining contractually responsible for delivery by public sector and competed functions, serviced by a single corporate support, by next April. Trusts are to cease responsibility for delivery, and all staff and other assets are to be transferred to the public sector, or government companies, by next August. Ownership of the government companies is to be transferred to successful bidders from October.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, as the noble Lord has made very clear, this amendment addresses issues both of form and substance. I entirely concur with his devastating and magisterial critique of the way the Government are seeking not merely to impose massive changes on a highly successful—indeed, award winning—public service but to do so without an evidence base, proper costings or any parliamentary scrutiny. The farce of the impact assessments has been compounded by the revelations of advice given to Ministers by Ministry of Justice officials on the risks attendant on the implementation of their policies and by the recently leaked document showing that the residual probation service dealing with high-risk offenders that is envisaged by the proposals will face further cuts in funding of 19% by 2017-18.
When the Government drove through their controversial, some of us would say disastrous, reorganisation of the National Health Service, they at least observed the proprieties and made the changes the subject of a Bill that was itself subject to scrutiny. In this case, as I have previously observed, the future of this service, so vital a part of our system of criminal justice and so important in maintaining the safety of the public, would not be being debated at all were it not for amendments emanating from the Opposition and Cross Benches in your Lordships’ House. It is astonishing, indeed disgraceful, that we read today that in their risk analysis Ministry of Justice officials have apparently stated that this Bill has been deliberately kept slim to “minimise the dependence of the reforms” on the passing of the legislation. I do not blame officials for this, nor do I blame the Minister in this House. The blame lies with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State Mr Grayling, whose only reaction so far, I understand, is to have ordered a leaks inquiry.
Lord Randolph Churchill famously described Gladstone as an old man in a hurry. The Lord Chancellor is a relatively young man in a hurry, but he, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would agree, is no Gladstone. If anything, he more closely resembles Randolph Churchill and if he continues on his present path, rushing on with eye-catching gimmicks and policies which have attracted the deep concern of the senior judiciary, such as those on criminal legal aid, judicial review and court privatisation, his political career is likely to end in the same way as Churchill’s.
It is characteristic of this Lord Chancellor that he proposes to begin to implement the changes he seeks as early as the end of August this year. What answers does he give to the questions raised by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation in her response to the consultation? Many of these relate to the payment by results scheme to which we will turn when we debate the next amendment, but what is the Government’s reply to Liz Calderbank’s concern that the process of advising the court and Parole Board on sentencing and licensing conditions will require increased investment because more full pre-sentence reports will be required where cases will be referred to the private sector for supervision?
She suggests that a more mediated approach to supervising short-sentence offenders, which all of us welcome as a proposal in the Bill, would facilitate the better use of scarce resources. She is concerned that the proposed move to national commissioning instead of by 35 probation trusts,
“could be at the expense of the local perspective”,
cutting across promising developments in partnership work and disrupting successful partnerships with probation trusts. She refers to an issue raised in Committee about the position of small voluntary organisations in a commissioning framework dominated by large private sector providers, the fragmentation of responsibilities and a duplication of work. As she points out, the changes will effectively be irreversible once implemented. Do the words and warnings of this highly experienced public servant count for nothing?
The Lord Chancellor is promoting this agenda in the spirit of the promoters of the South Sea bubble, one of whom, it will be recalled, advertised a project,
“for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage but nobody to know what it is”.
Well, we know what it is, but we do not know what it will cost or whether it will work, and neither do the Government.
Under the Government’s appalling proposals for criminal legal aid a defence advocate will be paid the same fee for a guilty plea as a not guilty plea. The salary of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I am happy to say, will be the same whatever the outcome of this debate. Nevertheless, I advise him to plead guilty, accept the amendment which would allow a proper consideration of the Government’s proposals, their benefits certainly alongside the risks and costs, and get it over with.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I share the frustration that has been expressed about this Bill not being about what we want to talk about and, indeed, diverting us from the important aspects of rehabilitation. I know we all share the objectives that have found this legislative form even if we do not all agree on the form they have taken in the Bill.
Being rather boring, I want to address the amendment as it is tabled and ask a couple of questions of the noble Lord when he comes to respond, if not of my noble friend. First, although this sounds quite counterintuitive, is there such a thing in legislation as the probation service? The Offender Management Act 2007, which is what I understand the changes which are being described are based on, talks about probation provision, probation purposes, probation service, but not the probation service. Secondly, again looking at the 2007 Act, have the proposers of this amendment taken into account the provisions within the Act for affirmative orders? Section 5(3)(c)—I know this is not the sort of speech that holds the House, certainly without me handing out programmes—provides for the purposes of a probation trust to include a purpose specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. Those must be made, we find later in the Act, by affirmative resolution. Section 38(2)(a) is about amending, repealing or revoking an enactment and this again requires an affirmative resolution. As I said, being rather tedious, I am struggling a little with the form of the amendment and in understanding quite how it would apply in taking forward the points that have been made by the two noble Lords, given that I think we have to base what we are doing on the existing legislation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, far from being tedious or boring, I found that an extremely interesting intervention, and I look forward to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. My noble friend is quite right to draw attention to the Offender Management Act 2007, because the plans that we have for the probation service are provided for on a legislative basis in that Act. The Bill before us is not, as we have fully acknowledged from the beginning, about the reorganisation of the probation service. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, the powers to do that were helpfully left for us in the 2007 Act by the previous Administration.
Under the 2007 Act, the Secretary of State may contract, with a probation trust, providers from the private or voluntary sector, or he may provide probation services directly. The Secretary of State intends to use the powers conferred by that Act, together with his common law powers, to create and sell companies, and to transfer the delivery of a large proportion of the probation service to the private sector via contractual arrangements involving the formation and sale of a number of new community rehabilitation companies. That is the basis of the approach.
Of course, this has not come out of a blue sky. The department’s rehabilitation reforms, like any other major government project, are subject to additional scrutiny by the Cabinet Office and Her Majesty’s Treasury, and through the Government’s Major Projects Review Group. Her Majesty’s Treasury approval is required for projects outside Parliament’s delegated authority, and the programme team is finding this full engagement of particular use in learning from the experience of other government departments.
Therefore, I do not accept that this matter has not received very thorough preparation, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. This major piece of legislation is being managed quite properly. Ultimately, after all the rhetoric, the sting was in the tail. The noble Lord does not want this Bill to proceed and neither does the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. That is good opposition politics.
Lord Beecham
I am sorry but that is not the position. I am certainly happy that the Bill should proceed. An improved version of this Bill should proceed, and one of the improvements is contained in this amendment.
Lord McNally
One problem with piloting this Bill is that I am supposed to sit here and listen to all the aspersions about the capabilities of my department and the intentions of my Secretary of State, as well as all the other brickbats that are thrown. However, if anybody takes on board anything like the full intention behind the amendment, it will be clear that the two noble Lords want to throw a considerable spanner in the works. If that upsets them, I am very sorry but it is true. I remain committed, as I hope the House does—it gave the Bill its Second Reading and went through Committee—to what I have always seen as the deal that this Bill puts forward.
That deal is that we are putting forward a major reorganisation of probation in a way that releases the resources to provide care, guidance and support to a very important section of those who have been sentenced to fewer than 12 months—the group that is most likely to reoffend and to get into that whirligig of crime that we are trying to break. I say that each time the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, tables one of his amendments to delay the Bill. We are putting this forward with good intention, with a great deal of preparation and work, and with a clear determination to put before the House as much information as we can. We are developing a case and we will go into a certain amount of commercial negotiation but with the full acceptance that we are doing something very radical. To use the statistics from a leaked report, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, just did, is not worthy of him.
I know that the noble Lord gets upset when he is attacked, yet when one rereads his speech one sees that he is very willing to dish it out. He throws out figures of 80% of this and 60% of that when he knows as well as I do that we are talking about a specific management tool that was used and developed by the previous Labour Government inside government, not to assess definite threats or problems but to identify issues that need further work. That is what the process is.
We have had it before with other Bills—this sudden idea that somewhere inside government these risks are being hidden from the public and Parliament, when the Opposition know full well that what is being gone through is an exercise that enables those who are working on these various bits of policy to identify which particular area of policy they need to develop, do work on and make proposals in relation to. It is not, and never was, a forecast of what is going to happen. It is disingenuous to suggest to the House that that is what it is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right to look at the amendment as it stands. It is very widely drafted. It states:
“No alteration or reform may be made to the structure of the probation service”,
but that would not just encompass national changes to a new framework; it would also mean that probation trusts in the current model could make no change to their set-up, however minor, without parliamentary approval. I do not want to dwell on this, but I ask the noble Lord to think carefully about whether that kind of parliamentary micromanagement is sensible in legislation.
I turn now to the detail of the changes that we are proposing. First, let me put on record that the Government recognise the excellent work that is done by the probation professionals across the country. I have said that time and again from this Dispatch Box. Our proposals for reform seek to build on those achievements, not to minimise them. We are doing that in two ways: first, by extending rehabilitation to all offenders who need it through the provisions in this Bill; and, secondly, by seeking to restructure the way in which these services are delivered by opening up the delivery of probation services to a wider market and by bringing the retained public sector probation service into a national entity. These latter elements of our reform proposals are crucial to the core aim of our proposals: to break the cycle of reoffending. We do so for three reasons. The first is that by opening up the provision of rehabilitation services to the private and voluntary sectors, we are seeking to promote additional innovation and investment. Despite the excellent work and commitment of those supporting offenders within the public sector, we are unable to achieve this fully under our current structures.
Secondly, by restructuring the public sector probation service into a national entity, we are focusing public sector resources on areas where it is most needed: on protecting the public from harm and providing clear and impartial advice to sentencers. By managing this service nationally, we are seeking to drive excellence across the country, bringing all delivery of these services up to the level of the highest performers.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, through both elements of this structural reform we are seeking to drive efficiency and savings in current practices and to provide the necessary investment to open up provision to all those who need it. I remind noble Lords that we simply cannot afford to expand rehabilitation to short-sentence offenders without these savings.
I now turn to the detail of the structural reforms that we are proposing. We are committed to maintaining a strong local delivery structure within the public sector probation service. Although current trusts have clearly built excellent relationships with other local delivery partners, much of this local working does not take place at the level of the 35 existing trusts but within the 150 local delivery units that sit beneath them. Our firm intention is to retain a strong local delivery structure based on these units, providing clear representation and involvement within both local authority and criminal justice areas.
Senior managers in the new organisation will have a strong presence within the National Offender Management Service and the Ministry of Justice, with directors for both England and Wales sitting on the NOMS board. Probation has often been viewed as the junior partner within NOMS, and this reorganisation is an opportunity to remedy that.
For probation functions that are being competed for, we are committed to retaining the skills, expertise and experience of operational staff currently within trusts. We are working closely with unions and associations representing probation providers to ensure that any process of selecting staff for the new structures is fair and minimises disruption as far as possible. We have also been engaging with interested parties to develop proposals for a professional body for the probation profession, and are strongly supportive of this idea.
We also recognise how crucial working in partnership is to the successful rehabilitation of offenders, and how probation trusts are integral to many of these excellent local partnership arrangements, including integrated offender management. The Government are determined not to disrupt this, and we are clear that contracted providers will need to demonstrate how they will engage effectively with key local partners when they are bidding for contracts.
As I set out in my earlier correspondence to noble Lords, we have already consulted extensively on the proposals in Transforming Rehabilitation: A Revolution in the Way We Manage Offenders. We received almost 600 formal responses to the consultation and held 14 consultation events that were attended by over 800 stakeholders, and the views received were invaluable in informing the reforms set out in the strategy published on 9 May. Both the transforming rehabilitation consultation document and the strategy were presented to Parliament, and we continue to welcome further interest from parliamentarians in these reforms.
I recognise the expertise that many Peers have on these issues, and I am committed to ensuring that noble Lords are kept informed of and involved in these reforms as they are taken forward. A number of other supporting documents have been and will be published that are available via the Ministry of Justice website: namely, the summary of responses to the consultation, the payment mechanism Straw Man and the prior information notice. In order to make them more easily accessible, I will place copies of these and all future documents giving further detail about the design of the new system in the House of Lords Library. I am happy to arrange an all-Peers meeting as and when we publish further documents. If it would be helpful to Peers, I will also explore through the usual channels the possibility of an opportunity for further parliamentary debate on these proposals outside the realm of this Bill.
In short, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the Government engage with Peers and other parliamentarians as we develop the detail of our reforms. However, I stress again that the significant benefits that these changes will deliver, including the extension of rehabilitation to short-sentence offenders and the creation of “through the prison gate” resettlement services, are affordable only as part of a wider package of reforms. I hope that Peers will be able to support the Government in taking these reforms forward.
I hope that these points of detail will provide noble Lords with some reassurance as to the structural changes we have proposed, and in light of this I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Richard
Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can help me with one small issue concerning the risk assessment. If you have a risk assessment, surely it follows that risks have to be assessed. The noble Lord says, “No, they do not have to be assessed; they have to be identified”. Why does he make that distinction? It goes to the essence of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is making. If there is an assessment of risk, surely we are entitled to see it, not to be told merely that certain risks have been identified but, as far as we know, remain unassessed.
Lord McNally
Of course, part of the problem is that it is described as a risk assessment by journalists. As I said before, a variety of exercises is carried out by the project development team, using various combinations of some of the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, plucked out—in fact, it was a third source because they came from a leak to a journalist to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to the House. So I ask the House to decide how accurate they are.
