House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
1. What recent assessment he has made of levels of investment in energy infrastructure.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
Average annual investment in energy infrastructure from 2010 to 2012 has been £8.5 billion, more than double the average for 1997 to 2010. Our electricity market reform and other measures are designed to continue this investment surge and sustain it.
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are taking a whole range of measures. Obviously, the Energy Bill itself gives a very strong legal framework and the levy control framework up to 2020 gives visibility on the overall support for the system. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the announcements we made on 27 June, ahead of schedule, with respect to the strike prices for renewables.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to seek extra investment in the nuclear industry by selling the Government’s share in Urenco, which has many factories in my constituency. Has he entered into any negotiations on the treaty of Almelo to allow non-treaty countries to purchase shares in the company?
Mr Davey
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. He will know that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), wearing both his DECC hat and his Department for Business, Innovation and Skills hat, is very much at the centre of those discussions. We are talking to both the Dutch and the German Governments, who are key to this sale.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will know that one of the problems associated with infrastructure is the transmission charge in getting the energy to market. Project TransmiT came up with a reform package, but its implementation appears to have been delayed. I understand that it was supposed to be in place by next April. Is the Secretary of State able to tell us when it is likely to come into being and what he can do to push that forward?
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman will know that Project TransmiT is run by Ofgem, as the independent regulator. Clearly, it would be improper for us to put pressure on the independent regulator. He will also know that we have worked very closely with the Scottish Government on issues such as those relating to the Scottish islands, where there is particular concern about transmission charges. I am sure the hon. Gentleman supports the Government’s announcement last week that we will publish a consultation on strike prices for renewables on the Scottish islands.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is the Secretary of State aware that this country has a problem with not having enough transmission and distribution electricity engineers and that that is holding up new generation projects from being connected to the grid? What can he do to try to resolve the problem?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is important that the frameworks and policies that we put in place are stable and long-term in order to encourage people to invest in skills. He will be aware that Ofgem’s long-term settlement with the National Grid Company for the networks has been widely welcomed and will give incentives for investment.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to encourage shale gas exploration in Lancashire.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
The Government are creating the right framework to accelerate shale gas development in a responsible way, ensuring regulation is robust as well as streamlined and that communities share in the benefits which are created. Cuadrilla announced its updated exploration programme in Lancashire last week.
Andrew Stephenson
The British Geological Survey study of shale gas resources in Lancashire has doubled previous estimates of reserves and extended the potential drilling area right across to the east of the county. Although shale gas exploration and extraction has huge potential benefits to the UK economy, the people who live above need to see a real community benefit. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on his plans to ensure that that happens?
Michael Fallon
We are accelerating the search for shale, streamlining and simplifying the technical guidance for exploration permits, publishing clearer planning rules and consulting next week on fiscal incentives to encourage exploration and production. Later this year the developers charter will commit developers to earlier engagement with local communities and ensure that local areas that host shale benefit financially, directly and significantly.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
3. What steps he is taking to meet future energy demand.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to meet future energy demand.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to meet future energy demand.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
The Government published their energy security strategy in November 2012, and on 27 June, along with Ofgem and National Grid, we announced decisions on the capacity market and the use of National Grid’s existing system-balancing powers to secure the electricity supply in both the short and longer terms.
Mark Menzies
Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel, based in my constituency, employs more than 1,200 people. Will the Secretary of State do all he can to ensure that those people benefit from the next generation of nuclear reactors built in the UK, and will he visit at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Davey
As regards visiting the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and its installations, I shall consult my diary. At a meeting of the Nuclear Industry Council yesterday, we engaged on a range of issues, from skills to finance and future collaboration, and we have put in place the strongest ever supply-chain measures to ensure that the whole country, including people in his constituency, can benefit.
Mr Marcus Jones
I commend the Government’s effort to strengthen our energy system and bring about a sustainable reduction in electricity demand, but does the Secretary of State agree that we must take action to ensure that sufficient generating capacity is available in the short term?
Mr Davey
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we take action on both the demand and the supply side. With Ofgem and National Grid’s proposals, which are out to consultation, we will see measures on the supply and demand side in the short term, and of course our proposal for a capacity market will do that in the medium term. I hope that he realises that we are looking at every single measure in a very structured way.
Andrew Bridgen
Given the projected energy gap, the time scales involved and the growth in the economy, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should encourage further construction of gas power stations, especially given the potential exploitation of shale gas in the near future?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend will know that we have done an awful lot to ensure clarity in the strategy to encourage private investment. As he will know, it is not for the Government to build gas power stations, but our gas generation strategy set out a long-term framework for gas investment last year, and with the announcement of the capacity market on 27 June, I think we have a process for encouraging that investment.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Severn barrage will contribute 5% of Britain’s electricity needs? In deciding on the Government’s response to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s report, will he support the project in principle and treat it exactly the same as other major power station projects, such as Hinkley, round 3 offshore wind and so on, allowing Hafren Power to raise the risk finance for the necessary work on habitats, environmental impact assessment planning, the strike price and other issues? Otherwise, he might as well kill off the project now.
Mr Davey
Obviously, I shall not prejudge our response to the Select Committee, which, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, was not very positive about the Severn barrage scheme, not least because of the costs involved, but if he studies our announcements on draft strike prices for contracts for difference for renewables, he will see in there strike prices for tidal projects as well. It is absolutely clear that we will proceed only if we get value for money for the economy, the consumer and business.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State made any assessment of the value of extending the National Grid proposals for a short-term strategic reserve on mothballed plants coming back into operation over a much longer term than is currently envisaged? Does he consider that doing that for only two years, rather than adopting a longer-term proposition, represents poor value?
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman always makes very informed contributions to our debates. He is proposing that we adopt the policy of strategic reserve, which is a long-term approach, using the powers that National Grid already has. We have looked at that and rejected it, because it is not the right approach to get best value for money and it would create perverse incentives for investment in the wholesale market. We believe that a combination of Ofgem and National Grid measures, using those existing powers, and the capacity market is the best way to meet the security supply requirements, not to impact negatively on the wholesale market and to get good value for the consumer.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Surely the best way to meet future energy demand is to reduce it, yet unfortunately the Government have focused on the supply side, not on energy efficiency measures. It will not be possible to meet future energy demand without real energy efficiency and reductions in demand.
Mr Davey
I am genuinely surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s question, because he knows that the Government have done a huge amount on energy efficiency for both consumers and industry. When the Energy Bill was before the House, we tabled amendments on Report for electricity demand reduction to be part of the capacity market. We are operating on both the supply and demand sides. That is a new initiative which has not been seen before, because other Governments have not done it.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Next Wednesday I will hold a community energy event in my constituency, with the local council and local housing association among many others. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than carping about the green deal and perversely hoping for its failure, every member of the House has a duty to promote it and ensure that their constituents get all the help available?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend makes a good point and we must promote not just the green deal as part of the community energy strategy, but all aspects of community energy. Right hon. and hon. Members may be aware that we published a call for evidence last month for a future community energy strategy, looking at energy efficiency, energy generation and purchasing energy. I urge Members to talk to their constituencies and to contribute to the formation of Britain’s first ever community energy strategy.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Two weeks ago Ofgem published its latest estimates for future electricity demand and capacity, and warned of possible shortfalls in the middle of this decade. Commenting on its report, the Secretary of State said:
“Without timely action there would be risks to security of supply”.
Will the Secretary of State explain why Ofgem states that the likelihood of blackouts is roughly one in 12 years, while analysis by his Department suggests that the true figure is closer to one in 3,000 years. Why is there such a big discrepancy?
Mr Davey
I do not recognise the figures that the right hon. Lady has just given to the House; my officials have been working closely with Ofgem and National Grid. I hope she will acknowledge that the Ofgem figures she cites are from before the measures we announced last week, following the announcement by Ofgem and National Grid on the immediate future, and our proposals for a capacity market. I would have thought she would welcome the fact that this Government have taken action where the last Government failed.
Caroline Flint
I am afraid that the figures are from Ofgem and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, so I suggest the Secretary of State has another look. Such wildly varying forecasts of possible blackouts do nothing to help us plan our energy security for the future, so let us consider what the Government are doing about it.
On the “Sunday Politics” show on 30 June, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) claimed that six gas-fired power stations had opened under this Government, and tried to blame the problem on the previous Administration. In an answer given to me yesterday to a written parliamentary question, the Minister confirmed that construction of all those six new power stations began under Labour. In five years of this Government, just one new gas-fired power station in Carrington in Manchester will be built. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is the case? Would not the country’s energy security be better served if the Government and regulator could produce a coherent and consistent estimate of the likelihood of blackouts?
Mr Davey
The right hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that it all started under Labour, but I am afraid that the £29 billion of investment in renewables was announced by this Government. I can give the House some good news that the right hon. Lady might want to hear. For the first stage of electricity market reform, as the Energy Bill goes through the House of Lords, and after the deadline for applications for the final investment decision enabling project closed just a few days ago, we have received 57 applications. I am not sure whether they will all go through, but if they do, that would amount to more than 18 GW of power. That is our record on energy investment and we are putting right the appalling record of the previous Government.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
4. What estimate he has made of the number of jobs created in the UK as a consequence of his policies on offshore wind power generation.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
The trade association RenewableUK last year estimated that the wind industry as a whole currently employs around 12,200 people in Britain. As we announced in May this year, since 2010 more than £29 billion of investment has been announced in renewable energy, with the potential to support around 30,000 jobs. Of that, nearly £18 billion and more than 9,000 jobs relate to offshore wind.
Mr Brown
I welcome the Minister’s recent visit to the north banks of the Tyne where he saw the employment potential of that exciting new industry. The fabrication work that could be generated, were contracts placed domestically in the United Kingdom, would represent an exciting opportunity for former shipbuilding communities such as the one I represent, which has the skills and energy to do the work, if it could get the contracts. What more can the Minister do to ensure that at least some of that work comes to the United Kingdom?
Michael Fallon
I have provided at least two regional growth fund grants to yards on the Tyne, and I have visited two of them myself. Tyneside already contributes to future energy infrastructure development. It is becoming a leader in sub-sea technology. I want to ensure that it also benefits from the new generation of offshore wind that is now coming on stream.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
This is my first opportunity to welcome the Minister to his portfolio—and a very welcome presence he is too—so may I tempt him with some highland hospitality? The Secretary of State will confirm that it can be very good. I invite the Minister to pay a visit to Kishorn Port Ltd in my constituency, which began with the concept of manufacturing offshore wind turbines and has submitted—and now had approved—a master plan with Highland council, the diaspora of which could see 2,500 jobs being created on that site. That would be a massive boost to the economy of the highlands, Scotland and the United Kingdom. Would he care to pay a visit, perhaps during the recess?
Michael Fallon
I will certainly see whether that is possible. I am already aware of—how can I put it—the power of Skye hospitality, and I would certainly like to see for myself exactly the potential for Skye to contribute to the offshore wind power that we need.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I, too, represent a former shipbuilding community. I believe that Inverclyde has the skills and the infrastructure to play a full part in offshore wind generation. In that context, I have a meeting next Tuesday with RenewableUK. I extend an invitation to the Minister or the Secretary of State to attend that meeting with me and help to promote Inverclyde in playing a full part in that wind power generation.
Michael Fallon
Our diaries are filling up. I want our shipyards to reap the full benefit of the work that is now becoming available in offshore wind. I saw for myself recently on a visit to Cammell Laird on Merseyside just how much of that yard’s work now contributes to the Gwynt y Môr field in the Irish sea, and I am sure that there are opportunities for the Clyde as well.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
5. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
6. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
We have a range of initiatives to help households with their energy bills. From our proposals to get consumers on to the cheapest tariffs and the provision of nearly £1 million for the big energy saving network, to the green deal, and from the warm home discount to our promotion of collective switching, this Government are working to help households keep their energy bills down.
Ian Austin
Those schemes are supposed to help people such as my constituent Miss Kaur, who lives in a badly insulated home. She is in fuel poverty, but her energy supplier will not help with insulation. It also seems that the energy suppliers in general are not using carbon emission reduction obligation money at all. There is a gap between what fuel-poor households such as hers can afford on green deal finance and what it will cost to do the work. Will the Secretary of State look at the detail of her situation and perhaps agree to meet her with me, so that he can tell her and me how those schemes will help to reduce her energy bills and improve the insulation of her home?
Mr Davey
If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, we can first look at the details before we consider whether any meeting is required, because we might be able to help his constituent more quickly. He will know that part of the energy company obligation is for affordable warmth for people in fuel poverty. I do not know whether that would apply in her case, but if he writes to me with all the details, we will look at them very thoroughly.
Bill Esterson
Thousands of pensioners in my constituency would be up to £200 a year better off if the Government adopted Labour’s plan to put all over-75s on the cheapest tariff. The Energy Bill will not become law until next year, when the Government say they will put everyone on the cheapest tariff, but why not act now to help 4 million pensioners with their energy bills this winter?
Mr Davey
I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s argument. The proposals that we have put forward in the Energy Bill, working with Ofgem, apply to everybody, not just to a part of the population. We want to get benefits for everybody in our society. He says that he will have to wait for Royal Assent for the Energy Bill. He is not right about that: Ofgem is proceeding apace with its consultations for tariff reforms. The Energy Bill aims to support and strengthen that, in case there was any foot dragging by the energy companies, so actually we are acting very quickly—much more quickly than under the proposal he puts forward.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the ways we can help the millions of households struggling with an average dual-fuel bill of £1,400 a year—up £300 since 2010—is through energy efficiency. However, less than 1% of households that have had a green deal assessment have so far gone on to take out a green deal package. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why?
Mr Davey
The hon. Lady will know that an awful lot of people are using ECO—the energy company obligation. She did not mention that there are more than 82,000 insulations under the energy company obligation scheme, which shows that we are taking measures. On the green deal, she will also know that these are relatively early days. We have had more than 38,000 assessments. One would not have expected many plans to have been written by now. What she also fails to the tell the House is that some people are funding the green deal package through ECO or self-finance, and it is difficult to get exact figures on that. I would have thought that she would want to support the green deal, as it has the potential to transform energy efficiency.
Luciana Berger
It is because the previous Labour Government piloted a pay-as-you-save scheme that we want to see the green deal work. We are trying to hold the Government to account. We want to see 14 million homes insulated by 2020, and with the current trajectory that will not happen. I am very disappointed with the Secretary of State’s answer. The Government said that the green deal would be the largest retrofit programme the country has ever seen, but fewer homes are installing insulation since the green deal launched. Thousands of insulation workers throughout the country have lost their jobs, with some estimates putting the figure as high as one in four. This is a disaster for our economy. What is the Secretary of State doing about it?
Mr Davey
I have to say that I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s points. If one looks at what has happened in the insulation industry, one will see that there was a boom at the end of last year as people worked hard to meet their carbon emissions reduction target obligations to avoid fines. That was the biggest boom we have seen, so the figure was likely to come down, and it would be good if the Opposition admitted that. We are taking huge measures that will transform things not just for a year, but over decades. The problem will take decades to sort out. We are putting the measures in place to do that.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman came into the House 30 years ago. Question 8; we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
8. What assessment he has made of Ofgem’s electricity capacity assessment report 2013.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
The Government welcome Ofgem’s electricity capacity assessment as an authoritative investigation into security of supply over the next five winters. We will be working closely with Ofgem and National Grid to take decisive steps to ensure that security of supply is maintained in the short, medium and long term.