Of course, the Opposition cry, “Tell us”, but they went through similar exercises on big projects when they were in government. They realised that this was work in progress and it remained part of the management team’s work-in-progress tools. It is not a document that would give help to anybody in terms of what the noble Lord is talking about as risk. It is not about that kind of thing; it is about looking across the piece to see where the emphasis of work and development has to go.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, following his comments about his noble friend Lady Hamwee’s remarks about the probation service, he twice at least used the phrase “the probation service” in his speech. Can he say what he was covering in that phrase? In addition, has he not considered that a major stumbling block is the fact that we do not know how much this is going to cost? My noble friend Lord Ramsbotham and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, both said that we need to know the cost. The Minister has made no mention of the cost.
Lord McNally
We are working within a very strict budget. Because we have other commitments as far as the overall expenditure of the department is concerned, we have also said that we will be spending a little less than the £1 billion that is spent on probation at present. We believe that with our experience of piloting other schemes we can bring that down. But that will unfold as we test against the market. One of the reasons why we cannot give the precise figures is that we will be going into negotiations with commercial operators who would very much like to know in advance what our baseline would be, along with our other financial operations. We know the figures in broad terms and, as we have said before, while this will make some savings, it is the flexibility, the hard bargains that we were able to drive with the private sector, and the efficiencies that we will introduce which will bring the costs down.
Yes, we all use the term “probation service” rather loosely. What my noble friend Lady Hamwee drew attention to was that there is no definition of it in statute, and therefore she was warning the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, of a possible defect in his amendment in calling it as such.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, perhaps I may put a point to the Minister. No doubt he will recollect that at the end of 2010, the National Audit Office calculated that the cost of reoffending lies between the parameters of £9.5 billion and £13 billion per annum. Is it not therefore a reality that, even with the best will in the world and the most accurate attempt at analysis, it is impossible to arrive at any meaningful figure for what these new and revolutionary changes will bring about? It is not a question of not showing your hand in what might be a commercial negotiation that will have to follow, but that the figures are virtually unquantifiable and could mean massive public loss.
Lord McNally
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention, which probably was not intended to be helpful, but certainly was. That is because these are the stakes we are playing for. I do not doubt the figures he has given and indeed I have seen them. Reoffending costs this country between £9 billion and £14 billion, so let us not say that we are going to aim to prevent 50% of reoffending. If we could get it down to 40%, just think what that would mean in hard cash. That is the prize we are aiming for. Of course it takes some radical thinking and means taking risks that are outside the box—that is exactly what we are doing. When there is a new idea, it is a lot easier to throw spanners in the works or to say what is so often said about any new and radical idea, “Let’s have a bit more time to think about it and take it all a bit more slowly”. We have put a lot of work into this project and, as we develop and unfold it, we are willing to share information with Members of this House and others. However, the noble Lord is quite right that, as well as the impact on offenders who are taken out of the cycle of crime, and apart from the impact on victims who will avoid the crimes that the rehabilitated will not commit, there really is big money to be saved by carrying this through. I am as enthusiastic and confident about it now as I was when we started, and I hope that the House will feel the same as it did when it gave the Bill an overwhelming Second Reading.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. I have to admit to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I had not considered the details she outlined as far as the legislation is concerned. I had always assumed that the existing national probation service was the National Probation Service. Absolute logic suggests that I should go away and rethink the wording of the amendment because we must get it correct if we are actually going to put something through.
I should say to the Minister that I am not opposed to the intent of this Bill and I never have been. Indeed, I started my speech by saying that. The Cross-Benches are not the Opposition and I rather resent being called the Opposition purely because we sometimes go against what the Government propose. I am simply concerned to do all that I possibly can to encourage the Government and to make certain that we can be convinced by the Government that every possible examination has been carried out into whether what is proposed is possible and practical and that as little damage is done as possible to the existing public services, which have given such outstanding service for so long.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for a number of things that he said, in particular that we will have a debate. As he appreciates, one of the frustrations of this Bill is that it is not actually about the proposals—it is about the tools of the proposals. The legislation would suggest that although we can say what we like about those tools, it does not matter a damn, because the Secretary of State is going to go ahead anyway, encouraged by the legislation’s permission for him to do so. In that case, we would be denied any chance to have our say and to put our expertise and intent at the service of the Government. I am also very grateful for his explanation of what was going on, because we have not heard that before. I am very grateful that he will put copies of the things in the Library, because I suspect that many noble Lords do not actually follow everything that is on the internet in the way that officials might hope.
There is no need to involve a third party in the distance between the leaks and me—I received the documents last Thursday and have them in my possession now. I was laying my assessment of Ministry of Justice documents before the House and not a journalist’s interpretation of those documents. My concerns were, I think, quite reasonable. We were presented with a Bill on 9 May, on which we started work, but these assessments of risk were dated 21 May, which suggests that they came after the Bill. That is something about which I still seek reassurance.
I am extremely sorry that the Minister should have suggested that I am not happy to take it as well as give it. As he knows perfectly well, this refers to an incident—which I did not wish to lay before the House—when I complained to him that he had attributed views to me when I was not in the House and therefore unable to answer. I do not believe that we should conduct our business that way.
In view of the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised, I have some concern about this, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Beecham
“Proposed reform of probation services
(1) Subject to subsection (2), before instituting a system of payment by results for the provision of services to supervise offenders, the Secretary of State shall prescribe by statutory instrument a scheme for such a system, which shall be laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Before such system may come into existence, the Secretary of State shall undertake a pilot scheme lasting three years in duration, which shall be independently evaluated, with the evaluation report laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(3) Any payment by results pilot shall be based upon existing probation trust areas.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I begin by reiterating that I and colleagues on these Benches, and indeed across the whole House, are entirely supportive of the Government’s intentions in the Bill to reduce reoffending. We congratulate them on that aspiration. We want to work with them to see its fulfilment but we have legitimate questions to raise about the way in which they seek to proceed. Having said that, I repeat that we are at one with them in the objective of saving large amounts of public money and, equally importantly, helping to reshape the lives of the people and communities upon whom they have an impact.
This amendment, which I trust passes the Hamwee test, deals with payment by results. The Government’s proposals, which are of course not in the Bill, postulate a system in which for short-sentence offenders there will be supervision, from which the probation service will effectively be excluded, in respect of what have been described as low-and medium-risk offenders. That work will be carried out under contract by independent private or voluntary sector organisations, or a combination of the two. The amendment is designed to ensure that such a scheme is properly piloted. It does not rule it out, but it suggests that the scheme be properly piloted and then approved by Parliament as a radical change to the nature of the probation service.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord McNally, for answering after a fashion several questions which I raised at Second Reading and in Committee on payment by results schemes in connection with this question of the prevention of reoffending. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, responded to my request for an explanation of why the Government abandoned pilot schemes by the Wales and the Staffordshire and West Midlands probation trusts, and why they refused an FOI request for details of the evaluation of those pilots, by a curious answer to my first question—to which I shall return—and by responding to my second by falling back on the wholly unsatisfactory defence that the information relates to the formulation and development of government policy.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I do not want to add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has just said, because he has covered everything. However, I notice that, in a recent letter to us, the Minister mentioned that results were to be paid for after one year. I suspect that this is very welcome to both the voluntary and private sectors, which will be competing for payment. The voluntary sector would find it very difficult to go for longer without payment. However, as the Minister knows, reoffending rates always used to be measured after two years. Indeed, if you follow the reoffending rates after that, you find that they decline over time. Therefore, is it not rather premature to come to a judgment after one year? Could the Minister say whether it is intended that, if an offender goes on to reoffend two or three years after release, the company that has been paid will be expected to make a repayment for reoffending that happened later?
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, I was strongly supportive of Amendment 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. However, there was a defect in that amendment, which was disclosed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Therefore, it seemed sensible, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, appeared to propose at one moment, that he should withdraw that amendment and come back with another version at Third Reading. For some reason—I would be interested to know why—he did not do that, but pressed his amendment to a vote this time. The result was that the amendment was passed and cannot be changed, except by the House of Commons when it goes back there. It would have been much better if we could have decided a better version of Amendment 1 ourselves.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
That, I think, is a very narrow and technical point. It may well be that, if Amendment 1 had referred not to the probation service but to the probation system, it would have been unexceptionable, and a very short, simple manuscript amendment would probably bring that result about.
As for the present amendment, I wholeheartedly support it, and it is all the more relevant now, on account of the earlier amendment being passed and incorporated in the Bill.
I was somewhat surprised by the Minister’s attitude to the amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. If anyone has served the public interest with great, dispassionate and conscientious commitment in so many fields, it is he. It is entirely wrong that he should be listed with the “bad lad” wreckers such as me, who may sometimes be accused of having a somewhat subjective neutrality on the Cross Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to Punch and “Dropping the Pilot”, but I am thinking of another well known Punch cartoon, about the curate’s egg. The Bill is good in parts, but is thoroughly rotten in others. It is good and splendid in what it seeks to achieve, which is somehow or other to rid society of, or at least to ameliorate, the curse of reoffending. I have already cited, in an intervention on the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the National Audit Office’s figures, which he accepts. In 2010, the parameters were from £9.5 billion to £13 billion. The noble Lord now says that they are from £9.5 billion to £14 billion. That is apparently the point, in relation not only to the earlier amendment but to this one, too. He says that if there is a reduction of 5%, 10% or 20%, we will obviously achieve a massive public saving.
However, why must we assume that we shall make that saving? The probation service, which is now about 100 years old, is one of the most distinguished public services that this country has ever had. These changes are the greatest ever conceived for that service, and have the capacity to wreck it and emasculate it completely. If we get them wrong and they are failures, and if that, not unnaturally, results in more reoffending, we could be talking in terms not of saving millions but of the possible loss of millions, or even more. Why should we automatically assume that there will be a saving? The Minister may say, “I am assuming that because I believe the transfer of 70% of the probation service to private enterprise will succeed”. Why is anybody entitled automatically to come to that conclusion?
I have spent a great deal of my life in the courts, as a solicitor, a barrister, a recorder and a circuit judge, and I believe that the probation service is a Rolls-Royce service. Indeed, the evidence supports that. Of 35 units —I think it is 35—four were classed as “excellent” and all the others as “acceptable” and “good”. There could be no better bill of health, so there is no justification for the changes on that basis. This is a sortie into the dark—a voyage into uncharted waters. It may be successful; I will not argue that transferring those responsibilities to private entities carries an absolute guarantee of failure. What I am saying is that there is a huge danger, and there are huge question marks over exactly what could happen.
One problem that I foresee involves the probation service’s present quasi-judicial functions, in reporting to the court that there has been a breach. A decision has to be made on how to balance a number of factors against another set of factors—a decision that sets the machinery in the courts in motion. How can lay men, however well tutored in the short term, ever achieve that sort of expertise? How can there be confidence in the exercise of that quasi-judicial function?
Here we have the most massive upheaval that the probation service has ever seen in its 100 years’ existence. We are running massive risks, and everything must be done by this House to try to reduce those risks and to see to it that the laudable motivation behind the Bill, of reducing reconviction rates and all that emanates from that, is given the best chance possible. That is my plea. If I am to be labelled by the Minister as a wrecker on that account, I plead guilty and do so with pride.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know that I have been concerned about a payments-by-results service, not least because of the threat, as I see it, to innovative, interesting, small-scale provision which is delivered so effectively by a number of organisations that are very often—because this is the way with the voluntary sector—working on something of a knife edge. I have had reassurances, which I have very much welcomed, about the financial arrangements being such as to support small organisations which—I do not want to be pejorative towards them—may feel that they are lurching from month to month not being entirely certain that their income is sufficiently stable. They are also at a disadvantage compared with bigger organisations when it comes to a bidding war. There are a lot of sectors where some sort of beauty parade is undertaken. Sometimes, the money gets spent on the beauty rather than the content, and that is what wins the contract. I say again that I have heard reassurances about support for small organisations for part of the bidding process.
I want to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend for reassurance about something that struck me only earlier today. It is entirely likely that large outsourcing companies—we know the various names—will bid for some of the contracts. We also know that the proposed changes to criminal legal aid are likely to mean that the same large organisations may, through different parts of their workforce, bid to undertake solicitors’ services under the new legal aid contracts. What occurred to me was the danger of a conflict of interest, whereby two parts of the same organisation are representing an offender and providing rehabilitative supervisory services. I am using this occasion to ask my noble friend for an assurance about the solidity of the Chinese walls that will be required to be put in place, and the monitoring of them, if these two parts of the Government’s proposals go ahead more or less at the same time and more or less hand in hand.
Lord McNally
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to joust with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, as he is such a well read man and we heard about the Kaiser “dropping the pilot”. However, I like to think that the Opposition’s support for the Bill, which he again gave fulsomely at the end of his remarks, is like the rope that supports the hanging man—in saying that, I look to Lenin rather than the Kaiser—and so he introduces another amendment which would at least throw a considerable spanner in the works, if not wreck the Bill.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that I, of course, consider the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to be a saintly man. However, my reading of Lives of the Saints makes me well aware that one or two of them were quite capable of landing fairly lusty blows. Therefore, I have never equated saintliness or sanctity with pacifism or a lack of willingness to trade blows. If noble Lords read today’s opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, they will see that it contained a few lusty blows directed at the Secretary of State and the department, but is none the worse for that. I am sorry that, acting in their individual capacities and making up their minds individually, not a single Cross-Bencher managed to support me in the Division, as I understand it, but that is the nature of things.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, really should stop reading spy and thriller novels because his speeches are based entirely on sinister facts. As regards the FOI request, our refusal to release the relevant information was based on the criteria in the Freedom of Information Act, which the Labour Government crafted. As he well knows, that procedure gives the Government the opportunity to develop policy before premature disclosure occurs. As in the previous debate, the noble Lord saw all kinds of sinister motivations behind the use of a management tool which his Labour Government developed in Whitehall to allow those developing policy not to make predictions but to test possible dangers before making policy public. We have published the process of evaluation of our pilots at Peterborough and Doncaster and our justice reinvestment pilots. We do not have formal evaluation reports of the other pilots because they were discontinued. However, we have learnt from the process of designing the pilots and we are applying that learning process to the design of the new system. That is part of our policy development process.
I have known the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, keep the House going for a long time over one wrong word in a piece of legislation so it is a little rich for him to ask what is in a word. I again make the point to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we have given considerable assistance to small innovators in the voluntary and charitable sectors. We want to make sure that they play their full part. We are running a two-part £500,000 grant to voluntary organisations to overcome the barriers to their participation in the rehabilitation reforms. We will open up the delivery of probation services to a far wider range of potential providers, including the voluntary sector. We are keen to see partnerships between voluntary organisations or between private and voluntary providers coming forward for contracts. We continue to develop a strategy to support the voluntary sector to participate in future competitions and are working closely with the Cabinet Office to develop the capacity and capabilities of voluntary organisations to deliver payment by results contracts.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I begin with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the potential conflict of interest. If I may say so, it is potentially rather worse than the two instances that she gave because, in addition to the two services that she referred to, these contractors may be involved in two other areas. The first is increasing involvement with the police service and the second is the latest proposal for the privatisation of the courts. The whole spectrum of the criminal justice system could thus, in one way or another, come to be run by one of these bodies. Therefore, I think that there is real substance in the point that she made.
The noble Lord was kind enough to compare me with Lenin. Apart from the hairstyle I do not think that there is a huge resemblance. He referred to Lenin’s famous dictum about giving support to the social democrats that the rope would give to the hanging man. I would never do that, except possibly to Liberal Democrats, which is a rather different category.
However, there are more serious issues here. The noble Lord quoted with approbation the results of the Peterborough pilot—not so much the Doncaster pilot for fairly obvious reasons—and said that it has shown an improvement of 6%. That was true but it took the situation back only to the preceding year of the period. The crucial point is that the two probation trust pilots were terminated. We still do not know, because no Minister has condescended to tell us, why those two pilot schemes in Wales and Staffordshire in the West Midlands, run by the probation trusts, were terminated; not only that, Ministers will not give us the evaluation. Yet, in Peterborough and Doncaster, not yet halfway through the proposed piloting period, they disclosed results. I find that inconsistency wholly inexplicable.
On the question of payment, I am not asking for details of the eventual payment scheme, but for an indication roughly speaking of what percentage might be attributable to the results. What proportion are we talking about? Are we talking about 10% of a fee, something up to 20%, or somewhere in between? There is no indication at all of the proportions that the Government might be contemplating. It is nice to know that at some point information will be placed in the Library; it will be a little late for this House to use unless the Bill comes back from the Commons in a different form.
Moreover, in relation to piloting, I spoke in Committee of another pilot that the Government are conducting on drugs offences which will not report until 2017-18. The Government, quite rightly, have not produced evidence on that yet but they will not implement anything until those pilots are completed. That is the thrust of the amendment. I repeat that we want reoffending reduced. We like the notion very much of affording supervision to a great many more people. We are not convinced that the Government have the evidence yet on how to do it efficiently, effectively and economically. This amendment would help them to do that in a timescale that I repeat is less than the timescale of the various other pilots about which we have heard. I am afraid that the Minister has not given satisfactory answers to the questions that I and others have raised and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Beecham
“Low, medium and high risk offenders
(1) For the purpose of the provision of probation services, the definition of a low, medium and high risk provider shall be prescribed by statutory instrument, which shall be laid before Parliament and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses.
(2) For the purpose of the provision of probation services and supervision post release, the definition of a low or medium risk offender shall not include offences of a violent or sexual nature, stalking or domestic violence.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, noble Lords will be relieved to hear that this is not an amendment on which I propose to divide the House. Rather, it is an attempt to try to elucidate some of the issues around the question of risk, to which I have previously referred. It is a matter on which the Chief Inspector of Probation has commented. In particular, she has drawn attention to the movement between risk categories, which is generally assumed to be in the order of 25% with a significant proportion moving from a lower to a higher risk. Indeed, studies carried out by the inspectorate show that as many as 50% of offenders change category. There is a real concern that, given this binary system, the information required to transfer from a low or medium risk to a higher risk category, which would involve a change in supervisor from the organisations that are to be contracted under the payment-by-results system—assuming that they are non probation service, as the Government intend—to the probation service as the body responsible for high risk offenders is, to put it mildly, unclear.
The potential problem is that the information may not be timely, if it is available at all. That may lead to high risk offenders not receiving the degree of skilled supervision which is primarily available from the probation service. What the amendment seeks to do, quite simply, is ask the Government to work through their proposals more substantively than so far appears to be the case with a view to defining the categories more clearly. In particular there is a suggestion that the definition should exclude from the low and medium risk categories those offenders who have been convicted of offences, as the amendment states,
“of a violent or sexual nature, stalking or domestic violence”.
Those should always be regarded as potentially of high risk. The effect would be that people in those categories would be supervised by the probation service. Given the nature of the offences, that seems to be a sensible precaution that will allow the service to monitor the offender and, as I indicated in the previous debate, to relate to the victims. These victims will clearly be vulnerable individuals and usually, although not necessarily, women. It is as much the job of the probation service to protect the safety of those people as it is to promote the rehabilitation of offenders.
Even if he cannot give assurances today, I hope that the noble Lord will consider coming back at Third Reading, perhaps with some formulation that would meet the objectives here. They are not at all inconsistent with the thrust of government policy but do identify a potential problem given the split of responsibilities to which we have referred and which we debated earlier. I hope that, in that spirit, the noble Lord will look at this issue again and respond in a way that would not only be satisfactory to your Lordships’ House but would meet the concerns raised, perfectly legitimately and forcefully, by the Chief Inspector of Probation. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I will make one very brief point in relation to this. Of course, one has sympathy with the overall notion that it is important that the classification of offenders as low, medium or high-risk is carried out with a great degree of care. However, I would suggest that the classification reflected in the title of the new clause as proposed in the amendment,
“Low, medium and high risk offenders”,
is more likely to be accurate than the classification in proposed subsection (2) of the amendment, which deals with the classification of offences. The reason for that is found in the words of proposed subsection (2), which says that,
“the definition of a low or medium risk offender shall not include offences of a violent or sexual nature, stalking or domestic violence”.
That would mean that any ordinary common-law offence of assault, any assault occasioning actual bodily harm or any low-grade affray would take an offence out of the classification that would enable the offender to be classified as low or medium risk. These classifications need to be capable of fine-tuning and I have serious doubts whether it is appropriate for that fine-tuning to be given effect by a classification that merely considers the offences rather than the offenders.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this has been a brief debate but I fully appreciate and accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that it is an important one and I hope that I can respond constructively.
I thank my noble friend Lord Marks for his intervention. It is questionable whether the kind of fine-tuning in this area to which he referred is done at arm’s length. It is done by the professionals on the ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has referred in a number of his interventions to the Chief Inspector of Probation, Liz Calderbank, and the concerns that she has expressed. I make it clear that we have carefully considered the points she has made in response to our consultation. Our strategy document specifically sets out how we will seek to ensure that some of her concerns are met. The Secretary of State has met the chief inspector to discuss her concerns and she will continue to make an input as we develop this policy.
Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was the importance of victims. We share that concern. We are retaining the victim liaison role for all cases to which it applies. We are committed to ensuring that the reformed system is responsive to the needs of victims, and we decided it was right that the public sector should continue to exercise its experience and professionalism in conducting this role.
In discussing these areas, it is easy to exploit public emotion and concern when one refers to sex offenders, murderers or rapists. Let us be clear: every offender who poses a high risk of serious harm to the public will continue to be managed by the public sector probation service. Public sector probation professionals will decide on the allocation in each case. They will retain management of every offender who poses a high risk of serious harm to the public and every offender who falls under the multiagency public protection arrangements—or MAPPA. We will not get into second guessing the judgment of probation professionals about who poses a high risk of serious harm but we will have a very clear set of rules.
The public sector will have overall responsibility for public protection and the Ministry of Justice will ensure the effective management of risk of serious harm. We will set out clear expectations and standards in service level agreements and contracts with both the public sector probation service and market providers. Day-to-day responsibility for managing the risk of serious harm that an offender poses sits with the organisation allocated the case management according to the standards set. This will be the public sector in the case of those who pose a high risk of serious harm and contracted providers in the case of those whose risk of harm is assessed as medium or low.
Let me reassure noble Lords that this matter of risk has been foremost in our minds when designing the new system. Although the majority of offenders will in future be managed by contracted providers, we are clear that every offender who poses a high risk of harm to the public will continue to be managed by the public sector National Probation Service. We are also clear that it will be professionals in the National Probation Service who assess the risk posed by every offender at the outset. By the way, I take pride every time I read the words “National Probation Service”. One of the good things that will come out of these reforms is a National Probation Service with the esteem and professional recognition that it deserves.
We have already recognised that the public will want reassurance that those who have committed the most serious sexual and violent offences will be managed by the public sector probation service. That is why we have said that anyone managed under multiagency public protection arrangements will remain with the public sector, whatever their risk level. That includes offenders who have committed serious sexual or violent offences and other offenders who may cause serious harm to the public. The proposed amendment would go further, requiring all those who have been convicted of violent or sexual offences, stalking or domestic violence to be treated as high risk regardless of the length of sentence imposed. Many of those individuals will already fall to be managed by the National Probation Service under MAPPA, but we believe that a blanket approach like this goes too far and would not be effective in identifying those individuals who need the most careful management. Indeed, it would mean major changes to the way the current probation framework deals with offenders. While I am sure that is not the noble Lord’s intention, I hope it will help if I explain how risk is assessed and managed, and why this amendment would cut across professional discretion.
Assessing and managing the risk posed by offenders is a complex job involving a great deal of professional expertise. It needs to take a wide range of circumstances into account. The offence of which an offender has been convicted is only one of the relevant factors and is not always a good indicator of risk. There will be many others: age, criminal history, education, employment, substance misuse, interpersonal issues, and accommodation status, for example.
It is vital that the experienced professionals can use their expertise to make the right decisions to protect the public. I believe that it should be those practitioners, rather than Parliament, who should decide what constitutes a high risk of harm. Automatically deeming high risk an offender who has committed a particular offence could mean subjecting that individual to supervision that is significantly in excess of what is warranted. Indeed, there is a possibility that for low-risk offenders, providing overly heavy supervision and intervention might actually increase rather than decrease their risk.
It might also provide some reassurance if I set out in more detail how the process will work once the initial allocation has been made. During our consultation, we were told that splitting the management of offenders between the National Probation Service and the contracted providers would require clearly defined responsibilities and accountabilities at every level and a clearly defined process for managing rapid changes in offender risk. We agree, and we have built those into the design of the new system.
We are developing a risk management system that is both proactive and responsive to changes in risk. At the heart of our system is the recognition that at an operational level those managing an offender must have day-to-day responsibility for managing the risk of harm posed by that offender. This will be the National Probation Service in the case of those who pose a high risk of serious harm and contracted providers in the case of those whose risk of serious harm is assessed as medium or low. However, we also recognise that risk of serious harm can change during the course of a sentence, and we are putting a series of safeguards in place to ensure that changes in risk are picked up and appropriately acted on and that responsibilities are clear at every level.
We will pursue an approach that will build on existing good practice. We already know that good quality offender management practice supported by clear policies and close multiagency work are the necessary building blocks for effective risk management. The new National Probation Service and providers will be required to interact and work together to ensure a cohesive approach to managing risk.
I turn to the detail of the process we envisage. The National Probation Service will conduct an assessment at the outset, which will determine who manages each offender. It will be the National Probation Service in the case of those who pose a high risk of serious harm, and contracted providers in the case of those whose risk of serious harm is assessed as medium or low.
During the course of the sentence, providers will be required to risk-manage the offender within their case load We will place contractual obligations on providers to ensure that they have appropriately trained staff and organisational policies for the management of risk of serious harm. Where there is a significant change in circumstances that indicates an increase in the risk of serious harm, the contracted provider will be required contractually to refer the case to the National Probation Service. It will be for the National Probation Service to confirm whether the risk of serious harm is high.
If a decision is reached that the risk of serious harm has escalated to high, the responsibility for the management of the case will transfer to the National Probation Service. Where case transfer happens, this will be achieved in such a way that it does not destabilise the offender. Involvement with the provider could continue, while the case responsibility will be with the National Probation Service.
I am confident that the measures that I have outlined will provide a robust system. I understand that noble Lords share that desire to ensure that the new system builds and improves on the good practices that now exist. However, I come back to the point that it is the skilled and experienced practitioners in the public sector National Probation Service who are best placed to make the risk decisions.
As I said at the beginning, I welcome this intervention, particularly with the noble Lord’s assurance that he does not intend to divide on this amendment. I make no apologies for going into detail in my reply, which I hope will be of assistance to him and to the House in seeing how we are developing this matter.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very full explanation of the Government’s approach, and I derive a reasonable degree of comfort and assurance from it. I am not entirely convinced by the concept of the National Probation Service as an improvement on the more localised service that is currently being delivered through probation trusts at local level. I was not a great admirer of the previous Government’s decision to create the National Offender Management Service either. The Minister and I are apparently at one about that.
Lord McNally
I remember our debates on that decision. Part of the problem with the last reorganisation was what we said at the time would be the downgrading of the probation service by having no national voice. That is the real win in this reorganisation: the probation service being where it should be, at the top table and with direct access to the Secretary of State.
Lord Beecham
I can certainly see the case for an arrangement of that kind, but the operational workings of the service are better driven at a more local level, with the service being involved in the relevant areas— as I said, I think there are 35 at the moment—by engaging with the other partners, which are a necessary part of dealing with the problems of offenders. That includes magistrates, who I understand will no longer be involved in this process, and there is some concern about that among magistrates. It also includes other government departments, such as the DWP, local authorities and the voluntary sector operating at a local level.