Mr Yeo
It is the excitement of your Speakership, Mr Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quickest, cheapest and most environmentally friendly way to ensure that the lights stay on at a time when capacity margins are a bit tight is through demand-side measures? Will he explore how Smart technology could be used more effectively to extend time-of-use pricing, which would cut some of the peaks in demand and thereby reduce the need for some of the expensive new capacity that is being considered?
Michael Fallon
Of course demand-side measures have a role to play, but Ofgem will also be looking at better balancing the system as a whole, using some of the measures it has been using for more than 20 years. We will also be looking at whether some of the previously mothballed plant, or mothballed units at some plant, can be brought back into operation if needed.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is obviously well aware that even on a sunny and slightly blustery day in different parts of the country, significant amounts of capacity and generation still comes from coal. We have talked about carbon capture and storage a number of times in relation to the long term, but I want to press him on a point that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), made in, I think, his final appearance at the Dispatch Box before moving to the Cabinet Office. He undertook then, in response to a question I asked him, to prepare a short-term strategy for coal. Does that commitment stand, or did it disappear off to the Cabinet Office with the previous Minister?
Michael Fallon
Our focus on coal over the past three months has been almost wholly on ensuring the survival of the Thoresby and Kellingley collieries, which are two of the four remaining deep-mine collieries in this country. I am pleased to say that UK Coal Operations Ltd entered its restructuring earlier this week, meaning that some 2,000 jobs have now been saved. That has been the focus for my Department, for officials from a whole number of Government agencies and for the management of that company.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
10. What steps he is taking to encourage shale gas exploration in the UK.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
13. What steps he is taking to encourage shale gas exploration in the UK.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
16. What steps he is taking to encourage shale gas exploration in the UK.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
Further to my earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), the Government have commissioned the British Geological Survey to carry out a study of possible shale gas resources in the Weald basin in the south-east of England. This will be published in the early part of next year. We are also carrying out a strategic environmental assessment with a view to launching a further onshore licensing round for oil and gas in 2014.
Mr Lilley
Given that 2 million fracking wells have been drilled in the United States without harm to life or property, will my right hon. Friend act vigorously to thwart the vexatious use of environmental laws by Friends of the Earth and others to keep shale gas in the ground? In particular, will he introduce early legislation to clarify UK red-line planning laws and to restrict them to surface installations? Will he also tell us what he plans to do to prevent the mining waste directive and the groundwater directives from being used expansively to delay and prevent the exploitation of shale gas in this country?
Michael Fallon
The Environment Agency has already announced its actions to streamline and simplify the system of permits required, which will be in the interest of everyone, including developers and local communities. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government will next week announce a simplified system of planning guidance so that the industry can be clear about the necessary planning permissions. As I have said, the Treasury will also announce next week the fiscal incentives that are necessary if we are to see this industry develop on anything like the scale that we have seen on the other side of the Atlantic.
Christopher Pincher
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), what action can the Government take to help to bust the myths about shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, so that local authorities—which are often a stumbling block—will be more inclined to grant planning applications? In that way, the Treasury, communities and energy users will be able to benefit from this vital national resource.
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the debate over shale and fracking is conducted on the basis of evidence rather than myths. I want to ensure that the developers of potential shale resources and those who want to dig exploration wells engage early with local communities. I also want to ensure that those communities that want to host shale are fully aware of the procedures involved and of the significant financial benefits that could accrue.
Dr Lee
Given the likely significant increase in Government revenue from shale gas exploration in the north-west, would the Minister consider using a proportion of that revenue to transform the plutonium stockpile in Cumbria from a liability into an electricity-generating asset for the nation and, in the process, secure jobs for the north-west region?
Michael Fallon
We have a separate plutonium management strategy. I think that that will answer my hon. Friend’s inquiry on that matter. It is worth saying that local communities that are prepared to host shale will receive significant benefits, including some £100,000 for an exploration well and, potentially, between £5 million and £10 million over the lifetime of any production well. Those are significant amounts, and they would rightly recompense local communities for any of the disruption involved.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
Bloomberg’s new energy analysis of shale gas states that
“the expectation that UK shale gas could lead to gas prices similar to those which have been seen in the US in the last two years can be discounted”.
Does the Minister accept and agree with that analysis?
Michael Fallon
We know from the British Geological Survey, which we published two weeks ago, of the central estimate of 1,300 trillion cubic feet in the Bowland-Hodder basin. What we do not yet know is whether that resource can be recovered as economically or, indeed, technically as it has been recovered in the United States. That is why we need to get on and explore to see whether that resource can be made available in the same way and have the same significant reductions in the cost of energy for our businesses and our households.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
But do we not have to be careful about going into those old mining areas where the miners and the miners’ welfares were ethnically cleansed by previous Tory Governments? [Hon. Members: “What?”] Yes, that is exactly what I said. In Calow near Bolsover, Cuadrilla is actually thinking of drilling in an area not a mile away from where methane escaped and nearly killed several hundred people in the village of Arkwright. I warn the new Minister: be careful where these people operate. As for some great nirvana—some great future—from this fracking, it has not been proved at all that there is all that much in it for Britain.
Michael Fallon
Let me utterly reject what the hon. Gentleman said about ethnic cleansing, which I find particularly distasteful in a week when this Government have assisted UK Coal in the safeguarding of 2,000 jobs at Kellingley and Thorseby collieries. We do not yet know the full potential of shale in this country. What is important is that we allow those developers to go down, have a look and see the potential. That is why we are simplifying and streamlining the planning and the environmental system to enable them to do that.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
11. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on reducing European carbon emissions.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I have frequent such talks—bilaterally at European Councils and in other forums. Last year, for example, I invited other Ministers from member states that share the UK’s high ambitions to cut carbon emissions to join me in a new group called the green growth group. This has met three times, most recently in Luxembourg last month.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Last week, however, the European Parliament voted to hold back carbon credits from the EU emissions trading scheme. Does the Secretary of State agree that the 20 Conservative MEPs who voted against the proposals were voting not only against action to tackle carbon emissions and prevent climate change, but against the interests of British business?
Mr Davey
The hon. Lady will know that the Government, across the coalition, supported the backloading proposal that the European Parliament voted through. Obviously, I regret the fact that MEPs from Britain or any other member states did not vote for those proposals. But let us be clear: the backloading proposals are a first step in the reform of Europe’s carbon market. We need to go further so that we can get the carbon market and the carbon incentives that we need to see clean energy coming through.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
17. Will the Secretary of State clarify something for me? In the spending review of 2010, the Government committed £1 billion to carbon capture and storage projects. Given that this money has not yet been spent and that the Chancellor did not even mention it in his recent spending review, is carbon capture and storage a casualty of that review?
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
12. What assessment he has made of the first quarterly green deal and energy company obligation statistics.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
It is early days, but the green deal is building on solid foundations and a robust small and medium-sized enterprise supply chain. Nearly 40,000 green deal assessments have been carried out and more than 70,000 homes have already been given green measures through the energy company obligation. Innovative private finance is now starting to flow. While only four green deal finance providers had entered the market by June, that number has now doubled to eight and is expected to reach around 50 by the end of the year.
Zac Goldsmith
I strongly support the Government’s efforts to mainstream energy efficiency via the green deal, among other measures. However, it is widely felt that the scheme needs a serious boost if the Government’s ambitions are to be realised. To that end, will the Minister do all he can and use all his influence with the Treasury to ask it at least to consider bringing in some form of stamp duty rebate, or something similar, for homes participating in the green deal in order to maximise the chances of its success?
Gregory Barker
I am very glad to say that the Treasury is right behind the green deal and that the Chancellor has given £200 million to help drive demand for it. We are actively considering how we are going to spend more of it, as there is still a significant amount that has not been committed. We will make further announcements in the autumn.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his successful campaign to ensure that service families can benefit from the green deal and the ECO. I assure him that we are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that service family accommodation will for the first time mean warm and comfortable homes.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
In times of austerity, why on earth would people want to enter a green deal arrangement where the interest rate is three times higher than what they can get on the high street? Apparently, there are penalties for early repayment.
Gregory Barker
If ever there was an out-of-touch comment, that was it. How many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents can get an interest rate on the high street of just 2% or 3%? That is just cloud cuckoo land nonsense. The vast majority of his constituents will be able to access green deal finance. I am glad to say that, with over 40,000 assessments, there is strong early demand. It is early days, but we are very encouraged by what we are seeing.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
14. What steps he is taking to promote investor confidence in renewable energy.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The coalition is committed to cleaner energy and cheaper bills. That means unlocking billions in new investment across the energy sector. Transparency, longevity and certainty for investors are key. That is exactly what our electricity market reforms will deliver.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but investor confidence is essential and investors need to make decisions now, otherwise the UK will miss the boat in the forthcoming development of renewables. Therefore, what discussions has he had with investors and what advice have they offered the Government on what is required to establish investor confidence?
Gregory Barker
It is fair to say that the DECC ministerial team has an unprecedented level of engagement with investors, not just from the UK but globally. Last week, I was with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Masdar from the United Arab Emirates at the inauguration of the London array, the world’s largest offshore wind farm. We have proactive engagement with global investors, who all say the same thing: “We back your electricity market reforms, crack on with them, let us get deploying and get past the 13 years of under-investment that we saw under Labour.”
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
15. What assessment he has made of the effect of large-scale solar arrays on rural environment and agricultural land; and if he will take steps to help communities resist inappropriate developments.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Solar PV has a big, bright future in the UK, but not at any price and not in any place. Our priority continues to be to work with the industry to drive down costs, but it is also to ensure that deployment is focused on buildings and brownfield sites, not prime agricultural land or areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Dr Wollaston
I am delighted that the Minister shares my concern and the concern of communities in Diptford, south Devon, and other areas about the inappropriate proliferation of very large-scale solar PV on greenfield sites. Could he go further and set out the practical steps that he is taking to ensure that these developments occur in the right places?
Gregory Barker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Well-sited solar can be great and often is, but inappropriate development risks alienating public support. That is why I am pleased to say that, in the next few weeks, as a result of close work with the Department for Communities and Local Government, we will issue revised planning guidance for renewables. That will mean that renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. It will also make it clear that care should be taken to preserve heritage assets and beautiful countryside, and include the impact of planning proposals on views and landscape when it comes to things such as solar. That is in addition to our sustainability criteria, on which we are working closely with the industry.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
18. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin).
John Cryer
In the past few months, coal imports have risen sharply again. That creates questions about the future security of energy supplies. Does that not imply that there will be upward pressure on household bills over and above what is there already?
Mr Davey
No, it does not, because of the actions of this Government. The fact that we have made the announcements we have on the capacity market will ensure that the supply is there. If we had not made those announcements, there was a danger that wholesale prices would go up and peak at times of low margins, hitting consumers. The fact that we have taken action shows that we are on the consumer’s side.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
20. What the Government’s preferred options are for structural reform of the EU emissions trading system.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The UK supports urgent reform of the EU ETS including through cancellation of an ambitious volume of surplus allowances. We are also examining other options to deliver our climate goals.
Simon Wright
I thank the Minister for that response and I strongly welcome the role the UK played in securing a positive vote in favour of backloading in the European Parliament last week. May I urge Ministers to ensure that the UK continues to show strong leadership in strengthening the ETS and tackling the enormous over-supply of allowances?
Gregory Barker
I can assure my hon. Friend that that is exactly what we are doing, and we will continue to press for a higher level of ambition in Europe on a 2020 target as well.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
This week marks the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, which claimed the lives of 167 people, so I am sure the whole House will want to join me in remembering them, mindful of the pain their loved ones must still feel and the scars, both physical and mental, borne by the survivors. The best remembrance is to learn and prevent a repeat of that disaster; and their legacy, and that of Lord Cullen’s inquiry into the disaster, is an oil and gas industry that now has an enviable health and safety record. But of course there remain real risks in operating offshore, so we should be thankful to those who continue to brave the hazards of the North sea and elsewhere to keep our homes warm and our transport moving, and as we meet our energy challenges, let us pay the best tribute to the Piper Alpha victims and their families by doing it safely.
Andrew George
I am sure the whole House will wish to associate itself with my right hon. Friend’s remarks.
While the Government’s announcement on the strike price is very welcome, there are, as my right hon. Friend knows, many parts of the country that want to take full advantage of the future green energy revolution. Certainly in Cornwall we are very keen to become the green peninsula within the UK. Would he be prepared to come to Cornwall and speak to all aspects of the green energy revolution happening there, because we want to take this energy forward?
Mr Davey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his colleagues from Cornwall, who have been true champions for green energy and the impact that will have on jobs and the economy in Cornwall. He will know that I have already visited Cornwall, but I am very keen to visit again because it is such a powerhouse behind our low-carbon economy.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. I was just caught there by the different opinions on the coalition Benches—whether to be pro-renewables in the south-west or not.
May I join the Secretary of State in remembering the 167 people who lost their lives on Piper Alpha 25 years ago? That stands to remind us continually of the vital importance of rigorous health and safety in our energy industry.
When I asked the Minister, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), at the last Energy and Climate Change questions exactly how many customers on dead tariffs would be moved to a cheaper deal, he said:
“I cannot give the right hon. Lady the exact figure off the top of my head, so I will write to her on that.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1646.]
Twenty minutes ago I received a letter from him telling me he did not know the answer, so let me tell the Secretary of State that companies like British Gas and SSE—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the shadow Secretary of State that we have a lot of questions to get through? What we need is a short sentence and then we can move on.
Caroline Flint
British Gas and SSE between them have more than 20 million customers, and they have told me that they do not have any customers on dead tariffs. Can the Secretary of State explain just how the Prime Minister’s plan to put everyone on the cheapest tariff is actually going to work?
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
T2. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Stockport Hydro, a micro-power generation social enterprise, and will he explain how he is going to make it easier for similar projects to prosper in the future?
Mr Davey
I pay tribute to all the people who have worked on that community energy project. Micro-hydro plays a real role at community level. Last month we published the community energy call for evidence, which will cover issues that affect local community developers of micro-hydro. There have been problems, and my right hon. Friend has raised them with me, but I urge him and people who want to develop micro-hydro to respond to that call for evidence so that we can get it right in future.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
T3. Last year the Chancellor boasted he was the first to fund a green investment bank, but that is not actually the case, because the Government are now borrowing £158 billion more than planned, and we will not have a proper green investment bank until 2016 at the earliest. How can the green investment bank be part of a growth strategy, and will the Minister provide an update on this?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The hon. Lady could not be more wrong. The UK Green Investment Bank, which was introduced and created by this coalition—the Labour Government had 13 years to introduce it, but did nothing—has been going for only a matter of months but in that time it has invested £635 million and mobilised, in total, £2.3 billion. It has £3 billion of capital, which was added to in the last spending round, so billions of pounds for green investment are coming directly from this Government, using our genius for financial services. This Government are pioneering it.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
T4. Wind energy subsidies were supposed to deliver a reduction in costs by creating economies of scale and driving technological innovation. After the recent strike price announcements, it is clear that wind turbines work only because they are being given the same level of subsidy as before—subsidy begets subsidy, not sustainability. Does the Minister seriously see a future for wind turbines without subsidy and, if so, when?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the draft strike prices that we published a couple of weeks ago show declining support for offshore wind. We need to ensure that offshore wind is cost-effective and to balance that against the need to secure—I have been pressed on this earlier—a reasonable degree of UK content in the fabrication.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
T7. Ministers have rightly made it clear that replacement boilers under the green deal and the ECO should be technologically neutral, yet the reality on the ground is that most of the big six energy companies will not include liquefied petroleum gas or oil boilers within the scheme, citing cost. Yet again, it seems that off-grid customers are being left out. Can Ministers do anything to put pressure on these companies to include such boilers within the schemes?