I continue to have reservations about the nationalisation of the service, as it were, which again might differentiate me from Lenin. I am reasonably assured by the process that the Minister describes, but on the more substantive issue I still have some anxiety, which may be shared generally, about the process of identifying a change of category and the reference upward to the probation service, however constituted, particularly if there was a large jump from a lower-risk case, which might well be supervised by a contractual or voluntary organisation at a comparatively low level of skill, which might make it more difficult to detect the change. Without suggesting further pilots, since these are not in fashion at the moment, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister at some point, perhaps just informally, whether the transition will be kept under review and an effort made to collate the experience across this scheme to see how it works over a reasonable period.
The other question that arises is how this arrangement of transfer will affect the contract. I suppose it should not be assumed that a transfer of risk necessarily means that the provider has failed in their contractual obligation, because there might not be another offence. Again, I appreciate that we are talking about cohorts, but there are some significant numbers here. Given that 250,000 people are to be involved, I do not know how big the cohorts are to be. I am not asking for an answer to this now—again, perhaps it could be by letter—but if there is a change of category so that at different times you have two separate organisations with responsibility for part of the cohort, how will that impact upon the payment system? Are there any incentives, perverse or otherwise, in that context? For example, if somebody was a bit difficult at the lower level and if there are large numbers, it might be convenient to move them up to the probation service. Will that have an implication for the funding?
That is a rather separate point, I admit, and not covered by the precise terms of the amendment, but it is perhaps worth exploring. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(a) the offender was aged under 18 when the sentence was passed,”
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, Amendment 4 is in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Marks, Lady Hamwee and Lord Dholakia. I will also speak to Amendments 6 and 15, which have been grouped with it.
The purpose of this amendment is to exclude anyone aged under 18 on the day of sentencing from the new supervision period of one year by a new provider of probation services, even after they have turned 18 and before the detention period has come to an end. Currently, sentencing for under-18s includes a detention and training order which requires the young offender to serve half their sentence in custody and half in the community. Only those sentenced to at least two years on a DTO are required to do 12 months on supervision. However, the Government’s new proposals are that all those young people will be required to do 12 months on supervision, even if they have had only a six-month DTO and if they are over 18 at the end of the custodial period. Thus, they would be transferred from the YJB and YOTs to an unknown private provider, with all the demands and expectation of adults. That would run directly counter to current practice.
I must declare an interest in and an admiration for the work of the Youth Justice Board, whose work I have followed for many years and which is responsible for the administration of services for young people in trouble with the law. I am sure that your Lordships will not need persuading of its levels of experience, professionalism and skill, which have been developed and honed in working with this challenging and vulnerable group, particularly in the past few years. Most of us have been parents of adolescents but we cannot even guess at the breadth and depth of the difficulties that characterise the lives and problems of this group. They are young adults who, because of the date when they turn 18, are required to be transformed into people of whom the expectations become quite different.
In fact, all the evidence is that this exceptionally vulnerable group of young people have many issues, which we have rehearsed on these Benches regularly, and which consist of multiple deficits in their difficult lives. They need highly skilled, professional help if they are not to get into even deeper trouble and increasingly make the lives of the rest of us more difficult through reoffending. I will give just one statistic to illustrate the counterintuitive vulnerability of this group, which is that 18 to 20 year-olds account for about 9.8% of the custodial population but nearly 20% of all who self-harm. These are very vulnerable people. The YJB is the highly professional and specialist body whose expertise is widely acknowledged in dealing with this group, and for the range of collaborative work it does with other agencies where issues and needs overlap, including family and children’s services. It is impressive how these working partnerships have evolved over time to address the complexity of the difficulties of these young people.
As well as the range of offending, crucial to this age group in particular is the skill in dealing with issues of transition. This includes the process of moving from the youth justice system to the adult justice system at a stage in the life of these young people when they are particularly vulnerable. The YJB is quite clear when it says that this is a high-risk group with significant needs that requires skilled support from statutory agencies, in particular, from the probation service. The Government have clearly acknowledged that management of risk is where the probation service still has a clear role, and this group is characterised by high risk. Managing transition and managing risk go hand in hand, and I hope that the Minister can confirm that this area, which has not been properly clarified so far, will indeed continue to be choreographed jointly by the YJB, YOTs and probation, which would be in all our interests.
Evidence shows that where transitions are not appropriately managed, breach and reoffending follow. The converse is also true: when good, expert partnership working is in place, which is needs-led and flexible, especially at times of transition, the time of heightened risk, outcomes are better, breach is lessened and all of us are safer. The YJB is working towards transition before 18 is reached and then beyond. It plans, it works ahead and it knows what it is doing. It recently published an impressive youth-to-adult transitions framework, which I am sure would impress the Minister, and a youth-to-adult portal, which is used to transfer a young person’s information securely from a YOT to probation. Private providers are not legally able to work with under-18s, even if they had the skills and experience, and I reiterate that continuity and consistency are vital with this age group.
When we discussed this issue in Committee, the Minister undertook to take it away and consider the matter again. Given the enormous weight of evidence of the success of the current arrangements, which take account of all the evidence of the need for skill, experience and flexibility of partnership working which has now been established between professionals, I hope that he will feel able to give the House some reassurance that it will not be thrown away in favour of an untested and untried new idea.
Amendment 6 is a continuation of the argument I made earlier and relates to the arrangements to be made for the supervision of offenders who were under 18 when sentence was passed. It would mean that they would automatically be the responsibility of the local youth offending team until such time as they became 18, with the assumption hitherto that continuity is all-important and that the YOT’s work would be likely to continue. This amendment specifies that the supervisor could be either an officer of a provider of probation services or, for people sentenced as juveniles, a member of the youth offending team. I hope that this amendment will endear itself to the Minister because it opens up the possibility that there could and, indeed, should be room for discretion in the supervision of young adults. It implies some form of mutual discussion and planning between the YOTs and the new probation service providers for the future supervision of a young offender who has passed his 18th birthday. He is already known to the YOT, which has done all the relevant work to realise positive transitions in various relevant aspects of his life and for whom his life is entering a potentially challenging and difficult stage. Relationships are therefore all-important. This is an area that has had very little examination, but the long-held assumption has been that there will be as much continuity as possible, that plans will already be in place to be carried through and that important relationships will be established. It is to be hoped and expected that these issues will be recognised and discussed and that planning will be taken forward with the agreement of all parties. To do otherwise would be to create damaging rather than helpful planning for the young person. I am not aware of any discussion on this period of transition involving these two agencies, yet it will be crucial that the continuity of work with the young person, which has always been pursued hitherto, is acknowledged and discussed and the vital discretion of the youth offending teams is taken into account.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, in the general thrust of her amendments. Her introduction made clear the vulnerability of this group of young people and its importance in terms of their being very likely to reoffend. She also made the point very forcibly about the excellent work done by the youth offending teams, and that is something which I see very often.
It is my understanding that currently the youth offending teams can agree to continue working with any young person who turns 18 while they are sentenced. They will make that decision based on how well they know the young person. In my experience, if they know them even relatively superficially, they will commit to carrying on working with them for the very reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has given, such as the benefits of continuity and continuity of supervision.
Perhaps inevitably, I ask myself whether members of the youth offending team should be obliged to work with these young people if they hardly know them. I came across a case quite recently where a young man pleaded guilty to robbery with a knife and was looking at a two-year sentence. He had been in London for only a relatively brief time and was pretty much unknown to the YOT which had the responsibility for him. Is it right that the members of the team should have no discretion in whether they have continuity of supervising this young man when they do not know him? That is a practical problem. I agree with the noble Baroness’s general points that if there can be continuity it is preferable. We need to give discretion to the professionals involved. My experience is that they certainly will want to continue supervision if at all possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, described Amendment 15, which gives the YJB responsibility up until the age of 21, as “whistling in the wind”. Here again, I agree with the sentiments behind this, but can see a number of practical problems, not least that parents or responsible adults are very often encouraged to be part of the sentence process. That may well not be appropriate for somebody who is over 18 but under 21. One would have to look at the sentences if one were to make that amendment.
There is a very serious piece of work to be done looking at the outcomes of YOTs versus the outcomes of adult probation providers for the 18 to 21 year-old group, because they have a different approach. I would say that the YOTs have a more caring approach, if I can use that word, to the people they deal with. The noble Baroness has raised a very profound question regarding people in the 18 to 21 age group and I agree with the general thrust of what she is saying. I presume she is not moving to a vote, so I leave it at that with my general support.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I would like to express my general support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has proposed and said and also for that which has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I venture to suggest that anyone who has experience of dealing with young offenders in the courts would come to exactly the same conclusions as they have expressed. They have very good reasons to advance their comments. The position of those aged 15-plus to 18 is a particularly difficult area which has been neglected largely by the approach of the criminal justice system until now. I particularly urge that what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said about that group is taken into account.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments so comprehensively spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. One reflection on what she has been saying about consistency and continuity has come to me about the involvement of the probation service with the supervision of young adults which it admittedly has not been very good with in recent years.
One thing that worries me about the thought of the professional probation service in future being responsible only for high-risk offenders is that young probation officers are not going to have the chance to cut their teeth on the low and medium-risk offenders on which they build up the expertise which they can then go on to apply to the higher risk offenders. One of the cases that is frequently quoted against the probation service is the case of a man called Sonnex who murdered while he was on probation supervision. He was under the supervision of a very young and inexperienced probation officer who should not have been put in charge of so serious an offender. I hope that the Minister will reflect on this and on the importance of career development for the National Probation Service, particularly for those who have to deal with this very important group of young adults.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, in particular my noble friend Lady Linklater for tabling her amendments.
Amendments 4, 6 and 15 all relate to the supervision of young adult offenders. The aim of Amendment 4 is to exempt offenders sentenced when they were under 18 from receiving top-up supervision, even if they were 18 or over when released from custody. Amendment 6 is, I understand, an alternative approach to Amendment 4, because it applies to those offenders who are under 18 when sentenced and requires that such offenders may be supervised by a member of the youth offending team. The last amendment in this group, Amendment 15, relates to offenders subject to detention and training orders—or DTOs—and, as I understand it, would apply top-up supervision to offenders if they were 18 or over at the halfway point in their sentence and they were under 21 on the last day of the supervision period.
At the outset, I should say that we believe there are a number of technical issues with these amendments, which I shall briefly highlight. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I am generally sympathetic and understand totally the general thrust of the amendments as tabled. Amendment 4 would mean that an offender sentenced when under 18 years of age, regardless of sentence and regardless of their age on release, would not be subject to top-up supervision. Although not part of the amendment, this would in effect render Clauses 4 and 6 redundant, since they set out how offenders turning 18 during custodial sentences are supervised. In response to Amendment 4, I also stress that the Government believe that our commitment to provide 12 months’ supervision should apply to all those aged 18 and over when they reach the point when they would be released from custody.
We all recognise that offenders who have just turned 18 can have different needs from older adult offenders. The National Offender Management Service has been developing and translating the evidence base to support more effective targeting of interventions with young adults in custody. We want to work with providers to ensure that their needs are met as they move back into the community. When supervising young adult offenders who have just turned 18, we will expect providers to recognise this difference and tailor their supervision to the particular needs of the group—and, as my noble friend highlighted, they are particular needs. It is certainly in the interests of providers to do so, because this is an important and challenging group in terms of reoffending. To make a significant change in the levels of reoffending requires us to tackle this group and recognise the support they need as they transition into adulthood and adult services. Young adults are at the peak age for desistance from offending, and we want to ensure that they are given every opportunity to desist sooner.
I do not believe that supervision is a hindrance for young adult offenders. In fact, the Government see this as a real opportunity for real support for young adult offenders, not as something that they should be excluded from. As my noble friend acknowledged, at this age, young people as they transition to young adults are looking for greater levels of support. Therefore, the supervision element will surely assist them and provide an opportunity for that development. So I hope that my noble friend can reconsider and withdraw this amendment.
Amendment 6 offers an alternative approach. It also deals with the application of top-up supervision. In short, it is designed to ensure that any offender who was sentenced when under 18 and who is released aged 18 or over, so is subject to top-up supervision, must be supervised by a youth offending team—or YOT. I say this is an alternative approach because, if Amendment 4 were to be adopted, no offenders sentenced when they were under 18 would be subject to top-up supervision. That said, I understand the thinking behind this amendment. The fact is, however, that these offenders may under current arrangements be supervised by probation providers.
Under the current arrangements, when the offender’s behaviour is challenging or when there are additional offences yet to consider, it can be agreed that it is more appropriate for probation providers to supervise the offender on release rather than a YOT worker. This is a decision that happens every day between probation and YOT professionals, based on their professional expertise, taking account of the interests of the particular offender and their particular needs. My noble friend Lady Linklater and the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Ramsbotham, all referred to the importance of the professionals’ expertise and their particular needs. It is that professional expertise that we want to home in on. After all, who are we seeking to assist but the young person, in ensuring that their needs are met? We believe that this flexibility for dealing with young adult offenders on release should be retained, because it is likely to provide for the most effective ways to rehabilitate this crucial group. Put in a summarised form, it empowers professionals to make the best decision in the interests of the given individual.
Finally, in this group, I turn to Amendment 15, which relates to Clause 6. The clause deals with offenders serving detention and training orders who turn 18 before or at the halfway point of their sentence. The DTO is the main custodial sentence for under-18s. It is imposed for a fixed period of months, with the first half spent in custody and the second half under supervision in the community.
Just as an aside, while I have not been involved from the magistrates’ point of view, I have worked with such teams in the community and I have seen the practical benefits of the Youth Justice Board. In my own experience as a councillor, a community park was created down to the efforts of that particular team, and it was amazing what they went on to do in the community on their release.