Gregory Barker
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Obviously, it is a commercial decision for each company that operates within the green deal which technologies they are going to stock and offer to their customers. If customers are not satisfied, they should shop around. The great thing about the green deal is that it involves a plethora of choice; there are more than 1,000—I believe there are 1,250 or more—green deal installers now, so customers should shop around. We want to drive choice.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
T5. The Minister will know that all existing nuclear power stations report operationally to EDF Energy in Barnwood, Gloucester—the home of British nuclear engineering. After my right hon. Friend has agreed the strike price and other details for the next generation of nuclear power stations, will he accept an invitation from me to visit Barnwood and the impressive nuclear academy training ground for so many graduates and apprentices in this vital sector?
Michael Fallon
I will consider that invitation, as I am sure my right hon. Friends will. My hon. Friend will know that I spoke recently in Gloucester at Horizon-Hitachi’s supply chain conference in respect of its proposed nuclear station at Oldbury. I confirm to him that negotiations with NNB GenCo on an investment contract at Hinkley remain ongoing and that agreement will be reached only if a deal is fair and affordable, represents value for money and is consistent with our policy of no public subsidy for new nuclear.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This morning, six Greenpeace activists are scaling the Shard in what has been dubbed the “ice climb”. Does the Minister think that drilling for oil in the Arctic is an essential part of meeting our future energy needs? Or does he think that, given the huge environmental concerns about drilling there, it is a price that is too high to pay?
Mr Davey
The hon. Lady will know that the six nations that make up the Arctic Council and own the land have sovereignty there—the UK is not one of them. She will know that the Select Committee produced a report on this issue—I believe that was last year—and we responded to it. We want to be part of those discussions to ensure that if anything happens, it is done in the most environmentally friendly way possible.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
T6. Will Ministers set out what contribution this Government’s energy and climate change policies will make to the increase in jobs in the UK as a whole and in Greater London in particular?
Mr Davey
My right hon. Friend will know that our policies are playing a big role in that. Three years ago, the Renewable Energy Association calculated that more than 18,000 people were employed in renewable energy in the Greater London area alone. That represented 19% of the share and was a bigger share than any other region had, and we expect that to grow. Across the UK we expect green jobs to be a very important part of the boost that our energy investment restructure will give. The House may wish to know that earlier today we granted planning consent to what will be the world’s largest offshore wind farm off the Lincolnshire-Norfolk coast, with £3.6 billion of investment and 1,130 new jobs created.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Can the Minister give some comfort to the green deal installers in my constituency by telling me how many installations he expects this year rather than how many assessments he expects?
Gregory Barker
The right hon. Gentleman knows that what is innovative and unique about the green deal is the fact that it is encouraging a huge plethora of new entrants into the market. It is not an old-style left-wing centralised monolithic programme run from London. It is unleashing competition, small and medium-sized enterprises, and diversity and plurality. We therefore want the most that we can possibly deliver.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
T8. Setting up the green investment bank was one of the Conservative party manifesto pledges and I was pleased to hear in the reply to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) of the progress that is happening. What specific projects has the green investment bank been backing?
Gregory Barker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it was the Conservatives who set up the Wigley commission, which came up with the original scoping ideas for the green investment bank. In practice, it has been terrific. It has invested £30 million in the Wakefield waste project, £46 million in the Walney offshore wind farm and £57 million in Rhyl Flats. It is supporting the new industrial energy efficiency programmes and, of course, has put a significant slice of debt into the Green Deal Finance Company that will allow green deal finance to flow.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has made much of the 40,000 assessments that have taken place, but it is my understanding that only four people have signed up for the green deal. How many installations will there be in the year ahead?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Lady must understand that this is a 20-year programme, not some knee-jerk reaction. I know that the Labour party is heavily invested in failure and is made up of a series of doom-mongers who are never happier than when they are talking down the green economy. I have much greater faith in SMEs to deliver a transformational green economy than they do.
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that some people’s concerns about shale gas are based on fact but many are not? Will he ensure that his Department produces and maintains an up-to-date online database so that people can see what claims are evidently false and, where they are based on fact, what the Government are doing to address them?
Michael Fallon
That is an excellent and extremely positive suggestion that I will consider immediately.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
The Department for Work and Pensions Minister responsible for health and safety will reply to this afternoon’s debate on the 25-year anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to build on the safety regime that is currently in place to ensure that the men and women who daily risk their lives by working offshore, contributing a huge amount to the UK economy, have the safest working environment possible?
Mr Davey
We are doing a number of things, working with the Health and Safety Executive and the industry. Only last week I held a meeting in my office with a range of people from the industry and with key players to see what progress has been made since that tragedy and what more we can do. It is clear that there is no room for complacency, although there has been a great deal of progress.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
What steps is the Minister taking to promote the development of energy storage systems, notably liquid air, which would be a good solution to our energy problems in the future?
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Minister has talked around the question of how many green deal assessments have turned into measures being introduced in homes. How many is it, Minister? How many homes have signed up for green deal measures?
Gregory Barker
As we know from the official statistics published in June, only a handful have completed the process. That is because finance only became available in the couple of weeks before those statistics were published. As I said in my earlier answer, the number of finance providers has now doubled to eight and we expect about 50 by the year end. Opposition Members can continue to carp and we will remember that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Minister of State for visiting the Burton Wold wind farm in Kettering on Monday. Did he gain a favourable impression of the level of community support for it?
Gregory Barker
I had a terrific visit to Kettering and I would like to praise my hon. Friend and his council colleagues for a project which is an exemplar of the way to involve communities in supporting onshore wind and a range of energy efficiency measures, which are seen as part of an holistic whole, bringing new housing, new services and proper infrastructure in a well-planned way that is supported by the community.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
We know that many older people do not adequately heat their homes, which puts them at risk of illness and death. Will the Minister update the House on any progress made in discussions with suppliers about the installation of cold alarms, which would alert householders and carers when temperatures become dangerously low?
Gregory Barker
I cannot give the hon. Lady an up-to-date view on that, but it is a very important measure in which I know that she has taken a great personal interest, so if I may, I will write to her and give her a bang up-to-date report of where we are.
Petition
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of Stockton-on-Tees and surrounding areas in opposition to the Post Office’s proposal to downgrade our local Crown post office. It was signed by many hundreds of people over only a few days.
The petition states:
The Petition of the people of Stockton-on-Tees and surrounding areas,
Declares that the Petitioners totally oppose the franchising of Stockton Crown Post Office and believe the proposal will severely damage the provision of services.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call upon the Post Office to withdraw their plans and retain Stockton Crown Post Office.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001195]
Business of the House
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 15 July—Debate on a motion relating to justice and home affairs, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to Europol.
Tuesday 16 July—Second Reading of the Defence Reform Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the European Union (Referendum) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 17 July—Opposition day (fifth allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a general debate on Trident alternatives review.
Thursday 18 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by the launch of a report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on the private rented sector, followed by the launch of a report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on “Revisiting Rebuilding the House: The Impact of the Wright Reforms”, followed by a general debate on the economic implications for the United Kingdom of an EU-US trade and investment agreement, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments. The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 September will include:
Monday 2 September—A debate on a motion relating to the future for postal services in rural areas, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 18 July will be:
Thursday 18 July—General debate on UK shale gas development.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s proposals for MPs’ pay and pensions in the 2015 Parliament have just been published. Does the Leader of the House agree that any decisions that IPSA makes after the public consultation on this package of measures should reflect wider economic circumstances and what is happening in the public and private sectors?
Last week I asked the Leader of the House to protect the extra time to scrutinise the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. In response the Leader of the House said he would
“take steps to ensure that the time that is available for that debate is protected”—[Official Report, 4 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 1061.]
On Monday and Tuesday we had more than four hours of statements, wiping out all the extra time that the right hon. Gentleman had so generously granted. Will he now tell us why his assurances to this House appear to carry such weight in the Government? And will he tell me exactly what was the point of appearing to grant extra time in the first place?
The Conservative party has a blind spot when it comes to women. First, the Mayor of London said that women only go to university to find husbands. Then the Prime Minister completely forgot about British Wimbledon champions Ann Jones and Virginia Wade when complimenting Andy Murray on his fantastic achievement last Sunday. Finally we had the Foreign Secretary exercising his well-known diplomatic skills by using a phrase about my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) that I cannot repeat in the House. This Tory party is so modern that its members either ignore women completely or casually insult them. It looks like the unconscious bias training that the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is meant to be organising for them really is not working.
Apparently the Deputy Prime Minister was seen out for dinner last week with Mick Jagger.
Ms Eagle
Indeed. I hear they were discussing Lib Dem theme songs for the next election. How about “You can’t always get what you want”, or “Under my thumb”? Personally, I think that “It’s all over now” might be much more appropriate.
We have all been enjoying the glorious weather. It was lovely to see Tory MPs skipping gleefully around this place last Friday. The barbecues were sizzling, the birds were singing, and the Tory party was banging on about Europe. But even before their prime ministerial burgers were properly digested, they were back to their old ways. After the Home Secretary’s U-turn on the European arrest warrant, another Euro mutiny is brewing. She has been promising the Chairs of the Home Affairs, Justice and European Scrutiny Committees time to scrutinise the Government’s opt-out plan for the last nine months. Why, then, did the Leader of the House come to the Dispatch Box on Monday with an emergency business statement to force a vote, bypassing any kind of Select Committee scrutiny at all?
Not only have the Government shown no respect to those Committees or the House, but they have done so for no reason. The EU treaties, the Commission and even the Government’s own legislation say that they do not need a vote before beginning negotiations, so why is the Leader of the House forcing a vote on Monday? Will he recognise his mistake and put off the vote until the Committees have had time to scrutinise the Government’s plans, as the Home Secretary promised?
While the Leader of the Opposition is taking bold steps to remake our politics, the Prime Minister is failing to answer questions about his dodgy donors. Is not the truth, as the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) told the BBC yesterday, that in the Conservative party money buys influence. Adrian Beecroft donated half a million pounds and was then allowed to write a report calling for the destruction of workers’ rights. JCB chairman Anthony Bamford donated £2.5 million and was then allowed to write a report on manufacturing. At the recent Tory fundraising ball, the Prime Minister had the temerity to tell his millionaire guests that their donations enabled him to give a tax cut to all their millionaire pals and hedge fund friends. I have calculated that 18 hedge fund bosses donated over £24 million before attending their cosy dinners at No. 10.
The Prime Minister was forced by the scandal to ask Lord Gold to investigate, but it has been more than a year and we have not heard a word. Will the Leader of the House tell us when he expects this important report to be published, and does he know why it has taken so long? A quarter of those on The Sunday Times rich list are donors to the Conservative party. They said that we were all in this together, but is not the truth that this is a Government run by the rich and for the rich?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her questions—I think that there were one or two. As she rightly acknowledged, decisions about Members’ pay, pensions and expenses are not made by this House; they are now matters for IPSA, which is an independent body. IPSA has today published its recommendations on the future remuneration package for MPs from 2015. That is for consultation before any final decision is made in the autumn. I urge anyone who has a view on the proposals to use the opportunity to respond to IPSA. The Government, like the Opposition, have set out our views. We have made it clear that we expect IPSA to take the broader fiscal climate into account, in particular the context of the Government’s approach to public service pay and pensions. I expect that we will maintain that position in any further response to the consultation. I should add that my party’s view is that in tough times we should see the cost of politics going down, not up.
On the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, I was in the Chamber for much of the debate and am confident that in the course of the debate we were able to examine those issues. Indeed, I was pleased by the way in which we were able to respond substantively and positively to the further report from the Parliament Commission on Banking Standards only a short time after its publication.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the shadow Leader of the House at all about her characterisation of the Conservative party’s views in relation to women. As the party of the first woman Prime Minister in this country, we have understood—I have certainly understood since I was but a boy in political terms—the exemplary role that women can play in politics and in other aspects of life. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) that he should not continue to chunter noisily from a sedentary position and to gesticulate as well? It is unseemly and it is not statesmanlike in the way that I aspire him to be. We have a lot of business to get through and we will make speedier progress if we have brief contributions and some order.
Mr Lansley
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
As for tennis, I am of an age where I absolutely remember Ann Jones and Virginia Wade. I know that the Prime Minister merely spoke in a moment of excitement in recognising and congratulating Andy Murray. I do not think for a minute that my right hon. Friend would have forgotten them if he had thought about it for a further second.
I did not know that the Deputy Prime Minister had had a meal with Mick Jagger, but I am looking forward to the “Moves Like Jagger” moment that will no doubt result from it.
May I explain the vote that will occur next Monday to the shadow Leader of the House? It is very straightforward. The Government published their Command Paper. It is not essential—nothing legally requires it—for the Government to have a vote of the House before the opt-out, but back in October the Home Secretary made it clear that we would have such a vote. The vote on Monday is an opportunity for the House to support the opt-out. It is not a vote about the character of the opt-in. Since the negotiation the House is able, in addition, to vote on Monday to take note of the Command Paper. That is the basis on which having opted out in due course, as we are intending to do, the House and the Select Committees of the House will then have an opportunity to consider the opt-in. I am afraid that it is simply not true to say, as the shadow Leader of the House does, that the Select Committees will not have an opportunity to consider the character of the opt-in; they will be able to look at that at the same time as my right hon. Friends are conducting the negotiation with the Commission and with other member states.
May I say a word about Prime Minister’s questions? I listened very carefully, Mr Speaker, when you responded to a point of order from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and of course I absolutely agree with everything you said. In the context of what happened this week, I think that, as you rightly pointed out, the public expect high standards of us, but they also expect Prime Minister’s questions, in particular, to be pretty robust. When the public out there listen to the House, sometimes they hear something that is a bit different from just the noise level in the Chamber, and that is okay—that is fine.
However, this week, if I may say so in agreement with you, Mr Speaker, the noise was excessive and it will have had an adverse impact on the public because it will have made it impossible to hear in the normal way the character of the answers that were being given and, indeed, sometimes the character of the questions being asked. I knew exactly what was happening; I make no bones about it. In the context of the heat-seeking missile that was aimed at the Leader of the Opposition in the previous week about Unite’s relationship with the Labour party, Labour Members were throwing out noise and chaff. Of course, they knew they were doing it, we knew they were doing it, and it would be helpful if the public knew they were doing it. However, we will not stop making sure that that missile hits its target. The Labour party is bought by the trade unions. We do not permit donations to the Conservative party to have strings attached. We do not allow donors to buy policy, to buy influence or to buy candidates, and they cannot buy the leadership of this party, but the trade unions do all those things for the Labour party.