Clause 6 provides for top-up supervision for offenders serving DTOs who turn 18 before they are released from the custodial part of their sentence. In this way, as with other adults on release, they will receive an overall period of 12 months of supervision in the community. I am not totally clear about the intended effect of this amendment, but it appears from what my noble friend has said to be an attempt to carve out a cohort of young adults who qualify for YOT supervision. As tabled, it applies top-up supervision to offenders who turn 18 at or before the halfway point of the DTO and would be under 21 on the last day of the supervision period. The additional requirement in this amendment, that the offender must be under 21 on the last day of the supervision period, is unnecessary because, even if an offender was sentenced on the day before their 18th birthday, given that the maximum period of a DTO is two years, it is inconceivable that any offender would be 21 or over at the end of the supervision period.
By removing and replacing proposed new Section 106B(1)(b) of the 2000 Act, the amendment would also remove the exclusion of those offenders sentenced to a 24-month DTO. That provision is important, because a 24-month DTO includes 12 months of supervision, so top-up supervision is unnecessary. As I said, I do not want to go into the technical details but, in short, the Government believe that it is important that those sentenced to the shorter DTO sentences who are 18 at the halfway point should receive an overall period of 12 months of supervision in the community as we are providing for other adult offenders. I stress again that it is the same period of supervision, but it need not be the same type of supervision. That is why we have flexibility in regard to tailoring services to young adult offenders. I acknowledge the fact that there is no one-size-fits-all approach in this way of dealing with young offenders.
I shall pick up on a couple of points that were raised during the debate. My noble friend Lady Linklater talked about delivering top-up supervision for those sentenced as juveniles who are turning 18. Arrangements for supervision of young offenders on release from a DTO are flexible, as I have already said, which allows for local agreement as to the most appropriate provider of supervision. I assure her that it will be tailored to the individual circumstances of the offender, their age and the risk of reoffending—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. The Bill provides for supervision top-up to be delivered by either the YOT or probation providers.
My noble friend also referred to the issue around transition, which was a very important point. I assure her that the Ministry of Justice, NOMS and the Youth Justice Board recognise that transition between youth and adult services is a potential point of vulnerability for young people. Indeed, we all acknowledge that. The MoJ, the Youth Justice Board and NOMS are already working closely together to help improve support for young people who are transferring between the youth and adult justice systems. For example, in September 2012 the YJB and NOMS respectively launched the transitions framework, to provide guidance for providers working with young people in the community, and the transitions protocol, to guide those working as custodial practitioners. Those promote better practice and aim to improve information sharing. NOMS and the YJB have already invested over £4.1 million in the development of the youth-to-adult portal, to improve the quality and quantity of information transferred between youth offending teams and the probation services. We are now looking to see how this service may be extended for use with other providers.
We all agree that this is a crucial group, with particular needs that need particular attention. I associate myself entirely with the sentiments of my noble friend and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We do need to tackle those needs directly, but it is our view that the Bill gives us the opportunity to do that, and to achieve exactly what we seek. I therefore hope that my noble friend is reassured, that she recognises the Government’s commitment to that group, and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive reply—and for pointing out the technical hitches. However, the message that we have been given about flexibility is much more important. It is important that inexperienced and new probation providers are not brought into this scene. Transition is, of course, fantastically important, as is professional expertise. Part of my theme was that the combination of partnership working between various professionals in the field—the YJB, the YOTs and the probation service, and also other services working with families in the community—has been developing, and makes a tremendous difference to the life chances of those young people. If that is combined with flexibility, it will work in everybody’s interests.
The YJB is particularly keen for families to be more involved, even when their offspring have reached the age of 18. We all know that, even if it is not apparent, such young people are often very immature and in need of family support—when it is there, of course; very often it is not.
In general, the landscape is enlarging with partnership working, which is becoming very constructive, and will be even more so if we can be sure that this very vulnerable group, which hitherto has not been entitled to any kind of supervisory help, will have it in a properly tailored and managed way. Bearing all that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Woolf
“(7A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the particular needs of women when determining the requirements that should be specified by him under this section.”
Lord Woolf
My Lords, Amendment 5 is grouped with Amendment 18, and I hope that I shall be in order in addressing my remarks to both of them. Amendment 5 is in my name, and Amendment 18 is also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Ponsonby. The two amendments deal with the particular position of female offenders, and are designed to give effect to an understanding that I hope is now generally accepted—that women offenders undoubtedly have particular needs. They are—to echo the words just used by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—a special group, who need particular attention. I hope that the Minister will feel that the amendments acknowledge what he has said previously during the progress of the Bill about his concern about female offenders in custody. He has expressed that concern eloquently, and I endorse what he has said. I hope that he, in turn, has now come to accept that it would be a significant move forward if a recognition emphasising the requirements of female offenders were included in the Bill, which takes a novel approach to dealing with the problem of reoffending.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we could have a debate now, although it is a very thinly attended House, but it may assist the House if I explain that the reason why I am not bringing forward a government amendment now, as I said in Committee that I would, is simply to do with the machinery of getting clearance through something called HAC. I am not sure whether it is still a secret that Cabinets have committees, but that stands for the Home Affairs Committee. It is my intention to table an amendment for Third Reading, which I hope will cover the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I promise to consult him on that amendment, and that might be the occasion for a full debate on the subject, perhaps with the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, restored to health and ready to make a contribution.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, despite that important announcement, I want to say a very few words in support of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. When we are taking into consideration the special needs of women and the fact that they might have been subject to domestic violence and have all sorts of other problems that need special attention, we should also remember the damage that imprisonment is likely to do to their family and the potential damage to future generations of children, who are much more likely to offend. I did not intend to take up time; I just wanted to remind. The Minister might like to remember those points when addressing the points that he has told us he is going to address.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, which I take as a very positive indication to the House and to me, I do not propose to press the amendment further at this stage.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the government amendments in this group make a number of minor technical changes to the Bill. In essence, they ensure that terminology is consistent within the Bill and with other legislation.
Amendments 7 and 8 relate to the new “drug appointment requirement”. The amendments replace, in two places in Schedule 1, the word “condition” with “requirement”, which is the term used with other requirements of the new supervision period and is consistent with the title of the requirement.
Amendment 10 relates to the provisions dealing with supervision default orders: that is, when an offender has failed to comply with a condition of their supervision. The amendment simply clarifies that copies of the supervision default order must be sent to the supervisor who is responsible for supervising the offender during the supervision period.
Amendments 11 to 14 relate to Clause 5 and the arrangements that exist where an offender is subject to consecutive sentences. The amendments replace the term “offender” with the more usual construction “P”. This is consistent with the terminology used in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which Clause 5 amends.
Finally, Amendment 20 relates to Schedule 6, which deals with offenders sentenced by service courts. The amendment clarifies the position in that it ensures that the definition of “the appropriate court”, which relates only to civilian courts, does not apply to overseas community orders under the Armed Forces Act 2006. As I said, these are small clarifications and technical amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there comes a temptation to move that any of these riveting amendments be piloted. I am happy to concur with the Minister’s proposal.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“( ) recommend to the Secretary of State that the notice given to the offender under section 256AA be varied in one or more ways which the court may specify,”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, this is an amendment that I moved with my noble friends in Committee, and I do not propose to repeat extensively the arguments that I put then. They are in essence that the present options for sanctions under new Section 256AC that are available to a court upon breach of supervision requirements are in essence punitive and involve a short term of imprisonment, a fine, an unpaid work requirement or a curfew. We stress that the court may well find it necessary and more appropriate on investigation of a breach of supervision requirements to have regard to the rehabilitation of the offender so as to make desirable changes to those supervision requirements. The court having investigated the breach will be in the strongest possible position to make such a recommendation. I have in mind in particular the power of the Secretary of State to make requirements to participate in particular activities in accordance with instructions given by the supervisor: drug-testing requirements, drug appointment requirements and so forth.
When we proposed the corresponding amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister was kind enough to say that we had made a sensible and practical suggestion. He promised to examine the technicalities of the process and to return to the matter at a later stage. Therefore, I now look forward to hearing from him the results of that examination. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, my noble friend has accurately reported my remarks in Committee, which did not, he will have noted, commit me to bringing forward a government amendment; I have taken legal advice on that. However, I am grateful to him for the characteristically clear and reasoned way in which he has made the case for Amendment 9.
I said in Committee that my noble friend’s amendment seemed a practical suggestion and I undertook to take it away and examine the technicalities of the process. I am happy to say that on the issue of principle that the amendment raises, the Government are persuaded by my noble friend’s arguments.
There might well be circumstances in which a court dealing with breach concludes that the rehabilitation of the offender would be better addressed by a variation of the Secretary of State’s supervision conditions. The Government agree that it should be possible for courts to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State and that there should be a process for acting on that recommendation. This should apply whether or not a court decides to impose a sanction for breach. In other words, a court could impose a sanction and recommend that future supervision conditions be changed, or impose no sanction but make a recommendation.
That brings me to the question of how we best achieve this. I have sought advice on the legal position. There is nothing in law that would stop a court making a recommendation of this sort. A magistrate or district judge could do this simply by stating their opinion about the requirements that the offender is subject to when summing up.
An explicit provision for this in the Bill would therefore be unnecessary. It could be seen as restricting the discretion of the court to make recommendations in other areas where no specific power exists. It could also mean putting in place a new specific court process for making the recommendation, rather than the relatively informal process that would occur now.
To my mind, the more important question is how we put in place a process within prison and probation services for ensuring that a court’s recommendation is acted upon by those setting supervision conditions on the Secretary of State’s behalf. There is a precedent for this. Probation and prison instructions already set out a process for cases where courts make recommendations about future licence conditions at the point of sentence. This involves probation staff present at court recording the recommendation and passing it to prison governors.
There is a presumption that governors should implement the court’s recommendation, except in cases where the offender’s circumstances have changed between sentence and release. I am happy to make a commitment that we will put in place a similar process for breach of supervision, with a similar presumption that those setting conditions should act on the court’s recommendation unless there are exceptional circumstances. To make sure that courts are aware of their ability to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, the Government will also discuss with the Sentencing Council whether it could include this in future guidance on dealing with breach of supervision.
In summary, I reassure my noble friend that he has made a persuasive case. I know he believes that it is better to get the processes right and get these things done properly at the sharp end rather than simply write things into the Bill. What I, as a layman, initially took to be a very good idea has been confirmed as such by the professional and legal advice that I have been given. I am not sure whether a Pepper v Hart judgment could be applied to what I have just said, but it is a very clear indication that we want to put the noble Lord’s very good suggestions into practical effect. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord in that respect.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I am not sure whether this is a case of Pepper v Hart, because I do not think that there is an ambiguity to resolve. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that very full answer. I accept, of course, that there is nothing in law to prevent a court making a recommendation of the kind that he indicated. I am also very grateful to him for the care he has taken to ensure that the Government can give a commitment both as to the court making recommendations on a breach hearing and to ensuring that such recommendations are given effect. Both halves of that equation seem equally important. I of course accept the Government’s commitments on these points and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“( ) Section 219(1)(b) applies as if the reference to the responsible officer were to the supervisor.”
Lord McNally
“Duty for all providers of probation services to participate in, and be accountable to, community safety partnerships and to co-operate with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local integrated offender management schemes
(1) Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (formulation and implementation of strategies) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after “responsible authorities” insert “including all future providers of probation services”.
(3) In subsection (1)(a)(i) after “disorder in the area” insert “to include participation in, and accountability to, community safety partnerships, and co-operation with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local integrated offender management schemes”.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, Amendment 16 would put a duty on all providers of probation services to,
“participate in, and be accountable to, community safety partnerships and to co-operate with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local integrated offender management schemes”.
Following Second Reading, I entered into correspondence with the office of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on this question and was referred to Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which places duties on various responsible authorities to formulate crime reduction strategies, which in practice is done through community safety partnerships. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, argued that there does not need to be further legislation on this matter and stated:
“Integration at local level works best when it is not mandated centrally”.—[Official Report, 5/6/2013; col. 1217.]
London Councils, which has briefed me on this amendment, argues that there is clear evidence from the Work Programme that commissioning services from the market, when applied on a large scale and managed on a national scale, can lead to low levels of engagement with local partners and therefore low levels of effectiveness. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that community safety partnerships have a role in performance managing the future delivery of contracts. There should be accountability measures within the contracting process and action should be taken where providers fail adequately to work in partnership at a local level. Community safety partnerships should have access to performance data from prime and subcontractor providers in order to have a local oversight of delivery. Although I was very grateful for the advice that I received from the noble Lord’s office, the purpose of these amendments is to put meat on the bone so that local authorities can properly play an influential and well informed role in managing local provision of services. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the three joint presidents of London Councils. I have seen the briefing from that body and support the points that have been made. I entirely agree with my noble friend that “bottom-up” is best, but sometimes structure is needed to allow these things to function well. I am not sure whether the example I am going to give is appropriate, but I will give it anyway.
In the London borough of Sutton, where this issue is “bottom-up” but structured, there is a very interesting partnership between the local authority and the police. The structure is such that there is joint management of certain services provided by those two parts of the public sector. Sutton tends not to go in for strident self-publicity so it does not seem to have made very much of this, but what it has done is extremely interesting. The joint management whereby the two arms are brought together works well as there is joint accountability. Whether or not that is a good example, I take the point about the need sometimes to have a framework. It is much better if that can happen locally but facilitation through legislation does not go amiss. If the Government still maintain that there is no need for this, are they considering issuing any guidance? I would rather not have central government guidance on what should happen locally, but sometimes a little prompting is helpful.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, Amendment 16 seeks to ensure that all providers of probation services are required to,
“participate in, and be accountable to, community safety partnerships and to co-operate with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local integrated offender management schemes”.