Mr Speaker
Order. As right hon. and hon. Members know, it is my normal, almost unfailing, practice to try to call everyone at business questions. I would point out, though, that today we have two Government statements after this, both of which are of course important and of which the House will wish to treat, and then two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, both of which, especially the first, are significantly subscribed. It therefore may not be possible for me to accommodate all colleagues today, though I shall strive to do so and will be greatly assisted in the process by brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike, first to be exemplified by Mr Peter Bone.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House adopt a policy on programming whereby he gives a protected number of hours to main debates? As you were saying, Mr Speaker, today we have the problem that Back-Bench business is being squeezed, but if we had agreed a motion providing that it could last for six hours from whenever it commenced, it would have solved the problem entirely. Such a thing has been done before, so does the Leader of the House agree that that would a good tactic to adopt?
Mr Lansley
Our practice on programming is to be flexible. It is sometimes in the interests of the House for time to be protected, but sometimes that would be an unnecessary constraint. As I made clear last week, in the run-up to the recess, there will inevitably be pressing reasons why the Government make additional announcements and statements, which will have an impact on business, but we will do everything we can to ensure that that does not frustrate us in conducting our business in good time.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
May we have a debate or a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the serious situation that has developed at Coventry football club? The Football League has said that the club can play in Northampton, which would involve people making a 70-mile round trip at great expense. The Football League should have allowed the dispute between the club and the owners of the Ricoh arena to be resolved before it took that disgraceful decision, so may we have a statement or a review of the regulations?
Mr Lansley
I know from previous questions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), that the situation greatly concerns people in Coventry South and neighbouring constituencies. I will raise it once again with my colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) that the matter is precisely the sort of thing that he might wish to raise during next Thursday’s pre-recess debate, should he manage to catch Mr Speaker’s eye.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
While I do not share the Leader of the House’s view that Mrs Thatcher was a honky-tonk woman, does he share my view, and sense of surprise, that Sir Bill McKay’s report and recommendations found their way into the public prints this week, apparently before there had been any meaningful discussion in the coalition or across the Floor of the House? This is about proposals on English votes for English-only legislation and on dealing with English and Welsh legislation. Does he have any idea of how the situation came about, and will he tell us the current status of discussions in the coalition and across the Floor? Where does the issue go from here, because many of us who are involved in the Scottish referendum campaign feel that it is better to settle the future of the Union before we get on to deciding how to handle English and Scottish business in a continuing House of Commons?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I am slightly surprised by what he says. I saw the press report to which he refers but, as far as I am concerned, it did not represent an announcement of anything. Indeed, it did not bring Sir William McKay’s report into the public domain because I believe that it was published in March. As we have reported to the House before, we continue to discuss the report, which we welcome, and we will make a fuller response to it later in the year.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions refused to accept that the reason 500,000 people in our country have to access emergency food aid is social security delays. When I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter, the reply told me that Lord Freud had not even visited a food bank. The Trussell Trust confirms today that the delays are the result of changes that have been made since April, so may we have an urgent debate attended by all Work and Pensions Ministers so that they can acknowledge that we have a problem in this country?
Mr Lansley
Like the hon. Lady, I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State speaking about precisely that issue during Work and Pensions questions. The situation is not as simple as she characterises it. It is clear, as the Trussell Trust itself rightly says, that the availability of food banks has increased, and they have been advertised through jobcentres, which was not the case before the election. The number of people accessing food banks increased by many times before the election and it has increased since.
What I think has been a particularly pointed issue is whether benefit processing times and delays were themselves leading to people accessing food banks. I tell the hon. Lady that benefit processing times have improved over the past five years. The number of benefits processed on time—that is, within 16 days—is up 4% since 2009-10.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Following an unannounced inspection of Derriford hospital in Plymouth, the Care Quality Commission said yesterday that the hospital had failed to meet five of the nine nationally required standards in protecting patients undergoing surgery. Although I know that the chief executive of Derriford hospital is doing a very good job in trying to get this right, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the progress being made to ensure that we are not producing any more “never events”?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Health Secretary and his colleagues will answer questions on health matters next Tuesday. Having visited Derriford hospital, I know that it is a big hospital with a lot of dedicated staff who are trying to do an excellent job. When I was Health Secretary, we instituted professionally led, unannounced inspections by the CQC and it is important that they take place. They expose where standards are not what they ought to be and I know that the staff will try to respond.
As Health Secretary I extended the list of “never events” and introduced the open publication of the number and character of them by trust, so that we can see what is happening. I think that that transparency in itself will, as it does in so many other ways, help us drive down the number of such events in the future.
Mr Speaker
It sounds like there is scope for a debate, if in fact we have not already had it.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
May we have a debate on the dangers and evils of imperialism and annexation of another country’s territory, whether it be Saddam Hussein in Kuwait or, at the other end of the spectrum, the Westminster Government who, as the front page of The Guardian reports, are bullying Scotland as part of “project fear”? Free peoples across the world will condemn that and stand with Scotland in the name of freedom.
Mr Lansley
Given that the hon. Gentleman’s question is occasioned by the front page of today’s Guardian, I hope he will be pleased to hear that the Government have not commissioned contingency plans for Faslane. Ideas of the kind described have not come to the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister and they would not support them if they did.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Leader of the House is well aware of the phenomenal success of the cancer drugs fund since it was introduced in 2010, but there is growing concern among charities, clinicians and patients about the lack of clarity about its replacement. In a well-attended meeting in March, the Secretary of State for Health said that he would make a statement about this before the summer recess. Will the Leader of the House update us on progress with regard to that statement?
Mr Lansley
I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will be here to answer questions next Tuesday. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is assiduous in taking up these issues and I absolutely agree with him: the cancer drugs fund is tremendously important. It was always clear that it would enable us to meet the needs of patients in accessing new and innovative medicines and it has done so in about 27,000 cases, which is tremendous news. It is expected, however, that from January 2014 we will have a system that will enable patients right across the NHS to access the latest innovative medicines at a price that represents value for money for the NHS.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Yesterday the Committee on Climate Change published a report on adaption, which said that by the 2020s the gap between water demand and water supply could be 120 billion litres—the amount that our farmers extract each year. This is an incredible strain on our resources and farmers. May we have a debate on water extraction and the potential effect on the irrigation of crops?
Mr Lansley
The Select Committee could seek, in the usual way, to have a debate through the Liaison Committee.
Barry Gardiner
It was not the Select Committee; it was the Committee on Climate Change.
Mr Lansley
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. He and others may wish to seek a debate through the Backbench Business Committee. He will be aware of the publication of the national adaptation programme and the importance attached to it in delivering our proactive response to the potential risks and consequences that flow from climate change.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the problems caused by Travellers occupying council or private land, as highlighted by a recent incident in my constituency. I recognise that the Government have made it easier for councils and landowners to take action, but recent incidents highlight that problems remain. Will he find time for a debate on this matter?
Mr Lansley
I am sure that many Members will understand and share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. He will know that we have taken many steps to ensure fair play in the planning system—I draw particular attention to the recent written ministerial statement on planning and revoking the equality and diversity in planning guidance—and to enable a sense of fairness across the community. That is not, in any sense, to underplay the needs of Traveller communities in the planning system, but to ensure that there is community cohesion because everyone is seen to be treated fairly.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Unfortunately, Durham and Tees Valley airport’s regional growth fund bid was rejected in the latest round, yet the Government saw fit to give £145 million to national programmes in which HSBC and RBS were winners. Like many others, I was under the impression that the regional growth fund was meant for the regions, so can we have a statement on why £145 million has been given to the banks, rather than this country’s regions?
Mr Lansley
I cannot comment on the particular reasons for a decision made under the regional growth fund, but today the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), will be announcing additional allocations of resources to support the regional growth fund, which has had a positive impact and played a significant part in the creation of 1.3 million new private sector jobs since the last election. I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be better off applauding that in the first instance.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
In view of this week’s ludicrous decision by the European Court of Human Rights on whole-life sentences, may we have an urgent debate on the effect of the Court’s decisions on the confidence of the British public in our legal system, particularly our criminal legal system?
Mr Lansley
I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Government are deeply disappointed by this week’s judgment. We believe that whole-life tariffs are appropriate for exceptionally serious murders. The judgment does not mean, of course, that any offender who has received a whole-life tariff will be released immediately or that they will ever necessarily be released. The Court found a breach because there was no review point in the sentence. The Government will consider the detail of the judgment to determine what action might be necessary or possible, and we will make a further statement in response to the concerns expressed by him and others soon.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I have in my hand a letter from the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary in which they commit themselves
“to ensuring enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of EU justice and home affairs matters, including the 2014 decision.”
It came with a list of 136 opt-ins for justice and home affairs matters in the EU. Why, therefore, are the Government pressing ahead with a motion on Monday that lists for consultation only the 35 issues in the Command Paper? What happened to the promise that consultation would take place on all these items? Is it not time to abandon this divisive motion?
Mr Lansley
Perhaps I should reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House. It is very straightforward: the Home Secretary has published in the Command Paper the Government’s conclusions on the opt-out—last October, she made it clear that the Government’s policy was to opt out and then decide whether, and to what extent, to opt back in—and policy conclusions. Monday’s debate will enable the House to respond to that and to vote in support of the opt-out, but to note that we are entering negotiations that will lead to a vote in 2014 on the extent of the opt-in.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
For a decade or more, many parts of Wales have received European money at the highest intervention rate, with little obvious effect on the economy. In view of the UK Government’s generous settlement for Wales—again—and the latest round of EU funding, may we have a debate on the effectiveness of EU funding in helping the GDP of areas such as Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There were many happy consequences of the Prime Minister’s negotiating success in the budget negotiations. One was to reduce the overall size of the budget, and another was to give us the flexibility we are looking for, and focus on, improving our international competitiveness, and Wales will receive more than €2.145 billion in European funding from 2014 to 2020. We are focusing those funds on regions with lower GDP per capita, and using the full flexibility available. Among other things, that will provide west Wales and the valleys with an increase of €91 million compared with what the allocation would have been by applying the European Union formula alone.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we have a debate on the failure of the Government’s prohibition of mephedrone, which resulted in a 300% increase in its use? The likely effect of the ban on khat will be to drive a wedge between the Somali and Yemeni populations and the police, and also increase use. When can we have intelligent drug policies that decrease use and harm, instead of more populist, prejudice-based policies that increase harm and use?
Mr Lansley
I believe we have an intelligent policy that focuses not just on harm reduction but on trying to get people off drugs altogether. That is the proper answer and where we need to get to, not just the shift from heroin to methadone with some of the risks and consequences that flow from that, including the risk of reverting to heroin use. I cannot promise a debate, but the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers will be in the Chamber on Monday and he may like to raise that point with them.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Further to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), is it time we had a debate and vote on whether we should withdraw from the European convention on human rights, following the latest bizarre, perverse, and frankly idiotic, ruling on whole-life sentences? The British public do not want Ministers to say they are deeply disappointed; they want them to do something about it such as leave that ridiculous organisation that is full of pseudo-judges, many of whom are political placemen rather than properly qualified judges.
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend knows, we agreed in the coalition agreement that obligations under the European convention on human rights will continue to be enshrined in British law, and he will appreciate that we took considerable positive steps forward during our presidency of the Council of Europe and in the Brighton declaration, which will help. He and others across the House will continue to be concerned at the nature of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and its interpretation of convention rights. There will be an opportunity to consider the implications of that on our future relationship with the convention, although I cannot promise that in the immediate future.
Mr Speaker
Order. I appeal to colleagues to put single, short, supplementary questions without preamble, and to the Leader of the House for comparable pithy replies, by which route we might be able to include everybody.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
An innovative scheme to reduce fuel poverty in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees is being placed in jeopardy because of excessive but legal charges by BT to refix poles to the side of private houses once work is completed. That matter falls between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—
Mr Speaker
Order. I asked colleagues to put a simple question. Please do so.
Alex Cunningham
I apologise, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to back my call for an investigation into excessive charges made by BT for repairs following work for a fuel poverty scheme in Stockton-on-Tees?
Mr Lansley
I will raise that point with my colleagues and ask them to respond to the hon. Gentleman.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Youth unemployment in my constituency is down 15% since the last election. May we have a debate on the success of the Government’s economic policies and on what more can be done to ensure that all young people have the dignity of work?
Mr Lansley
Youth unemployment is down by 43,000 this quarter and 60,000 since last year, and I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says about additional youth employment in Croydon, which is important. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but the Opposition could always take up the issue in the Opposition day debate next Wednesday.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I know the Leader of the House will not want to upset millionaire moonlighters and parliamentary part-timers on the Government Benches, but I think being a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job. Given the brilliant speech made earlier this week by the Leader of the Opposition, may we have an urgent debate on how we can ensure that Members of Parliament spend their time in Parliament serving their constituents, not outside lining their pockets?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman might not have had a chance to read IPSA’s report this morning. Although it says that additional employment and outside earnings are not strictly in IPSA’s remit, it does offer views on the subject. One of the crucial things that IPSA says is that relatively few Members of this House have any significant earnings from outside and about only 10% have second jobs. He might remember that the Committee on Standards in Public Life looked at this issue and reached the conclusion that there was no reason to place any bar on outside employment for Members of this House.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House comment on the need for compassion to be shown by Somerset county council on the occasion of medical emergencies? My constituent John, who lives in Cheddar, had to empty his colostomy bag because it was leaking. He needed to fix the situation urgently, but he received a parking ticket while he was doing so. In spite of his many appeals to the county council, it has not budged and he is now threatened with forced collection.
Mr Lansley
I can offer neither, but I know, as other Members will, that if the county council sees my hon. Friend’s reference to the issue in the House, it will, I hope, respond positively. Some councils do, and I hope hers might.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
May we have a statement or at least a meeting with the relevant Minister to find out why the bid from Durham Tees Valley airport was turned down by the regional growth fund? The bid could have created 1,400 jobs and leveraged in another £40 million of investment.
Mr Lansley
I cannot comment on the bid, but of course I will talk to Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Whenever there is a bid, it is always good practice to offer as much feedback as possible to those who are unsuccessful.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
This week the International Monetary Fund upgraded its forecast for economic growth in the UK, at the same time as lowering the forecast for the rest of the world. May we have a debate about the UK economy, which is now moving out of intensive care, following the record bust created by the last Labour Government?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. We do not know what the Opposition’s choice of debate for next Wednesday will be, but they might like to consider the opportunity to debate some of the economic good news. The deficit is down by a third and we have close to record low interest rates and 1.3 million more people working in the private sector—these are the kinds of things that it would be good for us to focus on. Our success in winning in the global race depends on sustaining the policy path we are on now.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a debate on Prime Minister’s questions? My 83-year-old mother Beryl loves it, and not just because she gets a chance to see me in the Chamber. As a member of the trade union that helped her when she was injured at work as a dinner lady lifting tables, she would understand the noise that was generated by the remarks of a Prime Minister trying to demonise trade unions, from a party that is funded by millionaires and spivs.
Mr Lansley
My mother is 92, and although she enjoys Prime Minister’s questions, she prefers business questions more.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Youth unemployment has fallen by 8.3% in my constituency in the last year. However, I am not being complacent and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and I are running a jobs fair in my constituency on 24 July. Will my right hon. Friend welcome that jobs fair? May we also have a debate on what the Government are doing to reduce youth unemployment and what individual Members are doing to help young people to get into work?
Mr Lansley
It would be great if we could have that debate—perhaps the Opposition will take it up. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the work he is doing to support young people to get into jobs. Many of my hon. Friends are doing similar things, organising job fairs locally, and we can see the benefit. We can see new jobs being created and young people going into those jobs. It is right not to be complacent; therefore local action is absolutely the right thing to do.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Why are the Government insisting on Monday on a vote on both the hokey and the cokey? We will have to vote on the opt-out and the opt-in, when there is no requirement to start the negotiations for a vote on the opt-out. The Select Committees will have had no opportunity to look at the evidence on the individual measures, nor will there be any guarantees that we will be able to do simultaneous opting out and opting in.
Mr Lansley
I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the vote on Monday will enable the House to take a view in response to the Government’s publication of the Command Paper, at a point when my right hon. Friends are conducting a negotiation. That will strengthen their hand in negotiation. We have been clear about the opt-out. Support for the opt-out is the essence of the debate on Monday. The extent of the opt-in will be the subject of a further vote in 2014.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
May we have a debate on how Jobcentre Plus can advertise more jobs locally, for instance in industries such as fruit and vegetable growing and packing, so that local people seeking work are made aware of them?
Mr Lansley
That is an important point. In fact, I will raise it with my friends in the Department for Work and Pensions and ask them to respond. In many constituencies Jobcentre Plus does a very good job, but we should be tireless in trying to ensure that we match people out of work to the unprecedentedly high number—more than 500,000—of vacancies. It would be really good news if we did that.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The whole country can see the IPSA car crash unfolding. We all know that the Prime Minister will be forced to intervene eventually, so why do we not have a debate before the summer recess on what we need to do to amend the IPSA rules and put this fantasy proposal to bed now?
Mr Lansley
I repeat to the hon. Gentleman and the House that just four years ago—not a long time ago—this House passed legislation to create an independent body. Many of the problems emerging from this issue stem from the simple fact that Members are not willing to let go. We no longer have a say on our pay and pensions. We can express our view, but we do not determine them. It would be immensely to the benefit of the House and the public debate if that were recognised by the public and the press. We do not have a say: IPSA has the say. Go and express views to them. We will do so on a personal and party basis.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Unemployment in Tamworth is now at its lowest level since 2008—before Labour’s crash. That has been driven partly by the distribution and logistics sectors. May we have a debate on those sectors so we can explore the job opportunities they provide, particularly to young people?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend understands well from the geography of his constituency—it is in a central position—how distribution and logistics work. We have competitive sectors, but we are in a global race and constantly have to improve our competitiveness. That is why the fact that this country has moved up in the competitiveness league tables is great. What is equally great news is that the UK was regarded in a recent survey as the best place in the world in which to do business.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate visited my constituency recently it found more than 70 separate breaches of the law governing how people are paid, and £100,000 owing to local workers through underpayments. The Government’s consultation on the recruitment sector closed on 11 April, so may we have a debate on the future of the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate?
Mr Lansley
I fear I cannot offer an immediate debate; I do not have one immediately in prospect. The hon. Gentleman and colleagues with like interests may care to raise the issue with the Backbench Business Committee, but I will of course raise his point with my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Residents in my constituency are becoming increasingly concerned about the local plan being developed by Warwick district council. They feel that their voice is not being respected and I believe that the council needs to rethink its ill-conceived proposals. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on planning policy and on how we can give greater democratic control of the planning system to communities?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a specific point relating to his constituency and his local council. I hope his local council will listen to what he says. The Localism Act 2011 sets out to give power to local authorities and neighbourhood plans, and tries to ensure that they take account fully not only of the simplified national planning policy framework, but do so in the context of local decision making by local people. He is right to stress that point.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The independent living fund has transformed the lives of severely disabled people. May we have a debate on the likely impact of the decision to transfer the fund to local authorities? Severely disabled people are greatly concerned about the likelihood of losing their independence.
Mr Lansley
I will of course talk to my hon. Friends in the Department for Work and Pensions; it seems that I shall need to do that quite a lot today. The hon. Gentleman is describing the transfer of those funds into the hands of local authorities. Those local authorities will have the ability to look at a range of benefits and assess how they will work in the context of the link to people’s own housing responsibilities, and I know that that is proving to be a positive way of enabling people to manage to a budget more effectively. In so many of these circumstances, however, the ability to have discretion at the margin to deal with difficult cases is something that every council will have to look at carefully.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
In recent days, two companies in Montgomeryshire—Control Techniques and Invertek Drives—have announced 90 new local high-tech jobs. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to make a statement on how we can work with the Welsh Government to build on this success as the UK moves out of recession?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is a great cheerleader for mid-Wales, and he is absolutely right to suggest that there are some great businesses helping the UK to compete in the global race by investing and expanding their operations. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Secretary of State, but if he is in his place next Thursday when the Secretary of State is responding to questions, he might have a further opportunity to raise the matter then.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will have noted that IPSA is back in the news. May we have a statement on what IPSA is going to do to improve its cumbersome IT systems, which waste an awful lot of MPs’ staff time, and to address the fact that the organisation remains incommunicado for large parts of the day?
Mr Lansley
I will not promise a statement at the moment but, if I may, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s point to the attention of my colleagues on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I know that the Committee has raised a number of issues with IPSA as a consequence of its examination of the organisation’s estimate. We will take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board when we further consider some of these IPSA issues.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In recent months, my visually impaired constituent, Doug Hollingsworth, has been having great difficulty in accessing audio correspondence from the Department for Work and Pensions. May we have a debate on how people with visual impairments can gain better access to that Department?
Mr Lansley
I am sure that the House will be sorry to hear of the difficulties that my hon. Friend’s constituent is experiencing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to our attention. I will raise the matter with the Department for Work and Pensions, which I know has the facility to offer a range of formats, provided as “reasonable adjustments”, for visually impaired or blind people, including materials in audio format, large print or Braille. I shall bring the case to the Department’s attention, so that it can look into whether it is making the necessary adjustments.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 389, which deals with the sudden closure of the Maypole club in Harlow?
[That this House is shocked and saddened at the closure of the Maypole Club in Harlow; notes the vital contribution that the club made to the community of Harlow; further notes that many Harlow residents had special occasions booked at the club, and football teams will no longer be able to use their pitches with immediate effect; believes the staff and managers of the club should have received notice before it closed; and therefore urges the new owners to provide an alternative clubhouse and alternative pitches to local football teams.]
On Tuesday, I was shocked to hear that, after an overnight sale of its lease, the Maypole club, which makes a huge contribution to our local community, had been boarded up. No notice was given to management, staff, members or the many sports teams that use its facilities. May we have an urgent debate on small community clubs, and will my right hon. Friend contact the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and ask him to look into this matter?
Mr Lansley
I will draw my hon. Friend’s early-day motion to the attention of the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson). I know that the people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) will be grateful to him once again for raising their concerns about community services.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
When will the Bill to ensure that foreign nationals will be charged for using the NHS come before the House? Will it address the concerns of the constituent who wrote to me this week to say:
“As an NHS nurse of 33 years…I find I am providing care for elderly patients with chronic health needs who have never lived in the UK at any point of their life, who have come to live with their family members who have recently settled in the UK…most recently from Bulgaria, Greece and Slovakia”?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will recall that, the week before last, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published a consultation relating to access to NHS services for those coming from abroad. That consultation will enable us to introduce the legislation described in the Queen’s Speech later this year. On my hon. Friend’s point about his constituent, any NHS services provided to older and retired people from other European Union member states can be charged back to the member state, and that is what we do.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Order. Points of order come after statements. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that, and that it had just momentarily slipped his mind. I feel sure that we will see him later today, and perhaps hear from him as well.
Health Services (North-West)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about changes at Trafford general hospital and, separately, about the provision of vascular services in Cumbria and Lancashire.
Our primary objective as a Government must be for the NHS to provide the best service for patients. Sometimes that means taking difficult decisions. Both of the decisions I am announcing today fall into that category, but both are necessary if we are to provide safe and sustainable health care in the north-west.
Let me first address the changes at Trafford general hospital. Greater Manchester is home to some of the best and most innovative health care in the country. The reconfiguration of acute stroke services in Manchester has contributed to an overall reduction in deaths of around 250 since the changes were implemented. Salford Royal and Wythenshawe are two of the finest hospitals in the country. The area is blazing a trail in the integration of primary, secondary and social care services, but more needs to be done to ensure that emergency care continues to be safe, which is why the local NHS proposed some important but difficult service changes, which affect A and E provision at Trafford general hospital.
On 8 February 2013, I received a letter from the chair of the joint health scrutiny committee for Trafford borough council and Manchester city council, formally referring proposals about the future delivery of health care services at Trafford general hospital. I then asked the Independent Reconfiguration Panel for its advice on the proposals, which I received on 27 March 2013. Today, I have accepted its advice, which will be published on the panel’s website, in full. I have also written to the chairs of the panel and of the joint health scrutiny committee and to local MPs, informing them of my decision.
The clinical case for change in Trafford general hospital is clear. It is one of the smallest hospitals in the country. Its accident and emergency department is the second smallest in the country. Between midnight and 8 o’clock in the morning, the A and E department sees on average only two patients an hour. Even at peak times, the unit sees on average only seven patients an hour. Over half of local residents already use accident and emergency services outside Trafford. Trafford clinical commissioning group’s chief clinical officer, Dr Nigel Guest, himself a local GP, said:
“This makes it difficult to attract new doctors, it means that services cost more than they should and it compromises our ability to ensure good clinical outcomes. In short, it means that for too long local people have not been getting the type of service they should and deserve to receive.”
The problems are not confined to A and E. The low number of patients using intensive care means it, too, is not sustainable, and is likely to become unsafe in the future. According to the Greater Manchester critical care network, the unit needs to treat a minimum of 200 patients a year to be safe, but it treats fewer than 100. Emergency surgical services are also not sustainable. The Royal College of Surgeons states that emergency surgery should serve a population of at least 300,000— ideally 450,000 to 500,000. Trafford general hospital serves a population of around 100,000.
Trafford is currently able to provide a range of high-quality clinical services. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to safeguard those services in a way that is sustainable in the long term. As a result, the National Clinical Advisory Team of independent health professionals has advised me that there will be clinical and safety issues if the hospital continues practising as it currently does. I accept its advice.
Initially, the A and E at Trafford general hospital will be replaced by an urgent care centre. The A and E currently sees just 100 patients a day. The majority of those patients—around 75%—will continue to be seen at the urgent care centre. That means around 25 patients a day will be treated at the three neighbouring large university hospitals, all within a 10-mile radius. In the longer term, as services are developed over the next two to three years, the urgent care centre will become a minor injuries unit. Trafford general hospital will become a centre of excellence for elective orthopaedic surgery. That will see all other in-patient surgery stop, but there will be an expansion of day surgery, such as ophthalmology and other vital local services.
On 24 January this year, the PCT cluster, NHS Greater Manchester, approved the implementation of these proposals subject to the prior fulfilment of six conditions. Those included addressing transport issues for local residents, accelerating the implementation of a local integrated care system and ensuring continued access to out-of-hours mental health services when the urgent care centre eventually closes. Progress will be assessed and evaluated throughout the transition by NHS England in conjunction with the local joint health scrutiny committee. Following the advice from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, I am also satisfied that the four tests for reconfiguration have been met.
As a result of the changes I am supporting today, Trafford CCG will be able to reinvest an additional £3.5 million to deliver what local people have asked for—more choice, more preventive care and more services closer to home. That will include community matrons and a community geriatrician, a 72-hour rapid response team, as well as an in-reach team to A and E to support people with complex needs and mental health issues.
I know that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) have met the Under-Secretary of State for Health to raise their concerns. Others, including the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), have written to me directly. That is why I have wanted to reassure myself since receiving the advice that the NHS has arrangements in place to ensure patient safety is not compromised during the transition to new services. I can assure all Members that there will be a rigorous assurance process overseen by NHS England and that no changes will occur until unequivocal assurances have been given by a provider’s board or chief executive that their organisation can safely receive additional patients and activity, however small.
Because A and Es around the country have been under increased pressure over the past few months, I also make a commitment today that changes at Trafford will take place only if the three neighbouring A and Es that will need to treat additional patients are consistently meeting their waiting time standards. Progress will be assessed and evaluated throughout the transition by NHS England in conjunction with the local joint health scrutiny committee. The Department of Health has also set aside funds to support investment by the University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust in expanding Wythenshawe hospital’s A and E department. That application for funding will be treated as a priority.
I turn to the provision of vascular services in Cumbria and Lancashire. On 19 February, the chair of Cumbria’s health scrutiny committee wrote to me formally to refer proposals about the provision of vascular services in Cumbria and Lancashire. I subsequently asked the Independent Reconfiguration Panel for its advice, which I received on 19 April. Today I have accepted its advice in full, which will be published on the panel’s website. I have also written to the chair of the panel and of the Cumbria health scrutiny committee, as well as to local MPs, informing them of my decision.
The changes will concentrate vascular services in three specialist centres, in line with the IRP’s advice for a population of around 2.8 million people. More routine services will continue to be provided locally. Seven hospitals, including the three specialist centres, will continue to provide services such as screening, out-patient clinics, day surgery, diagnostic tests and rehabilitation services. The centres will be at North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust in Carlisle, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust in Blackburn, and Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Preston. Day casework and out-patients will continue to be assessed and treated in local hospitals across the region.
The three centres will provide sufficient cover both for the sparsely populated north of the region and for the densely populated south, which includes significant pockets of deprivation and unmet health needs. The concentration of vascular services is in line with national policy, as recommended by the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland. The move will give patients access to better care and treatment than is currently possible with vascular services spread more thinly across the region.
The IRP accepts, as do I, that an inevitable consequence of concentrating specialist services at centres of excellence, is that some patients will have to travel further for treatment. However, the IRP informs me that the evidence in favour of concentrating services is particularly strong in relation to vascular surgery and that there is a strong clinical consensus that doing so will improve outcomes for patients. I know that Members representing north Lancashire and south Cumbria are particularly concerned about the distance patients will need to travel for specialist treatment. I do sympathise, but in the end have taken the difficult decision that the clinical benefits of concentrating specialist services outweigh any disadvantages in terms of additional travel times. I add that the Royal Lancaster Infirmary along with six other hospitals will continue to provide more routine vascular services.
These changes offer an opportunity to provide significantly improved vascular services to the people of Cumbria and Lancashire. I am therefore asking NHS England, working with local NHS organisations, to address the outstanding concerns raised by Cumbria health scrutiny committee. Local people need to know that changes are indeed leading to improved outcomes and that reasonable steps are being taken to support those with further to travel. In line with the IRP’s advice, I also want to see a programme of public information about the changes.