As was said in Committee, the Government are clear that nothing we do to tackle reoffending will work,
“unless it is rooted in local partnerships”.—[Official Report, 5/6/2013; col. 1217.]
I have seen how that works in practice. We absolutely expect future probation providers to engage with the relevant statutory partnerships. It will be in providers’ interests to work with other partners to achieve the best results. Our payment mechanism, which will reward reductions in reoffending, will incentivise them to do so.
In tabling the amendment, the noble Lord seeks to ensure that all probation service providers are both members of, and accountable to, community safety partnerships and other crime reduction initiatives such as integrated offender management. Section 5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 sets out who should be the responsible authorities for the reduction of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour as well as for reducing reoffending. A provider of probation services will be a responsible authority for these purposes where the arrangements entered into with the Secretary of State provide for it to be a responsible authority.
As a responsible authority, current probation providers already have a number of obligations including being involved with the formulation of the local CSP strategy and plan for community safety, attending CSP meetings and sharing depersonalised information with the other four responsible authorities. Community safety partnerships are subject to overview and scrutiny by the local district council. As a responsible authority, providers of probation services already participate in this process. Nothing in this Bill will amend or change the Crime and Disorder Act. Providers will need to demonstrate how they will work in and strengthen local partnerships if they are to be successful in bidding to deliver probation services. Specifically, we are including a requirement for providers to evidence in their bids how they will relate to and incorporate integrated offender management arrangements into their proposal and contracts will reflect this. I hope my noble friend is reassured by that.
We are reviewing the current statutory partnership requirements to ensure they are appropriately assigned and discharged in the new system and we envisage that the contracts will reflect the statutory partnerships providers are required to participate in. Furthermore, the National Probation Service and contracted providers will be required to develop effective operational and strategic partnerships with each other and agree their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to statutory partnerships to minimise duplication and maximise effectiveness. Once the system is up and running we will monitor local partnership working as part of obtaining assurances of the delivery of services and we will liaise with police and crime commissioners, local authorities and other relevant partners as appropriate.
I understand the noble Lord’s concern. Indeed, he approaches these issues with great expertise and I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. However, I fear that some unintended consequences may arise from it. The amendment would in effect mean that every provider of probation services in an area, no matter how big or small, would have to participate in and be accountable to community safety partnerships and other crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Different areas of the country will have different partnerships, of different sizes and with different challenges. The right approach is to look at this carefully before deciding which provider, at which level, is a responsible authority. A tailored approach, rather than a blanket one, seems to me to be the right way forward.
I have outlined the existing legal responsibilities and requirements on providers of probation services and reiterated our commitment to local partnerships, together with the steps we are taking to ensure that our reforms are rooted in local partnerships, so that offenders can access the broad package of support they need to get their lives back on track. I have also outlined potential unintended consequences of the amendment. I hope, with the clarifications I have given and the assurances I have made, that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, the noble Lord said that appropriate requirements are being reviewed and that the Government are reviewing which provider may be appropriate at which level. He went on to talk about monitoring local partnership working. It seems to me that all of this is under review and we should have a better idea at this stage of the Bill what the actual requirements are going to be. London Councils has raised these concerns with us. The London Probation Service accounts for 25% of the whole country. If it is unclear and worried, as it clearly is, surely it has a right to expect more than just more reviews about appropriate levels. Surely there should be more meat on the bone— to use the expression I used earlier—about what the responsibilities of the local authorities will be and what information they will receive. Having said that, I hear what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Provision of probation services
In any scheme (including pilots) for the supervision of offenders under sections 2 to 6, probation trusts and local authorities shall not be precluded from tendering for or commissioning contracts.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, Amendment 17 would make it possible for probation trusts to be able to tender for or commission future probation service contracts. The Government have said that it is open for probation trusts to convert to mutual status and to bid on that basis. I understand that assistance would be provided to trusts that wished to change their status into a mutual organisation in order to bid for the contracts. A mutual organisation would need its own financial backing and therefore any risk would be on the new financial backers of the mutual organisation and not on the Government. The Government argue that probation trusts as public bodies must not take financial risks. However, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Beecham, there are many examples of government public bodies taking financial risks. In this context, it has been deemed that they must not take them.
If the new mutuals were to bid and win then of course the risk would be on their backers and not on the Government. This begs the question as to why the Government are unwilling to take on the financial risk. Do they believe that the contracts will be too risky for the public purse? It also raises the question of the need for the public probation providers to maintain competition with private providers. We have seen in recent years—I am thinking of the prison service—where the public sector has bid and won contracts back from private providers. My argument is that you need to maintain competence in the public sector in order to keep the private providers honest.
It is surely in the Government’s interest to maintain public sector competence and public sector capacity to ensure proper competition in the future. If there is inadequate interest, as there many well be, among probation trusts to convert to mutual status, what action will the Government take to ensure that this competition is maintained? It is very difficult—I would argue impossible—to oblige people to take on financial risk. The Government clearly want to offload their own financial risk. The argument and the purpose of this amendment is that is overwhelmingly in the Government’s interest to maintain public sector capacity to provide proper competition for the private sector. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for setting out his reasoning behind this amendment. I also thank my noble friend Lord McNally for doing a sterling job as a Whip on this amendment. Never let it be said that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not quick on his feet. I think he has broken all records in rushing over to the Box.
Amendment 17 would ensure that probation trusts and local authorities are not precluded from tendering for or commissioning contracts. As was said in Committee, I agree with the general intent of ensuring that existing providers, where much of the knowledge and expertise lies, should be able to compete for contracts, a point well made by the noble Lord. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
We want to see the broadest and most diverse market for the delivery of offender services in the future so we want as many organisations and entities as possible to be able to bid to deliver services. Nothing in our proposals specifically excludes public bodies, although such entities would need to be capable of bearing the financial and operational risks associated with the delivery of these services under payment by results. Delivery or commissioning by probation trusts themselves would be unlikely to meet those criteria given that we have announced that we will be dissolving trusts in their current form and creating a new national probation service.
However, I agree that we should do all we can to ensure a level playing field, as the noble Lord stated, for all those interested in delivering services. That is why our competition process is designed to allow a range of different kinds of entities, including alternative delivery vehicles and mutuals designed by individuals within the existing probation trusts, to be able to bid to deliver services. We have also increased to 21 the number of areas we want to commission services across in order to ensure that contract package areas are of a variety of sizes and values. This is to enable more medium and small organisations to join bids in order to take part in the delivery of services. I know that the Secretary of State himself is very keen to see small and medium organisations as part of this process.
A number of staff within probation trusts have already expressed an interest in being part of a mutual to bid and deliver services. On 20 May, the Government announced a package of measures to support the voluntary sector and mutuals. In particular, the Cabinet Office’s mutuals support programme is providing intensive one-on-one support to prepare the first cohort of seven fledgling probation mutuals for competition, including coaching on legal, financial and commercial issues. The contracts for this support, totalling more than £500,000, have recently been awarded.
Local authorities may also play a part in the delivery of the new services—for example, as part of a provider’s supply chain—and will also be able to commission rehabilitation providers to deliver additional services in line with their own priorities. The amendment has changed somewhat from the one tabled in Committee to ensure that probation trusts and local authorities are not precluded from also commissioning contracts. The Government remain firmly of the view that commissioning contracts on the scale proposed and on a payment by results basis will be most effectively and efficiently carried out by a national function.
We are committed to commissioning and providing services that meet local needs, and we will ensure that the commissioning process is informed by engagement at police and crime commissioner and local authority levels. Probation service local delivery units will support the gathering of intelligence on needs and priorities at a local level, including from key partners—for example, local authority needs assessments—to feed into the commissioning process.
Contracts will be responsive to changing demands and priorities at local and national levels, new legislation and the wider commissioning context. Where commissioning priorities need to be adjusted, this will be done in consultation with the relevant stakeholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the issue of apportionment of risk. He made a very valid point and it is one on which we have also been in discussion with officials. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on that specific matter. It is a concern and I, too, have sought clarification on it. He was perfectly right to raise it.
That aside, with the assurance that I will write to the noble Lord on that point, and with the other reassurances that I have given him about the proactive work within government to ensure that all organisations have an opportunity to bid to deliver services in a variety of ways, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. He talked about a number of probation mutuals which are being established and which will be bidding for elements of work. My understanding is that these are smaller organisations than at the probation trust level and that they will be dealing with a particular expertise which is within the existing probation trusts. My point is that the organisations that form mutuals or that bid in some way will need to be large scale. If they are to be only smaller parts of probation trusts, then that expertise may be lost to the public sector, which was the burden of my introductory speech.
Having said that, I am obliged to the noble Lord for undertaking to write to me on the question of risk and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Beecham
“Veterans’ courts pilot
(1) Veterans’ courts shall be established for the purpose of assisting the rehabilitation of ex-service personnel convicted of offences for which non-custodial sentences could be imposed by the trial court.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), before instituting the provision of veterans’ courts, the Secretary of State shall prescribe by statutory instrument a scheme for such a system, which shall be laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) Before such system may come into existence, the Secretary of State shall undertake a pilot scheme lasting three years in duration, which shall be independently evaluated to include consultation with magistrates, with the evaluation report laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment replicates the one that I moved in Committee and embodies the proposal that I made when participating in the Second Reading debate. It seeks to address the particular needs of ex-service men and women, many of whom—sadly, rather too many of whom—find themselves in difficulties with the criminal justice system from time to time.
The intention behind the amendment is consistent with the line which we have persistently adopted on these Benches and which has been consistently rejected by the Government—that of piloting a new proposal. As I understand it from the Minister, there may be a sympathetic view of this proposal in government. Whether that extends to piloting, I do not know, but it would seem to make sense to adopt that approach.
However, the main point is that, as part of the military covenant, it should be accepted that there is a case for a special forum before which offenders who have been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, crimes that would potentially carry less than a custodial sentence can be assisted in avoiding reoffending and become rehabilitated. That is on the basis that we owe people who serve their country in, as I said, often dangerous and difficult circumstances a particular duty.
The amendment follows the precedent of the United States, in which every state now has a veterans’ court manned by a judge, who may often have been the original trial judge, and at which a veteran mentor is available, together with other agencies, to assist the ex-service personnel who has committed a crime. It has proved a remarkably successful way of preventing reoffending in this particular vulnerable group.
Many of those who have spoken in your Lordships’ House—the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in particular—have expressed their support for this concept. I note, to my surprise, that even the Sunday Express—not, I confess, a paper that I would normally look to for endorsement—has embraced the concept with enthusiasm. The amendment offers a more sensitive way of dealing with a particularly important and vulnerable group as part of what ought to be a wide-ranging series of provisions in conjunction with the military covenant, which the Government have helpfully adopted. Having had a conversation with the Minister, I apprehend that some indication will be given that this proposal will be taken forward, perhaps as part of a wider-ranging series of provisions, about which we may learn something tonight or in the future. I would very much welcome that and, on that basis, I will certainly not be moving the amendment to a vote.
Recently, a report has been published, commissioned by the Howard League for Penal Reform, and it may be helpful if I address some comments to what it has produced. Incidentally, I note that the Howard League commissioned this report as long ago as Armistice Day 2009, so it has been a long time in gestation, which perhaps is an indication of the importance of the project. It has focused its attention on ex-service personnel in prison. Of course, that is an important group but it is not by any means the biggest group of ex-offenders with whom we are concerned, given that—there are various estimates—there are probably 20,000 people at any one time in the criminal justice system who have served in the Armed Forces, of which the great majority have not been serving custodial sentences. I think that rather distorts the view that the report comes out with.
However, the report makes a couple of significant points. The first is that 25% of those surveyed were convicted of sexual offences, which is well over twice the proportion of prisoners generally. A bigger proportion have been convicted of violent crime, but the figure is not hugely disproportionate in comparison to the ordinary prison population—it is something like 10% or 11% greater. Even so, it is not an insignificant number.
The Howard League makes a number of very sensible recommendations in general about ex-service personnel in the justice system, pointing to the need for a greater emphasis on identifying those personnel at risk before they get to prison, and perhaps even while they are in service. It recommends that probation service standards should be revised to ascertain the status of ex-service personnel. We will then know—or, more particularly, the Howard League and, I guess, those with whom contracts are to be made will know—who are ex-service personnel. There should generally be more research on the characteristics of ex-servicemen in custody, but I would widen that to those who have come into contact with the whole justice system.
The league points out that a wide range of charities and other organisations are involved with service personnel. That is true, but it is something of a mixed blessing. I have heard it said that some of these charities are not particularly effective and, of course, there are so many that it is somewhat confusing. Moreover, according to the Royal British Legion, some of the initiatives in the voluntary sector tend to be reactive rather than, as it would put it, proactive—or, as I would say in better English, active—in pursuing these issues.
Some interesting developments have taken place, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord is aware of them, including a veterans in custody support scheme at HM Prison Everthorpe, which has links to service charities. There is also something called the Prison In-Reach initiative. The Cheshire probation service, interestingly, has a veteran support officer in each of its six offices. I do not know whether that is one for each or whether there is somebody available in each from time to time. It is also looking at a veteran support programme. In parenthesis, I wonder whether the Minister will ensure that such initiatives will survive the very reforms that we were discussing earlier today in a rather more contentious spirit than I hope will be the position on this matter.
However the Howard League, having looked at the American experience, concludes that it is not appropriate to adopt it here. It did that on the rather superficial argument that veteran offenders should not, as a class, be treated any differently in the system from other offenders. That underestimates both the obligations that we have to this group of people and the particular characteristics that they have. I do not see that it necessarily follows that what is being proposed, which is, I repeat, not a separate court to try the issue of guilt or innocence, but one to deal with offenders who are not in prison, in a constructive way in order to avoid their reoffending. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from its analysis and I hope that it is one that the Government will not adopt.