The public are rightly concerned about any major changes to health provision, and I particularly recognise the concerns people have about having to travel further, which is significant not just for patients but for their families and friends. However, my priority, and the Government’s priority, has to be what offers the safest and best clinical outcomes and what will save the most lives. That is why, after careful consideration, I have accepted independent clinical advice on both these decisions. I have also accepted the view of the IRP that the process leading to the decisions has been the right one, and I thank it for its work on these decisions.
I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on matters that are of major significance to the NHS in the north-west of England, but I am not the only north-west MP taken by surprise this morning by the lack of advance notice. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), in whose constituency Trafford hospital lies, was heading home, but had to abandon her journey at Stoke and is now heading back down to try to get here. This is not just a major discourtesy to her and the House, Mr Speaker; it is an insult to the people of Trafford, and it is no way to treat people who have campaigned to save their A and E, and who should have rightly been able to expect that their voice be heard in this House today through their elected Member of Parliament.
It says a lot about this Secretary of State. His advisers could find time to get texts sent to the Murdochs with market-sensitive information before an earlier statement he made, but he could not find time to give a local MP advance notice of a statement about the closure of her accident and emergency department: disgraceful.
This is not just any A and E: 65 years and six days after Nye Bevan opened the NHS at Trafford hospital, we have the spectacle of this Secretary of State scurrying to the House to rush out an announcement without the scrutiny of local MPs about a major downgrade of the hospital. What clearer symbol could we have of a Government who disrespect and disregard the views of NHS staff, patients and local people?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston is trusting that the west coast main line will get her back before the close of this statement, and I hope you will allow her to contribute, Mr Speaker, even though she has clearly missed the opening of this statement.
Let me now turn to the substance of what the Secretary of State has said. He is right to say that the IRP provides excellent support and advice to Ministers. It did so to me and my predecessors in the last Government, and I am sure it is doing the same for the current Government. Where it can be shown that changes will save lives and reduce disability, in my view all Members of this House have a moral obligation to support them. Changes to vascular services in Cumbria and Lancashire clearly fall into that category. The concentration of this highly specialised surgery on three sites will save and improve lives, but given the geography it is essential that people are supported with travel. The Secretary of State made a vague commitment, but can he be more specific about the support that will be made available to patients, particularly in the sparsely populated northern part of our region, who will now have to travel much further to receive this life-saving surgery?
Although we support the Secretary of State’s decision on Lancashire and Cumbria, we have much greater concerns about the process that has led to the decisions today about Trafford hospital. While the IRP has undoubtedly done what it has been asked to do, I wrote to the Secretary of State in November last year to express serious reservations about the Trafford review proceeding ahead of Healthier Together, a much wider review of acute and emergency services across Greater Manchester. Speaking as a Greater Manchester MP, I cannot see why it makes sense to pick off Trafford hospital ahead of this review without looking at things in the round. It does not feel to me that this is part of a coherent plan for the NHS in our city region, and I ask the Secretary of State today why his decision is justified, given that the wider considerations affecting health services in Greater Manchester have not yet been completed.
The Secretary of State claims that the patients affected by the closure of Trafford can be easily and safely absorbed by the neighbouring A and Es. How can he say that when all the A and Es that will now have to absorb extra patients missed his own A and E target for at least four months during the worst winter in the NHS for a decade? Have the Secretary of State and the IRP made their decision looking at the very latest evidence of growing pressure on A and E departments in Greater Manchester? He mentions extra funding for Wythenshawe, which is welcome, as the hospital was built for 70,000 patients a year and is currently seeing almost 100,000, but will other affected A and Es also receive additional funding?
Finally, Mr Speaker, the appalling mishandling of this statement today, which has left the people affected unable to put the Secretary of State under scrutiny, is just the latest example of the wider mishandling of hospital reconfiguration under the coalition, which has seriously damaged public trust in our ability to make changes to hospitals. Picking off Trafford ahead of a wider review broke the illusory moratorium on hospital changes announced just days after the general election outside Chase Farm hospital by the Secretary of State’s predecessor and the Prime Minister—incidentally, that hospital is also now downgraded.
Sir David Nicholson has today said:
“If a political manifesto does not say that service change is absolutely essential and that you need to concentrate and centralise services—it will not be being straight forward with the British people.”
Might he just have had the last Conservative manifesto in mind when he made that statement? Will the Secretary of State today admit that this false moratorium was a cynical and dishonest policy designed to win votes in marginal seats, and will he commit never to repeat it?
Worse still, the Secretary of State’s officials have been in court in the past few days trying to justify the indefensible: a decision to rob a local community in south London of a successful A and E to solve problems in another trust that were not of its making. Is all this not causing severe damage to trust in how these decisions are made? Will he give a commitment to the House today that if the court finds against him, he will abandon his plans to downgrade Lewisham A and E? Labour Members will support changes where they are clinically justified, but where communities are picked off unfairly by this arrogant Government we will stand with them and fight for fairness.
Mr Hunt
Many members of the public are understandably concerned about these decisions, but from someone who was Health Secretary and who argued the case many times for changing services what we have heard today is not sensible argument, but political opportunism.
Let us examine what the right hon. Gentleman said only last week in Hastings. He said that people like him have a moral imperative to support the doctors who are making these decisions. Well, these changes are supported by the Trafford clinical commissioning group, Greater Manchester critical care network, the Royal College of Surgeons and many other doctors. How many doctors does he need to support this decision before he actually does what he said he would do last Friday, which is support doctors making difficult decisions? On the very day that NHS England is talking about the need to protect services for patients by facing up to difficult decisions, his approach is more than inconsistent—it is irresponsible, and he knows it. Let us examine what he said about changes in Trafford when he was Health Secretary—
Mr Speaker
Order. We must have order from those on the Opposition Front Bench, and I know that the Secretary of State will want to respond to the questions asked of him. I just remind the House that it is not a generalised debate; it is a statement and a response to questions.
Mr Hunt
Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I think that it is very important that on both sides of this House we have consistent arguments. It is very important to the questions that I was asked that I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said when he was Health Secretary. “I am disappointed,” he said, that politicians
“are going around Greater Manchester undermining the clinically-led process”.—[Official Report, 30 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 620.]
The local medical director says that these changes will save—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The temperature needs to fall. This is a very highly charged matter, there is considerable sensitivity about it, it is extremely important and we want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say. When he has said it, everybody will get a chance to come in, but please let us lower the decibel level. We certainly do not want to imitate what happened to the considerable discredit of the House yesterday.
Mr Hunt
The other point the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made was that we should not make these changes to A and E services when those in other hospitals are under pressure. It is important that I remind the House of what he did when he was Health Secretary. After 2004-05, Labour missed its A and E targets in 12 quarters but closed or downgraded 12 A and Es. Now, in Wales, the A and E target has not been met since 2009, yet Labour is embarking on a big reconfiguration programme with his full support. So it is one policy when Labour is in opposition, another when it is in power. There is one person who agrees with the right hon. Gentleman, and he was campaigning in Trafford on Friday—Len McCluskey. When it comes to a choice between supporting local doctors or the unions, the Opposition support the unions.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot have points of order in the middle of a statement. The Secretary of State has been asked specific questions and I know that he will now respond without any delay to those specific questions and nothing more. Other Members wish to contribute and there is other business. The Secretary of State is an extremely important man, of course, but there are a lot of other people involved, too, and we need to get on and hear them. I call the Secretary of State to respond briefly.
Mr Hunt
Thank you for that rare compliment, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Leigh asked a specific question about travel and I will ask the local NHS trusts to work closely with the overview and scrutiny committees to ensure that proper arrangements are put in place for people who have to travel further. He asked me about deferring the decision until the Healthier Together programme for the whole of Greater Manchester was decided, but the IRP specifically said that it would be wrong to defer the decision—the point is that local doctors are saying that doing so would not be safe for patients, and that is why I am accepting the advice.
The NHS is a great institution, but we have to take difficult decisions sometimes. The proposals will help patients, but I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is interested only in politics.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Many people will be disappointed, of course, by the decision on Trafford general, but I thank my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team for their openness in hearing the concerns of local Members and Trafford council in building up to what has obviously been a serious and carefully made decision. I thank him for the extra investment for Wythenshawe and for making the changes contingent on ensuring that the capacity is there in surrounding hospitals to ensure that this is safe. Will he also give us an assurance that the Trafford health economy will not suffer financially if those contingencies are not met in time?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive approach he has taken in this process. I assure him that this will help the local Trafford economy. Three major teaching hospitals are used by the people of Trafford. Two of the three are meeting their A and E targets and one is not. These proposals will help the one that is not meeting its target to do so. They will also mean that an extra £3.5 million can be invested in community and prevention services, including local geriatricians and community matrons. That will be of huge benefit to my hon. Friend’s constituents and to many other people in the local area.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I first ask the Secretary of State to respond to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) about the lack of notice of the statement? I have had good news for my constituency from the Secretary of State, but many of my colleagues have had bad news and it is genuinely discourteous for the House not to have been informed. This is not a market-sensitive issue, after all, and we could have been told yesterday or earlier.
Secondly, on the merits of the concentration of vascular services in Lancashire and Cumbria, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the decision that he has made, not least in respect of East Lancashire Hospitals Trust in Blackburn? This is an important vote of confidence in the excellence of the facilities in Blackburn at a time when many of the clinicians and others have been under great anxiety because they have been subject to the Keogh review. I think all my constituents recognise that sometimes they will have to travel, as mine have had to travel to Blackpool for many years, for very serious cardiovascular surgery. Provided the outcomes are much better where there is a concentration of resources, and assistance with travel is given in appropriate cases, I think my public and that across the north-west will accept these decisions.
Mr Hunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his wise words. If we level with the public about these difficult changes, they do understand that there are times when they get a better outcome even if they have to travel further. Perhaps the most dramatic example of that has been how trauma services have been centralised on fewer hospitals. Even after incidents as dramatic and dangerous as road traffic accidents, people are not necessarily taken to their nearest A and E. They are stabilised and then they are taken to an A and E that has the equipment that is necessary to give them the treatment that is most likely to save their lives. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that.
I absolutely followed and would always want to follow the procedures of the House with respect to advance notice of statements. The request for a statement went in only last night. The Speaker made his decision this morning. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is here and I hope she is allowed to speak. I said to her on the phone this morning that I am willing to meet her separately to go through any concerns that she has. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy. I know the right hon. Gentleman well, and I know that he would not seek for one moment to mislead the House. He was trying candidly to respond to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). For the avoidance of doubt, let us be absolutely clear. I can quite accept that the Secretary of State requested, within the Government machine, permission to make a statement today. However, the House will wish to be aware that I myself was aware of the request to make a statement only this morning. Let us be clear about that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
There is a strong clinical case for the concentration of vascular services in Cumbria and Lancashire at three sites, but is it not ludicrous that the three that have been chosen are so geographically located that one is virtually on the Scottish border, then there is a gap of almost 100 miles, and then there are two that are nine miles apart? Does not that leave south Cumbria and north Lancashire dangerously under-provided for? Given the current difficulties, shall we say, at Morecambe Bay, does not robbing Morecambe Bay of those skills and that expertise make a difficult situation potentially even worse?
Mr Hunt
I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned, rightly, to represent the concerns of his constituents about the extra travel that they will have to undertake. I would like to reassure him that we considered that issue very carefully. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel recognises that travel is a consideration, but also believes that for his constituents, even for the people who have to travel further, there will be better clinical outcomes for specialist vascular surgery. We are not talking about routine surgery, diagnosis or rehabilitation work but about conditions such as aneurysms and carotid artery disease which require specialist care. Patients can get much better help if that is concentrated in specialist centres.
As to why those particular centres were chosen, it was a genuinely difficult decision. There is a bigger concentration of population in the south of the region and there is also more social deprivation and more unmet need. I know it was a difficult decision, but it was decided that that would be best for the 2.8 million people in the area and also better for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to ask a question, and I apologise for missing the opening statements. As you know, I think, it was only when we saw this morning’s Order Paper that we knew that a statement would be made this morning, and I was on the way to Manchester at the time to meet constituents. I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State a question. My constituents would be horrified were I not in the Chamber this morning to do so.
This has been one of the most contentious and difficult issues facing the health economy in Trafford since my election. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s offer to meet me and I was grateful for his time on the phone this morning, he will understand that people are concerned that doubts and fears about the future of Trafford general hospital are already leading to a downward spiral in people going to that hospital and the level of staffing and service that they receive there. What absolute guarantees can he give my constituents that there will be no diminution whatsoever of the service they receive during what may have to be a very protracted transition process, and that in particular there will be no repeat of our experiences over the most recent winter months, when neither Manchester Royal infirmary nor Wythenshawe A and Es were able to meet the accident and emergency waiting time targets on more than 15% of occasions?
Mr Hunt
I recognise that the hon. Lady would have liked to have been here for the statement, and indeed that she made a huge effort to get here. As I told her on the phone this morning, I am more than happy to meet her separately to discuss her concerns. With regard to her concern about a downward spiral, I hope today to reassure her constituents that a clear decision has been taken that will secure the hospital’s future as a successful and important hospital, a centre of excellence for elective orthopaedic work, and a hospital that has a very important role to play in the local health economy. We are making huge efforts to ensure that there will be no diminution of services but that services will improve. Of the three major teaching hospitals that will now provide A and E services for her constituency, one—Central Manchester university hospital—is not meeting its A and E targets. The measures announced today will help it meet those targets and make it more likely that her constituents will get a better service in A and E. However, as I made absolutely clear in my statement, I will not allow the changes to be made until all three hospitals are consistently meeting their A and E targets.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the decision on Trafford general hospital should not be seen as putting the provision of A and E services at Fairfield hospital at risk?
Mr Hunt
This decision is about Trafford general hospital’s A and E services. What we are considering in this decision is whether the other hospitals can absorb the extra patients who will come to them as a result. We think that the neighbouring A and Es will initially have to absorb only about 25 patients in total. It is not a decision about the future of other A and Es.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
The new service in Cumbria will have to be managed, and part of the problem in Cumbria is poor management, yet we have been waiting for two and a half years for Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust to take over in Cumbria. When will we see that acquisition?
Mr Hunt
I am keen to resolve that issue as soon as possible. Indeed, I think that it is really important, given what we heard this morning from NHS England about the big challenges facing the NHS, that we try to take these difficult decisions much more quickly than normally happens. When we have paralysis and decisions being put on hold, that creates uncertainty and the worries that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talked about, so I want to ensure that we decide these things as quickly as possible.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Dr Nigel Guest, chief clinical officer at Trafford clinical commissioning group, has said that making these changes to services at Trafford general hospital
“is vital to secure a long and vibrant future for the hospital.”
Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that that will be the case?
Mr Hunt
Yes, and I hope that what we have announced today will give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We have announced a future for Trafford general hospital as a centre of excellence for elective orthopaedic work. We have also announced a significant increase in investment in community services, an extra £3.5 million that will pay for community matrons, community geriatricians, a 72-hour rapid response team and better support in A and Es for people with mental health needs. This is a very big step forward, but it is part of the country that has gone further and faster than many others in delivering integrated care. This announcement will take that further and will mean that it stands out as a beacon of what good care can look like in an ageing society.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
May I echo the comments of right hon. and hon. Friends about the lack of notice? It really is outrageous that Members with a constituency interest were not given adequate notice.
May I ask the Secretary of State specifically about the funds that he says have been earmarked for the expansion of the A and E department at Wythenshawe hospital? That is essential, because at least another 4,500 patients will be coming to the A and E following his decision. Can he confirm absolutely this morning that that funding will be made available in full, in advance of any changes? How will the funding be made available? University Hospital of South Manchester is a foundation trust, which means that it cannot receive NHS capital, and it has already borrowed to the limit.
Mr Hunt
First, let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that 25 extra patients a day will have to be absorbed by the three neighbouring hospitals to Trafford, so it is not a large number. We want to make sure that all hospitals, including Wythenshawe, which I have visited—it is a superb hospital—are able to absorb that capacity. It is currently meeting its A and E target. The application that has been made for extra capital grant to help it to expand its A and E department will be treated as a priority.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Safety should always be paramount, but public confidence is also important. As the Secretary of State faces further tough decisions on reconfiguration in the coming years, will he assure me and other Members of this House of two things: that he will be conscious of not applying urban solutions to rural areas; and that where alternative pathways of care can be put in place, that will happen before changes take place?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes two important points. I explicitly said that we will not proceed with any of these changes until neighbouring hospitals have been consistently meeting their A and E standards and any necessary changes have been put in place so that we can be sure that they will improve care for patients. That is really important if we are going to maintain confidence.
On my hon. Friend’s point about urban versus rural, part of the underlying reason for these changes is that we need to get more care out of big hospitals, which are often in urban areas, and into the community—into settings near people’s homes. That is very important for rural communities where there are often large concentrations of older people. Today’s decision will mean an additional investment in those community services. As we look at the big changes we need to make in the NHS, we will need to make more decisions that allow more to be invested in out-of-hospital care if we are to prevent the illnesses that ultimately put so much pressure on our A and E departments.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Is any consideration being given within the Secretary of State’s Department or NHS England to reconfiguring the A and E services between St Helens and Whiston hospitals and Warrington and Halton hospitals? He might not be aware that the chief executive of Warrington and Halton hospitals and the chair of its trust board recently told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) that they think they will run out of money in about 18 months’ time such are the pressures that they have at the moment. Will the Secretary of State investigate this and tell me whether any consideration of that reconfiguration is taking place?
Mr Hunt
With regard to pressures on A and E, we are working very hard with A and Es across the country to make sure that they learn the lessons from what happened last winter and are properly prepared for this winter. Those discussions will include the A and E departments that serve his constituents. He will know that any decisions about service changes or reconfigurations are a matter for the local NHS; they come to me only if they are referred to me following a formal proposal by a local health overview and scrutiny committee, and that has not happened in this case.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Like other Members across the House—I speak particularly on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)—I condemn the poltroonish way in which this statement has been handled. Will the Secretary of State concede that instability is corroding health services right across Cumbria? Will he guarantee that when North Cumbria University Hospitals Trust is acquired by Northumbria Trust this decision will not be yet again reconsidered?
Mr Hunt
Today is a sitting Thursday and we have followed parliamentary procedures. I am doing everything I can to help the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) to have as much engagement as she needs given that she was not able to be here at the start of the process. With regard to stability, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he wants stability and wants decisions to be taken decisively, then he has to support the Government when they take difficult decisions like today’s and not be opportunistic, in the way that the shadow Secretary of State was.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) about the apparent benefits of relocating to Blackburn and concentrating resources, but despite seemingly being a beneficiary of this reconfiguration, I am worried about the treatment of Lancashire and Cumbria MPs. What notification was given to those Members, and what consultation took place with them on the decision?
Mr Hunt
The process has taken a long time because we have consulted extensively with the local community and local Members. There have been debates in the House about it, and Members have regularly asked about it during oral questions. I asked for hon. Members to be given advance notice of today’s statement. Consultation is important, and we asked for advice from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel—
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State cites social deprivation as a justification for his decision on the configuration for Cumbria and Lancashire. I fully support that principle, so will he take it further by ensuring that those of us who represent constituencies in which health outcomes are much worse than those in the south of England, for example, get larger allocations of cash in future distributions of moneys? If he is going to use the principle once, he must do so consistently.
Mr Hunt
That is already built into the funding formula. We made reducing health inequalities a duty of NHS England in the NHS mandate, and that needs to be done in a way that is also fair to socially deprived people living in the countryside, in rural areas and even in the fringes of affluent areas. We have to find a way of ensuring that the process is fair to everyone who is socially deprived and to do what we can to reduce health inequalities.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
No one should be in any doubt that there will be huge shock back home in Greater Manchester at the announcement about Trafford. The conurbation has specific problems with its hospitals, such as mine in Tameside, where we have finally changed the management. We have the Healthier Together process, which is reviewing practically everything, and we are still coping with the impact of the reorganisation with which the whole country has to contend, and now we turn up at Parliament on a Thursday morning to hear the unilateral announcement that Trafford is going. Given the scope of the Healthier Together process, how can the Secretary of State honour the assurances that he gave in his statement? He could not answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) about foundation trusts and capital at all. What further changes to hospitals in Greater Manchester is he going to spring on us in the future?
Mr Hunt
Foundation trusts can apply for a capital grant, and I said in my statement that, as soon as we get a business case, we will give that a high priority. We are sympathetic to awarding it, but we have to wait for the business case to be presented.
In a period in which the NHS faces huge pressures, it is important to show leadership, and that means local MPs understanding that difficult decisions sometimes need to be taken that are in the interests of their constituents, as a number of Members have done today. It also involves supporting what local doctors have been arguing for over many years, but taking the line of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) by supporting the unions, not the doctors, is totally irresponsible.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) that I am sure that she would not seek to use this statement as a back-door method of talking about health services in Lewisham? If she wishes to expatiate on health services in the north-west, we will hear from her.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful, Mr Speaker.
The Health Secretary repeatedly said that changes will be made at Trafford only if the neighbouring hospitals that have to take additional patients are consistently meeting their waiting time targets for A and E. Will he define “consistently” and clarify exactly what he means by that? Will it apply to all A and E reconfigurations throughout the country?
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I say to the hon. Lady that it is only exceptionally that points of order are taken between statements, and if they are taken they must relate to the matter just discussed, which I rather suspect hers will. I am not going to have a general debate; I shall take one point of order from the hon. Lady.
Ms Abbott
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Secretary of State for Health to announce the closure of another Member’s A and E, which is a very serious matter for all MPs, without making any effort whatsoever to even advise the Member concerned that they might wish to attend the Chamber the following day?
Mr Speaker
It is quite simple. The short answer is that nothing disorderly has taken place. The Secretary of State is entitled to come to the House and make a statement at a time of his choosing. I have experienced a great many Ministers in my time in the House. Different Ministers adopt different approaches. In some cases Ministers have conversations with Members in advance—I know that the Secretary of State himself has done so on other occasions—and signal an intention to make a statement, or the possibility of a statement, at a particular time, but on other occasions they do not do so. On the strict question of whether it is in order, I can confirm that the Secretary of State’s conduct is not disorderly. Beyond that, it is for hon. and right hon. Members to make their own assessment of the handling of the matter. There is scope, as with so many matters, for different points of view. I think that is the fairest thing I can say.
Electronic Tagging
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Ministry of Justice’s electronic monitoring contracts with G4S Care and Justice Services and Serco Monitoring.
These contracts provide for the tagging of individuals on bail and offenders under supervision in the community. The current contracts were awarded under the previous Government in November 2004 and are due to expire shortly.
The House will recall that I made an announcement on 17 May indicating that my Department had identified a number of issues surrounding the way in which we have been billed for monitoring under the current contracts, and that as a result I had ordered an independent audit of the billing arrangements under both contracts.
Let me begin by explaining to the House the nature of the issues that prompted the audit. As part of my Department’s work on tightening up procedures—both to prepare for the new electronic monitoring contracts which are now out to tender and to improve the quality of our contract management—we identified what appeared to be a significant anomaly in the billing practices under the current contracts. It appeared that we were being charged in ways not justified by the contracts and for people who were not in fact being monitored.
Following this discovery, I took immediate steps to investigate the issue, commissioning an audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers. I also sought assurances that there was no risk to the public as a result of issues we discovered, and I am clear that these billing issues have not given rise to any risk to public safety.
This audit has now confirmed the circumstances in which the Department was billed for services. This has included instances where our suppliers were not in fact providing electronic monitoring. It included charges for people who were back in prison and had had their tags removed, people who had left the country, and those who had never been tagged in the first place but who had instead been returned to court. There are a small number of cases where charging continued for a period when the subject was known to have died. In some instances, charging continued for a period of many months and indeed years after active monitoring had ceased. The House will share my view that this is a wholly indefensible and unacceptable state of affairs.
The audit team is at present confirming its calculations, but the current estimate is that the sums involved are significant and run into the low tens of millions of pounds in total, for both companies, since the contracts commenced in 2005. The audit shows that the overcharging began at least as far back as the commencement of the current electronic monitoring contracts in 2005. It might even date back as far as the previous contracts let in 1999.
The audit also reveals that contract managers in the Ministry of Justice discovered some of the issues around billing practices following a routine inspection in 2008. Although it appears that these contract managers had only a limited idea of the scope and scale of the problem, nothing substantive was done at that time to address the issues. None of that, however, justifies the billing practices followed by the suppliers. The House will share my astonishment that two of the Government’s biggest suppliers would seek to charge in this way. The House will also be surprised and disappointed, as was I, to learn that staff in the Ministry of Justice were aware of a potential problem and yet did not take adequate steps to address it.
Let me set out for the House what we are doing in response to these findings. The billing practices in question were clearly unacceptable and the Government will take all necessary steps to secure a refund for the taxpayer. In view of the seriousness of the issue, however, and having taken full legal advice, I am clear that, as Lord Chancellor, I must not only take action in terms of financial recovery, but seek to rule out the possibility that what went on involved dishonesty by anyone involved in the contracts. I have therefore put it to the two companies that we should now carry out an independent forensic audit, not just of the contractual arrangements, but of the evidence, such as internal e-mail trails between their executives, to establish the detail of what happened. I have now received their responses.
Let me deal with each company in turn. Serco, which is one of the Government’s biggest and most important suppliers, has agreed in full to such a forensic audit. It has said that it will co-operate fully with our auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and that it takes the issue extremely seriously, and it assures me that senior management were not aware of it. It does not believe that anything dishonest has taken place, but we have agreed that if the audit does show dishonest action, we will jointly call in the relevant authorities to address it. Serco has also agreed to a forensic audit of all my Department’s contracts with it to ensure that there are no other issues. In addition, it has decided that it would not be appropriate for it to continue to participate in the current tender process for electronic monitoring and has agreed to withdraw. I am grateful to Serco for its co-operation.
Let me now turn to G4S. We put the same proposal for a further detailed forensic audit to G4S last night. It has rejected that proposal. I have given careful consideration to how to respond. I should state that I have no information to confirm that dishonesty has taken place on the part of either supplier, but given the nature of the findings of the audit work so far and the very clear legal advice that I have received, I am today asking the Serious Fraud Office to consider whether an investigation is appropriate into what happened in G4S and to confirm to me whether any of the actions of anyone in that company represent more than a contractual breach. I am also disappointed that G4S still feels it appropriate to participate in the tendering process for the next generation of electronic monitoring contracts, which we are in the process of renewing. I have therefore started a formal process to determine whether to exclude it from this competition. Furthermore, we will be commencing forensic audits of all existing contracts that the Department has with G4S.
Let me deal with some other immediate procurement issues that I need to address. My Department was also due to announce the results of the competition to take over the management of prisons in Northumberland and Yorkshire. I can tell the House that the winning bidder for Northumberland is Sodexo, and that this transfer will continue as planned. However, the leading bidder in Yorkshire was Serco. I have decided that we will delay the award of this contract until the audit process I have put in place is complete, and clearly it will only be awarded if that process is completed to our satisfaction. We have also begun work on two new house blocks at prisons run by Serco and G4S. Since these are construction contracts at existing prisons and are an essential part of our replacement strategy for the older parts of the prison estate, I intend to proceed with this construction work.
As I have said, it is not only the behaviour of the suppliers that needs to be examined closely. I am making changes in my Department because it is quite clear that the management of these contracts has been wholly inadequate. I have put in place an entirely new contract management team, led by my procurement director and validated by the independent auditors. The Permanent Secretary is also instituting disciplinary investigations to consider whether failings on the part of individual members of staff constitute misconduct. I have also commissioned an urgent review of contract management across my Department’s major contracts, which will report by the early autumn. It will include independent audit expertise and will be overseen by my Department’s lead non-executive director, Tim Breedon, the former chief executive of Legal and General. I want to put in place arrangements that are robust and at all times deliver value for money for the taxpayer.
On wider Government contracting, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), is today announcing a review of all contracts held by both G4S and Serco across Government. In addition, this review will determine how Government will better manage similar contracts in the future. Separately, the National Audit Office is looking at the scale of Government contracting activity with key suppliers and how effectively those relationships are being managed by Government.
I have made it clear from the outset that I regard this as a very serious issue and have taken immediate action to address it. I would, though, like to reassure the House that, however serious these problems are, they concern billing arrangements rather than wider issues of public protection. I remain committed to the use of electronic monitoring as a powerful tool in supervising offenders. The steps we are taking to retender the contracts will deliver a significantly improved service that will be subject to robust contract management in the years ahead. I believe that the private sector brings significant benefits in delivering efficient and cost-effective services to the public, but we will not tolerate unacceptable activity of any kind, no matter who is responsible. I am angry at what has happened and am determined to put it right. I commend this statement to the House.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement, which I read in the presence of his officials 20 minutes ago. I can honestly say that I was left speechless.
Tagging is a crucial part of the criminal justice system, and the use of this technology has allowed the much greater use of curfews and home detention over the past 20 years. The Justice Secretary’s statement is a serious one, with wide-reaching consequences, and I have some questions for him. What other sanctions has he considered taking against the companies concerned? I remind him of what has happened: charging for people who were back in prison and had had their tags removed; charging for people who had left the country; charging for those who had never been tagged in the first place, having been returned to court; charging continuing when the subject was known to have died; and, in some instances, charging continuing for many months and years after active monitoring had ceased.
To the lay public, that appears to be straightforward fraud: obtaining property by deception. The Justice Secretary mentioned the SFO, but does he not agree that both companies should be investigated by the SFO, not simply G4S? Will he pass on all the papers from the audit to the police and the SFO and ask them to investigate whether any criminal offences have been committed? I am sure he will agree that the law applies to everyone, including big multinationals. What we need is the police and the SFO going to G4S and Serco offices and preserving evidence, not some cosy arrangement with one of the two companies. Will he confirm that all the evidence has been preserved by the two companies, as well as the Ministry of Justice? A forensic audit is one thing; what we need now, though, is the proper external authorities to investigate. I hope he agrees.
How soon will G4S and Serco be repaying the amount overbilled, or, as some will infer, claimed by fraud, and how much will it be? Have the companies concerned accepted guilt? Have the MOJ officials accepted their part in this? In May, I asked the Justice Secretary to ask the Public Accounts Committee for a full investigation into this? Will he now ask it to do so?