As discussed in Committee, there are other examples of special courts, be they domestic violence courts or drugs courts. It could be argued that this proposal for a veterans’ court is an extension of that concept; it is not hugely out of kilter with the rest of the structure. In any event, I would urge that this group is important enough to warrant at the very least a piloting of what has proved to be an extremely successful process in the United States, with very substantial reductions in reoffending rates, to the extent of 100%, as I understand it, in Buffalo, which was an earlier one, and something like an 85% reduction in reoffending in Minnesota. A number of American states have passed separate laws about the treatment of their veterans. We are not suggesting that that should be the case, but a framework should be established within which their particular needs can be addressed for their benefit, and indeed for the benefit of the community.
I very much hope that the noble Lord will give his blessing to this and that we can take these matters forward in conjunction with appropriate other government departments, notably the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office Minister responsible for prisons. I hope that a conclusion can be reached that will assist these people, help society as a whole, acknowledge our debt to veterans and, at the same time, reduce the likelihood of society suffering from offences committed by this group. I beg to move.
Viscount Slim
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for the quick conversation that we had on this subject of veterans’ courts. From that conversation I took away two points. The first was that the Minister is still not overly keen on having a trial of veterans’ courts. Secondly, but perhaps more importantly, he said that something had to be done about this subject.
I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the military covenant. The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence has to make a report at a prescribed time on the state of the military covenant. In his meetings with various ministries to gather information, I would have thought that the Ministry of Justice would be paramount in the thinking and discussion to find out what the plan is for young veterans who do not have or need a custodial sentence but who need rehabilitation. What is the plan from the Ministry of Justice to achieve this? I also remind the Minister that, with the coalition deciding to get rid of 25,000 soldiers, this problem will get much worse. There has to be a plan. All I am asking is that if the Minister still does not wish to trial veterans’ courts, which I would be sad about and which I consider probably the best way to move forward, the Ministry of Justice must come up with a plan and a decision on how this problem will be handled. Therefore, I sit down and await the Minister’s plan.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, put forward this amendment and for the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. Both contributions show the value of chats outside the Chamber; they bring rich dividends. I should say to the noble Viscount that I still have my doubts about veterans’ courts but I shall return to that later in my remarks. I accept fully, and it was clear from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that there is no division between us about our commitment to fulfilling the military covenant. As the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, made clear, the Ministry of Justice has a positive part to play in ensuring that in carrying out that covenant we address the problems faced by ex-servicemen who fall foul of the criminal justice system to see whether and where they need specific assistance in rehabilitation.
I am cautious because I think that we have to be clear about the nature of the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the American experience and I am not afraid to look at where good ideas have worked in the criminal justice system in the United States.
However, let us be clear: a minority of offenders in the criminal justice system served in the Armed Forces before being convicted. NOMS works with the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health to ensure that ex-armed services offenders can access appropriate support and rehabilitation services. All probation trusts routinely supervise and provide offender management for former Armed Forces personnel sentenced to community orders. But on the latest statistics available—this is why it is important to get things into perspective—the number of regular veterans in prison is estimated to be 2,820. That is about 3.5% of the prison population. About 5,860 offenders in the community, approximately 3.4% of community offenders, had served in the regular Armed Forces. In both cases, more than 75% are ex-Army, the others being ex-RAF or ex-Navy.
In prisons and in the community we are dealing with a very small number of people. Another statistic that I have seen is that 99% of those are men, which is not surprising. But that is the nature of this. However, as I told the noble Lord in our meetings in the Lobby, one of the characteristics of this Government is that when someone has a good idea we respond to it positively and constructively. In a way, we are doing that immediately. I know that the noble Lord and his honourable friend David Anderson MP, the Member for Blaydon, will be meeting my right honourable friend Damian Green to talk about the treatment of ex-service personnel in the criminal justice system.
As my noble friend Lord Ahmad said in Committee, we are aware of concerns about ex-service personnel in the justice system, but we need to make clear that the vast majority of the men and women who served in the Armed Forces go on to lead successful law-abiding lives. Indeed, it is often their experience in the services that provides them with the necessary skills and ethos to succeed in civilian life. But some ex-service personnel struggle in civilian life and it is right that we do what we can to ensure that the transition from the Armed Forces to civilian life is supported. I draw attention to the good work that the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces already do in this field, and the important work of the voluntary sector.
For those ex-service personnel who do end up in the criminal justice system and ultimately in prison, there is already specific support. Guidance on dealing with ex-service personnel in prison has been produced by the Ministry of Justice and the MoD along with the British Legion, SSAFA and rehabilitation organisations such as Nacro. In most prisons, we now have veterans as custody support officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned in Committee the problem with some offenders making up or exaggerating their service records. We need to ensure that we are able to identify as early as possible offenders with a genuine service history. We will also expect new providers of probation services to provide tailored services for such offenders, including addressing the particular needs of ex-service personnel. My noble friend Lord Ahmad said in Committee that we would not bring forward government amendments in the Bill to create a new veterans’ court. I also want to make it clear that this does not mean that we have ruled out a pilot of the veterans’ court. We have in fact not ruled out anything in this regard. I should also clarify that it is unlikely that a pilot of a veterans’ court would actually need new legislation.
What we need to do is give some careful thought to the best way to support ex-service personnel in the criminal justice system. It is clear that the amendment is designed to enable the Government to make a further commitment to look at the issue of veterans in the criminal justice system, and that I am happy to do. It remains unclear whether the proposal is to create a body to divert, where possible, ex-service personnel from the criminal courts or a criminal court with specifically experienced judges—more akin to a drugs court or a youth court—or whether it is a body designed to oversee the rehabilitation of ex-service personnel offenders sentenced by the criminal courts. Further work needs to be done on this matter, but I hope that, due to the way I have responded, the noble Lord will accept that we are being constructive.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I had hoped that there would be a clear acceptance of the notion that a trial should be made of the veterans’ court concept. I appreciate that it is probably not necessary for legislation for this purpose, but there has to be a peg on which to hang the proposal and this was a suitable example for such an exercise. Given that we are not talking about large numbers and that it would obviously be sensible but not essential to pilot such a scheme, and that the costs would be minimal, I find it difficult to understand why the Government cannot say that they will look at all the issues and give this particular concept a go to see what works. The measure would be, as has been the case elsewhere, whether it results in reductions in the reoffending rates.
As the Minister said, we are not talking about vast numbers of people, and it should be perfectly possible to mount such an exercise and for the Government to give an indication that they will do that. The Government are not slow to announce other initiatives when they choose to—in particular, the Ministry of Justice is not slow to introduce a wide range of proposals and act upon them.
I find myself, as I was in Committee, somewhat disappointed with the response.
Lord McNally
The noble Lord is being uncharacteristically churlish. I do not see how far I can go. I have already told him that the number of people is very small. Where would this court be established? What would it do? Which problem would it address? I have said that these issues can and should be discussed and that we will take them forward on an all-party basis and look for positive solutions. He must realise that I cannot go any further than that. I cannot say, “Right, we will set up a pilot in Newcastle”, and have them all sit round the room, not quite sure what they were there to do and what problem they were addressing. This needs a lot more work. It is an interesting area. We have responded as constructively as we can. The noble Lord has made progress; he should enjoy his success rather than continuing to grumble.
Lord Beecham
I am sorry that the Minister adopts that tone. I am sure he is personally warm towards this proposal. Whether that goes for other Ministers, I do not know; perhaps we will find out. I hope I have not given the impression of being churlish. We are approaching Armed Forces Day. We ought to be in a position to give a clear indication that what is ultimately a fairly simply project—the American precedent is perfectly straightforward, clear and inexpensive; the outcomes are easily measured, and it would be likely to be successful—will be undertaken. I do not ask the Minister to say definitely today that there will be a pilot project or some kind of experiment with a veterans’ court, I just find the tone less positive than perhaps our previous conversations had led me to believe it to be. Perhaps, far from being churlish, I was being a bit naive in interpreting what the noble Lord was saying.
We have a little while until Third Reading. I hope that we can make some progress, given that it is not a huge problem and that the ask in expenditure and organisation is not huge. However, I must reserve the position to bring something back at Third Reading. Of course I appreciate that it would have to be slightly different from this amendment, but I hope that is not necessary because I would like to go through the same Lobby as the noble Lord for a change on an issue of this kind, particularly given the client group that we are talking about.
I will not seek to test the opinion of the House this evening, but I do not rule that out if there is no clear indication of a positive attitude, which would not bind the Government for all time but would allow us to see whether we can learn from that American experience. I am not saying that it would necessarily be the outcome that one would hope for, but I hope that we will have an opportunity to find that out. In the mean time, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
Drones: Code of Conduct
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Judd
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Saferworld, which has an active involvement in security issues, and as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Rights, whose staff and resources have been immensely helpful in preparing for this debate. I am also grateful to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UNA and others, including various academics, for the material they have sent me. Our own Library in the Lords has, as usual, been a model of relevant information.
There have been a number of exchanges on these issues in both Houses recently, not least the exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on 7 February, and more recently the illuminating and well informed Adjournment debate in the other place introduced by Nia Griffith and constructively answered by Alistair Burt on behalf of the Government.
Drones—unmanned aerial vehicles—are either piloted by remote control from another location or follow a pre-programmed flight path. They have a wide range of military and non-military uses, including: surveillance and reconnaissance; disaster relief and search and rescue; anti-poaching operations; destruction of enemy installations and killing of enemy forces; and counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. More than 70 nations are involved in the use or production of drones, including the USA, the UK, Israel, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, China, India, Brazil and Turkey.
The potential of drone development for civilian purposes is considerable and will increasingly involve the CAA but it will also raise many other issues of much wider significance, not least industrial and commercial espionage and yet more intrusion on privacy and human rights. The development of autonomous robotics, which enables vehicles, once activated, to operate without further interventions by a human operator, will accentuate the challenges to be faced, as will the complex relationship between security and liberty.
In the military sphere, lethal autonomous robotics with the ability, once programmed, to select and decide to engage targets without intervention by an operator and to fight after communications have been jammed will, as Nia Griffith said in the other place, represent a “revolution” in weapons technology, with huge command and control, legal, ethical and accountability implications. Electromagnetic pulse attacks and cyberattacks accentuate all this and some experts predict that relatively soon vehicles could be as small as insects.
This is a nightmare scenario. Surely it cannot be a matter of just passively waiting for the forthcoming report by Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights. Government and shadow government should already be actively engaged in thinking through what is overtaking us and leading international analysis on what urgent action is imperative before the horse has bolted and we lose control—if, indeed, the horse has not already bolted. I hope that the Minister and my Front-Bench colleague will be able to reassure us about this.
The US is the most prolific user of armed UAVs, mainly in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. It is estimated that under President Bush there were more than 50 strikes and that more than 400 strikes were authorised during President Obama’s first term. The UK seems now to have 500 drones and the RAF is believed to have launched at least 365 strikes in Afghanistan since May 2008. There are reports that the RAF aims to have a third of its aircraft remotely controlled by 2030.
A new generation of more powerful UAVs is contemplated, with all the familiar procurement dangers of obsolescence before availability. The UK’s rules for engagement are still far from clear, particularly as they affect civilians and those not directly participating in hostilities. However, it is known that civilians have been killed. Has the UK itself conducted any targeted killings? Does the UK use the International Committee of the Red Cross’s definitions of combatants and civilians? I hope that the Minister can convince us that lines of accountability are in place for the UK’s use of drones when engaged in joint operations with the US.
The perceived advantages of armed drones are that they can attack targets accurately, quickly and stealthily while reducing the danger to pilots, civilians and troops who might otherwise have to be deployed. The perceived disadvantages are counterproductivity, including the alienation of populations where they are used, civilian deaths and injuries that play into the hands of the extremists and provoke recruitment to their cause.
It is difficult to see how the use of drones improves governance in a nation that offers a haven for terrorists, or strengthens local administration, or encourages dialogue with tribal leaders, or improves the training and reliability of the local armed forces and police services to whom it is planned to hand over increasing responsibility. In this respect, the total counterproductivity of so-called double tap strikes, where rescuers going to aid those hit by the first blast are attacked by a follow-up strike, cannot be overestimated. Indeed, such action may well constitute a war crime.
The increased use of drones by the United States has doubtless been influenced by growing public pressure to keep down troop losses and costs and a perceived need to deal covertly with the disparate core of the al-Qaeda network in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia where there is no internationally recognised conflict, thus enabling the intelligence agencies rather than the military to operate the drones. Another factor is the international and domestic criticism of secret detention, rendition and Guantanamo. Killing has become a more attractive proposition than making captures, but where does that leave the rule of law, about which the world is so repeatedly lectured? Where does it leave the credibility of the alliance? Where does it leave the society which all this is supposed to defend? Surely either we uphold the rule of law or we do not. To circumvent it is as hypocritical and wrong as it is counterproductive. I trust that the Minister will confirm that this is the unequivocal position of the Government.
I note that the US Government are to shift drone operations from the CIA to the military, but if in effect this is to the Joint Special Operations Command, one of the very least transparent elements in the military, will there really be improved accountability? Meanwhile, the CIA will remain in control in Pakistan, with any shift to the military deferred to 2014. However, there is now at least some evidence of a significant decrease in drone activity in Pakistan.
Much recent debate in the US has centred on the legitimacy of target killings and signature strikes. In that debate, drones have been described as, “remote-controlled assassination devices”. A signature strike is when an operator identifies some combination of traits—the signature—that makes it acceptable to engage a target. However, it has been strongly argued within the US itself that no US President should have the sole power of life and death over civilians, whether US citizens or not, and that although the US can target al-Qaeda suspects who are claimed to be beyond the reach of the law on the basis of what they describe as legitimate self-defence, that power must be subject to judicial and congressional oversight. In response to the debate, President Obama has recently announced new policy guidance. This limits drone attacks to targets who are,
“senior operational leaders of a terrorist group who pose an imminent threat to Americans and cannot feasibly be captured”.
“Imminent” could be argued to be an improvement on what was used before—“significant”, but it is still disturbingly wide. Nevertheless, the President has said that he is to discuss with Congress at least some monitoring of the Administration’s decision-making.
I have concentrated my brief remarks today on the military dimension of drones, but the civilian dimension is acutely pressing as well. Safety, security, rational efficiency and sanity are all at stake. Domestic and international action is urgently required. We have done it on aviation law and we have led on it with the arms trade, mines, cluster bombs, chemical and biological warfare, and many aspects of nuclear activity. I argue that we need to do it again because it is my conviction that to continue drifting towards total loss of control is as unforgivable as it will be disastrous.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for tabling this debate. I wish that more noble Lords had taken part to discuss this important issue. I also thank the Library for its extremely useful briefing note. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, but at the beginning I must state categorically that we on these Benches believe that unmanned aerial vehicles are a good thing, particularly in the military environment, and that by a “good thing” we mean that we believe that their value-added exceeds their risks. We agree with the noble Lord that appropriate controls over their use are essential.
In essence, the noble Lord’s question is this: do we need a code of conduct, along with regulations for the manufacture of and the operation of drones, and should these be international? I shall touch as quickly as I can on three areas, the first of which is safety. The operation of drones in UK airspace raises three areas of concern: collision; what we might call “terrain strike”, where drones fly into buildings and so on; and the possibility of technical catastrophe. Noble Lords will know that their computers are of a generation that is more adolescent than mature: that is, they are brilliant but they fail frequently. All these possibilities generate risk in the air environment, and any code of conduct or process of operation in UK airspace must cover all these risks. The risks are a particularly difficult regulatory challenge because drones do not have an established position in UK airspace at the moment, and therefore safety could be assured by simply denying them access. That makes it even more important that we understand the value that drones provide, the risks that they present, and that there are appropriate procedures to mitigate those risks.
What is the value of UAVs? The answer can be divided into two parts, the first of which is what I would call observation, and the other is the military delivery of lethal force. Observation can be secured by manned platforms: helicopters and fixed-wing aeroplanes. What is special about the drone in this observational area and what are the new challenges? I contend that the potential for drones to be both cheap and small introduces a new series of challenges for society as a whole. Because drones are potentially cheap and small, they have the potential to be both numerous and covert. The military use of drones for observation and reconnaissance is unexceptionable. Armies, navies and air forces throughout history have used all reasonable methods to secure information about their enemies, and I believe that drones are but part of that suite of capability. I do not believe that the military use of drones in the observation and reconnaissance role is particularly contentious.
However, in the non-military role, the potential for problems emerges, and we should address it. The non-military role divides into two: the state and the private sector. In the state sector, there is the potential for observational roles for the security services, the police and some other services. As the briefing note points out, we have some legal protections in the police and perhaps some in the security services, but by no means are they comprehensive, so one of the areas that has to be addressed is that of the whole suite of law covering operations that the state must obey in the use of this new technology.
In the private use of drones, one can certainly see the potential for them developing the inspection of hazardous environments and so on, but the area of most concern to me is that of intrusion. The fact that it is probably technologically feasible within a relatively small number of years to have an affordable drone the size of an apple that has a high-resolution camera in it means that there is a whole new potential for intrusion in the private environment. We know that our present laws are ineffective on intrusion by the press, and we are at the moment agonising over that with respect to Leveson. Surely, this new area must be included in those concerns to make sure that the whole issue of privacy is considered when developing the codes of conduct for these things.
The final and most contentious area is the use of drones for the delivery of lethal force. They are very effective in this role in uncontested airspace. They are able to deliver force with great precision and are therefore better than many other weapons that have defended us in the past: they are not indiscriminate like cluster bombs, mines or even modern artillery. They have the ability to loiter and be persistent, which allows for high precision, smaller munitions and the potential for less collateral damage. They also eliminate operator exposure.
The regime for their use essentially uses the manned platform regime, which involves military advisers in all aspects, including targeting and compliance with international law; there is a human decision-maker. As far as we know, society is not contemplating autonomous use. All those things are there. However, it is this very precision that causes us to think about the drone and that brings home to us that it is about damaging the enemy and killing them. Very usefully, the pack refers us back to Robert E Lee’s statement:
“It is well that war is so terrible—otherwise we would grow too fond of it”.
If war has no risk to the aggressor, how do we ensure that we do not become too fond of it? We must retain the horror of war itself. As the note points out, it is the remote warrior that is at the centre of this whole dilemma. The retention of the remote warrior as the stepping stone, the filter, and the way in which the state’s use of lethal force is used is absolutely crucial. We certainly, as I have said, see no movement towards autonomous use.
We need codes for the use of drones and the use of lethal force, which need to be bigger and probably more effective than those we have now. They should be developed through a transparent process, even in respect of military use, so that society knows how lethal force is being delivered and that appropriate, politically accountable systems ensure that this frightening delivery of lethal force by our remote warrior is properly controlled. We agree that there is a need to look at new controls and that, where possible, these should be developed internationally. We believe that they should pass the test of the public having confidence that the operation of drones in UK airspace will be safe, that their use in non-military applications will preserve our privacy and that their military use will ensure the protection of national security and the value system of our society.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for securing this evening’s debate and other noble Lords for their contribution. Your Lordships will note that the question is about civilian as well as military use of these aircraft and the House will be aware that I answer for all of Her Majesty’s Government. I share the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the number of speakers and am grateful for his very measured contribution to our debate.
First, we should understand that we are talking about remotely piloted aircraft systems, or RPAS. We are most certainly not talking about “drones” as exemplified by the “doodle bugs” of the World War II era. The location of the cockpit does not change the essential function of a professional, qualified pilot in terms of his or her direct responsibility for the safety and overall management of a flight. I do not foresee a situation where a human’s ultimate responsibility for the safe flight of a remotely piloted aircraft will be replaced by fully autonomous technologies.
I will follow the split of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and cover civilian RPAS operations first. These are closely regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority and are treated in the same manner as that of an equivalent manned aircraft. This applies to all aspects of unmanned aviation, from the initial design and construction, or airworthiness, through to the safety requirements of how it is flown and operated. This viewpoint is shared internationally. We certainly have no intention of denying access to UK airspace—we just want to keep it safe.
Small unmanned aircraft are those under 20 kilograms weight, flown at short range and always within the sight of the person flying them. These are overseen to a lesser, but proportionate, extent by the CAA but, in certain circumstances, such as for commercial use, a permission is needed. They are also subject to the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, talked about intrusion. He will be aware that the activities of Google also cause similar concerns and that this concern is not unique to RPAS.
The House should not overlook the technological importance of the growth of the remotely piloted aircraft sector. For example, systems which can be used to detect other aircraft could, in time, greatly assist all pilots, in the same way that aircraft transponders have contributed to safety across the sector. I would point out that the UK’s ASTRAEA consortium is at the forefront of international efforts in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, told the House about a wide range of uses including anti-poaching operations. Noble Lords will have read the article in this week’s Sunday Times about the use of RPAS to assess the health of a vineyard in France—a very commendable use, I would suggest. Surely, this is the start of yet another technical revolution facilitated by the ubiquitous modern electronics. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right of course when he says that the potential for their development is considerable.
The overall objective of the Government and the European Commission is to enable the full and safe integration of remotely piloted aircraft into the total aviation system so that they share the same airspace as their manned counterparts. With UK and EU input, the International Civil Aviation Organization is currently developing RPA guidance material, due for publication in autumn 2014, with standards expected about two years later. Within Europe, the Commission’s RPAS roadmap, published on Thursday 20 June 2013, is aimed at an incremental integration of RPAS into European airspace from 2016. To achieve this, there are a number of significant technical challenges to be overcome, primarily concerned with ensuring the RPAS is airworthy and has the capability to avoid collisions. However, until the technological and regulatory hurdles can be safely overcome, operations of larger remotely piloted aircraft will continue to be restricted to segregated airspace. For these reasons, therefore, my view is that there is already a suitable framework in place to regulate the operation of civilian remotely piloted aircraft and that no additional codes of conduct are required.
I now turn to the military element, which I suspect is of more concern to the House. Although the MoD operates a number of unmanned aircraft systems, Reaper is the UK’s only armed remotely piloted aircraft system and its only operational use is in support of UK and coalition ground forces in Afghanistan. Although predominantly used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tasks, the aircraft is also armed with precision-guided weapons, which offer an attack capability if needed by ground commanders. The system is operated by highly trained, skilled and qualified RAF pilots in accordance with the principles of international humanitarian law and the UK’s rules of engagement, which are identical to those used by crews of manned combat aircraft. That applies even for joint operations with US forces.
The UK’s selection and prosecution of all targets is based on rigorous scrutiny. Targets are always positively identified as legitimate military objectives and every effort is made to ensure that harm to civilians or damage to civilian property is minimised. The Government have a longstanding policy of not divulging the detail of our rules of engagement; that would give our adversaries useful information about how and when we might choose to use lethal force. I also gently remind the House that the pilots operate under military discipline. Similarly, the RAF has well established command, control and supervisory frameworks that I have seen on exercise. I do not believe that anything extra needs to be provided for.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested that the UK military has 500 RPAS. However, there are currently only five armed RPAS. Of course, rather smaller RPAS are used for tactical surveillance. The use of remotely piloted aircraft systems is no different from other airborne or indeed ground-based attack systems. The only difference from a traditional aircraft is that their cockpits are on the ground. The systems can only launch their weapons when specifically commanded to do so by the pilot. They do not have the capability to launch any weapons autonomously. In addition, there are no future plans to replace military pilots with fully autonomous systems. I know that that is a matter of great concern to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the whole House. The MoD has no intention of developing any weapons systems to be used without human involvement. Although the Royal Navy has defensive systems such as Phalanx that can be used in an automatic mode, to protect personnel and ships from enemy threats like missiles, a human operator oversees the entire engagement. Furthermore, all our remotely piloted aircraft systems used in Afghanistan to protect troops on the ground are controlled by highly trained military pilots. There are no plans to replace skilled military personnel with fully autonomous systems.
Lord Judd
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for this reply. Could he clarify what is meant by “no intention” to deploy these vehicles other than with human involvement? What does human involvement amount to? How much automatic action in terms of analysis, identifying a target and deciding to hit it will be left to the device in future vehicles once they are launched?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the answer is currently none. It requires human involvement to launch the missile at the target. RPAS cannot currently engage a target without being commanded to do so by the pilot on the ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, implied that communication with and control of an RPAS could be lost in the event of an electromagnetic pulse. If that was the case, the RPAS would probably lose all its capability, just like any other aircraft.
The noble Lord touched on the perceived disadvantages of the military use of RPAS. As of 20 June, the UK Reaper RPAS has employed 394 precision-guided weapons. There has been only one known incident that resulted in the deaths of civilians. On 25 March 2011, an attack on two pick-up trucks resulted in the destruction of a significant quantity of explosives and the deaths of two insurgents but, sadly, four Afghanistan civilians were also killed. In line with current ISAF procedures, an ISAF investigation was conducted to establish if any lessons could be learned or if any errors in operational procedures could be identified. In that case, the report concluded that the actions of the Reaper crew had been in accordance with extant procedures and rules of engagement.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked if the UK had conducted any targeted killings and whether the UK uses the ICRC definitions of combatants and civilians. Her Majesty’s Armed Forces will engage the enemy in accordance with international humanitarian law and the UK rules of engagement. The necessity and legality of engaging the target does not depend on the means of doing so. The noble Lord stated that we either uphold the rule of law or we do not. He is right. I can confirm that Her Majesty’s Government uphold the rule of law. How the US Government conduct themselves is not a matter for me to comment on and I have already touched on joint US/UK operations.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, talked about the remote warrior. Our experience of operating the Reaper remotely piloted aircraft system in Afghanistan suggests that Reaper aircrew are just as if not more connected to the situation on the ground when compared to operators of other aircraft types. That is because they fly missions over Afghanistan for years at a time and not in short-duration rotations. Remotely piloted aircraft can loiter over areas of interest for a considerable time, providing that much-valued intelligence picture. I remind the House that surveillance is their primary role. Should an attack be requested, their persistence enables them to assess a target in detail and select an optimum time for attack that minimises the risk of civilian casualties. Indeed, because of this increased awareness of the ground situation, enabled by the connectivity that a ground-based cockpit offers, there have been many occasions when crews have elected not to fire a weapon.
I will say a few words about the ASTRAEA project. ASTRAEA—Autonomous Systems Technology Related Airborne Evaluation and Assessment—is a UK industry-led consortium focusing on the development of technologies, systems and procedures with a specific emphasis on unmanned aircraft systems. The consortium is led by seven UK companies—AOS, BAE Systems, Cassidian, Cobham, Qinetiq, Rolls-Royce and Thales—plus a further 70 SMEs and universities. The aim of the programme is to enable the routine use of UAS in all classes of airspace without the need for restrictive or specialised conditions of operation. The £62 million programme was split into two phases, each lasting three years. Phase 2 ended on 31 March 2013. Some 50% of the funding came from industry partners, with the remainder from government—the TSB and the regions. Future activity under the ASTRAEA brand is the subject of ongoing discussion within the consortium.
I welcome this debate, which has explored the application and use of remotely piloted aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right to question the implications of any new and growing technology such as this. To reiterate: RPAS are aircraft under human control. The very clear regulations and guidance that apply to aircraft also apply to RPAS. I am confident that no further code of conduct is required.