In 2012 and 2013, G4S and Serco were paid more than £500 million of taxpayers’ money just by the MOJ, and the MOJ paid nearly £800 million—10% of its entire budget—to five companies. Will the Justice Secretary agree an independent audit of all contracts with the MOJ? How confident is he that none of the other private companies with which the MOJ has contracts has over-billed?
I understand that G4S and Serco have a number of contracts with the Home Office and a number of other Departments—I know the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), raised a number of concerns over the past year about the conduct of G4S. Serco and G4S are two of the Government’s biggest contractors. The Justice Secretary mentioned the Cabinet Office, but in the light of his statement will he agree to the National Audit Office investigating all contracts that those two companies have with the Government?
There appears to have been a systematic pattern of fraud, and if we add to that the events of the past week and the inquest verdict, the fiasco at last year’s Olympics and the security that G4S failed to provide, we see a pattern emerging. Will the Justice Secretary confirm that those two companies will not be awarded any further Government contracts? Giving that tagging involves potentially dangerous offenders, we must be sure that public safety has not been compromised. Some 20,000 people are tagged at any one time, so what specific assurances can the Justice Secretary provide that public safety was not undermined at any time?
At the same time as serious failings have been exposed in the way the MOJ buys in hundreds of millions of pounds of services, the Justice Secretary is proposing a massive expansion in the amount of work handed over to private companies. He will be aware that the same two companies responsible for today’s statement are responsible for a number of other contracts in the MOJ—he has already referred to the prisons contracts—and they are the leading contenders for the privatisation of the probation service. In the light of that, will he confirm whether he intends to bar those companies from the retendering process for tagging and from any future contracts? He will be aware of concerns about the risk register and the privatisation of the probation service. Given today’s statement and its implications for G4S and Serco, will he delay the roll-out of the privatisation of the probation service to allow full and proper consideration of those findings?
The Justice Secretary has raised serious matters and we must not only get to the bottom of what has happened and see justice, but lessons need to be learned. We hope that the Justice Secretary will learn the right lessons.
Chris Grayling
On the last point, it is important to say that we are learning the right lessons. That is why the issue emerged in the first place. The tighter contract management procedures that we are putting in place have revealed shortcomings that took place under a contract that was let in 2005, and information that came to the Department in 2008. The right hon. Gentleman will remember who were in government in those two years. This Government are taking a more robust approach to contract management, and this issue has arisen as a result.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about the privatisation of the probation service. We are outsourcing probation to a range of different organisations not linked to today’s situation, and a large number of organisations have expressed an interest, including those from the voluntary sector that have immense skills in this area. I would not countenance a situation in which those organisations are tainted by the actions of two individual companies, or where we allowed a debate about two contractors to taint the reputations of outsourcing organisations that work and do a good job across government.
The right hon. Gentleman made some specific points about the two companies involved. Last night, we put to those companies that we would ask for a forensic audit, at a level that will meet any kind of investigative standards, to be carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of our leading independent auditors that works on such investigations. I am satisfied about the quality of the investigation it will carry out with Serco, and the management of Serco has accepted that the consequence of that investigation, if dishonesty is found, will be a joint reference to the authorities. To my mind, that audit meets any test we need to address. Unfortunately, G4S has not chosen to accept such an audit, and we have therefore passed the matter straight to the Serious Fraud Office.
I must be careful because this is a sensitive legal process. At this time, I do not have evidence of dishonesty. I have a situation of unacceptable practice, but not of dishonesty, and that is why I have commissioned a detailed forensic audit from those with expertise in such matters. For G4S we have done what people would expect us to do and invited the Serious Fraud Office to rule on the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. I confirm that the National Audit Office has been aware of this investigation from the start. It is already investigating contracts within Government, and we are liaising closely with it. He mentioned all other contracts, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General will today set out his plans to take forward work he has already started to address contract management across Government. The review I have announced led by Tim Breedon, our lead non-executive director, will address the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman about all contracting with major contractors across the Department, including smaller contractors.
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman on public safety as I sought to establish that very early in this process. I have seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest that public safety has been compromised. The issue is about people who were recalled to court or to prison but where the charging continued, so I can lay to rest the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns on that point. He also asked about the acceptance of guilt, but, in the legal process, I cannot comment on the position of the companies. They must set that out themselves. I have said that Serco is being constructive and collaborative, and I have set out the process for G4S. I say clearly that there have been failings at the Ministry of Justice that go back over the past decade, possibly longer. Those shortcomings are now being addressed but they should not have happened in the first place and I have indicated that, if necessary, disciplinary proceedings will be undertaken.
These are serious matters. We are entering a legal process and hon. Members across the House will understand that I must be cautious in what I say to avoid compromising legal proceedings. The House should be under no illusion, however, that I am dealing with the issue with the utmost seriousness. We will take all appropriate action and we cannot allow such things to continue unchecked.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I praise the strong, expeditious and decisive action taken by the Lord Chancellor in response to this issue, and the way he has co-ordinated the Government’s response with the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, and the Attorney-General? As he indicated in his statement, Whitehall needs to raise its game on contract management. Will he continue to work as closely as possible with our right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General to get this matter resolved at permanent secretary level as soon as possible?
Chris Grayling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and I give him that assurance. Looking back to when the issue first became visible in the Department, it is clear that existing expertise in contract management was not up to the job. Those failings and shortcomings should never have happened, and I intend to introduce measures to ensure that they never happen again.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
This is a shocking statement and I believe that the Lord Chancellor has acted swiftly and decisively in dealing with the issue. G4S should never have got another Government contract after the shambles of the Olympics. G4S and Serco hold 17 contracts worth £118 million with the Home Office, and although I accept what the Lord Chancellor has done in referring G4S to the Serious Fraud Office and the police, I think he should have done the same to Serco. When its chief executive appeared before the Home Affairs Committee on 25 June, he said that he did not believe that Serco had overcharged. The right hon. Gentleman is right to have acted as he did, but he should not take a different approach to Serco. We need the high-risk register that the Home Affairs Committee recommended after the Olympics. That register should be held by the Cabinet Office, and any company that has failed the taxpayer should be on it and should not get another contract.
Chris Grayling
Let me be clear about the different treatment of G4S and Serco. I have followed the legal advice I received very closely, and the right hon. Gentleman and all Members of the House would expect me to follow such advice in the interests of the taxpayer and the Government. I have done that, and the approach I have chosen follows closely the legal advice I received. I would not expect any Member of this House to expect me to do otherwise.
As for how the Cabinet Office approaches contracting, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is sitting next to me, will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. The Cabinet Office is taking both this issue and the broader issue of contracting very seriously, and my right hon. Friend will be saying more in due course.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
These are very serious matters indeed. Like others, I welcome today’s statement and the measures that the Secretary of State is taking. We have had interesting reactions from the two companies, and I hope that there will now be a robust means of oversight in his Department and in others, as contracts are looked into. The public’s concern is whether this is a security issue, so will he confirm to the House that this is a billing issue and that it had no impact on public safety?
Chris Grayling
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This was obviously a matter of great concern to us, as we looked at these issues back in May for the first time. I can confirm that the Department has looked closely at the individual cases. The audit carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers so far has gone through cases line by line. We have found no evidence of any issues that would give rise to public safety concerns; this is a financial issue.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
First, I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and also for his courtesy in letting me know that he was going to make it, although I quite understand that, for reasons of commercial sensitivity, he could not inform me of its content. I share the intense anger and shock of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and, above all, the Secretary of State himself about this issue, not least because it was during my watch in 1999 that the original contract was let, before I was again responsible for the contracts between 2007 and 2010. It is a matter of deep regret to me that these failings happened at a time when I was the Secretary of State responsible for them. I want to know exactly why the failure happened, and I am glad to hear that steps are being taken to ensure that robust systems are put in place.
When the Secretary of State said in his statement that there was “a routine inspection in 2008”, but that “nothing substantive was done at that time to address the issues,” can he say whether the “nothing substantive” included not telling Ministers? I do not have complete recall of the contents of my 365 boxes in 2008, but I do not recall the matter ever being drawn to my attention. It would helpful to know whether it was. Lastly, I commend the review that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is establishing, because the control of long-term contracts with outside contractors is an issue that has bedevilled successive Governments for many decades.
Chris Grayling
I have seen no evidence to suggest that the issue reached the right hon. Gentleman’s desk. I can reassure him that there is no suggestion that he was briefed about it. There is no evidence that we have so far seen that the Department was aware of the nature of what was happening up until 2008. There have subsequently been a number of interchanges in relation to this matter. In no case do we believe that the Department had full sight of the scale of what was happening, but it is clear to me that things were known at a junior level about what was going on and it should have been addressed. One of the things we are investigating is why it was not, and that might include disciplinary action, as I set out earlier.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) referred to the Public Accounts Committee. As a member of that Committee, may I say how welcome it is to see the firm, fair and quick way in which the Minister has brought the issue before the House and gripped it in a way that is different from many other areas that come before the Public Accounts Committee?
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), will my right hon. Friend say explicitly whether the contracts were let before 2010, in which case the over-billing would predate the last general election? Will he also be clear that the reason the issue has come to light is because of the way he is gripping the renegotiation of such contracts?
Chris Grayling
I can confirm that the contracts were originally negotiated in November 2004 and implemented in 2005. The original contracts date back, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said, to 2009.
Chris Grayling
To 1999—I beg the right hon. Gentleman’s pardon.
As for how the issue has been addressed more recently, let me be clear that none of the team leading the effort in the Ministry of Justice today was in position when the matter first came to the Department’s attention in 2008. The team who are leading the renegotiation have done a first-rate job of putting together a much tighter contract management framework, which highlighted this issue. It is to their credit that they found it, and I am very grateful to them that they did.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which is quite shocking in its content. Does he not think there is a case for advising local government and the national health service, both of which have large contracts with both companies, of what action he is taking and why he has taken it, to see whether they might care to look at their contracts with the two companies and the performance of them? Does he not think for a moment that his almost love affair with contracting out services to the private sector should be tempered by possibly thinking of a public service option for delivering such important government services, rather than taking the first position, which is always to go to a private contractor?
Chris Grayling
I am absolutely certain that my colleagues in the Cabinet Office will make both local government and health service bodies aware of what has happened. That would be right and proper.
On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, I appreciate that he did not always agree with the leadership of the previous Government—I give him credit for that—but when he talks about a “love affair” with contracting out, I would remind him that the contracts were not let by this Government, but by the last Government.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the robustness of his response? The emphasis of his statement is quite right, but will he extend his remarks and say something about the legitimate levels of pricing in such contracts? Earlier this week I visited the Cabinet Office to see how the Government Digital Service is wrestling with some really quite appalling pricing levels, which are the legacy of the last Government. Will he be able to drive down the cost of such contracts in future?
Chris Grayling
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, we are about to launch a revolution in tagging generally. The arrival of GPS tagging will enable us not simply to monitor whether an offender has left their home, but to understand whether they are breaking a curfew or, for example, whether a paedophile is going close to a school. That will transform the way in which tagging works and will do so—I can assure him—at a much lower price than we have paid up to now.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I join others in commending the Justice Secretary for the action he has taken and the statement he has made today. I say that as the Minister for prisons and probation in 2004, when the contracts were awarded. If there has been wrongdoing, he is right to root it out in the way that he has set out.
May I press him a little further on his plans for the probation service? I can only ask him to accept my word that I do so not in a partisan way, but because, like him, I care about the protection of the public. Given that two major players are facing serious questions and are likely to be out of the game, does it not make sense to look at having a more limited competition for certain services in one part of the country, rather than moving so rapidly to a national roll-out?
Chris Grayling
I would make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, we must be careful not to apply the judgments that will inevitably be made after today’s announcement to all private sector contractors that work with Government. That would be a great shame and the wrong thing to do. I should also say that even in the two companies in question, there are large numbers of people—all our constituents—who are at work today, doing their best to operate on behalf of the public sector. We should not allow them individually to be tainted by what has happened.
At the same time, when we look at our plans for probation reform, we see a large number of organisations —public and voluntary organisations, as well as potential mutual organisations from staff—interested in providing a solution to what is a glaring problem, whereby at the moment people who go to prison for less than 12 months get no supervision at all. The longer we wait to introduce the reforms, the longer those people will walk our streets without supervision. When people talk about “leading candidates” for contracts, I am clear that there are no “leading candidates” for contracts in our probation reforms. We have not started a contracting process. We are actively encouraging as wide a range of participation as possible. I have been talking to the social investment sector to bring in social capital. We are working actively with the Cabinet Office to encourage employee mutuals to come forward, either individually or in partnership with potential investors. This is not a world that will simply be handed over to a couple of big companies. I am very much of the belief that there is expertise out there, which I want to capture, and skills that will help to bring down reoffending.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
G4S is headquartered in my constituency and operates a number of contracts there, so these fraud allegations in connection with electronic tagging are deeply troubling. May I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that, as the local Member of Parliament, I will be kept up to date with the investigation, particularly as it will be concerning to many of the day-to-day, honest employees who work for the company and who are going about their business?
Chris Grayling
I give my hon. Friend that assurance absolutely. I say again that, as of today, I do not have evidence of dishonesty in either company. What I do have is legal advice that says that, on the back of the audit we have carried out, I have a duty to do further detailed forensic work to establish where there is a possibility of dishonesty. Serco has agreed to co-operate with that work. To my regret, G4S has not. That is what has prompted me to believe that I have no option but to ask the Serious Fraud Office to consider whether a formal investigation should take place.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
First, I put on record that I welcome the firm action the right hon. Gentleman has taken today. I would like to push him a little further on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Although we have established that no Ministers were told of this, the Secretary of State said:
“contract managers had only a limited idea of the scope and scale…nothing substantive was done”.
What does he mean by “limited idea” and “substantive”? To use the word “substantive” means that something must have been done. On the “limited idea” of the scale of the problem, why was that then not followed up with further action?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point to which I do not yet know the answer fully. It is clear that, between 2008 and the present, on various occasions information has reached the Department that suggests something was amiss. It is also clear that that information was never followed up in a way that would have presented the true picture of the problem. We are now launching formal proceedings internally, which are likely or may well include—depending on the circumstances of the individuals—disciplinary proceedings to establish precisely what did go wrong. Something clearly did go wrong. Enough knowledge came into the Department to flag this issue some years ago, but it was not acted on.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the strong and decisive action he has taken. Given that both companies are substantial major companies, we may reasonably expect that all the moneys will be recovered. That will effectively amount to an unanticipated lump sum of income for the Ministry. Will the Lord Chancellor say at this stage what plans he has to use the lump sum? May I suggest that perhaps it be used to improve, modernise and upgrade the tagging system?
Chris Grayling
I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend’s ambitions. The upgrade of the tagging system will happen anyway within the Ministry’s existing budgets. The difference in the next couple of years will be marked. It will provide a much greater and more effective resource to both those monitoring offenders and to the police guarding such places as our town centres, to understand who is where at any particular time. It will also, at times, exclude people from suspicion of an offence, because tag records will show if they were not at the scene of a crime. He can be reassured that that is happening anyway.
I have every intention of getting back every last penny to which we are entitled. Our auditors are working on the exact sum at the moment. That is the right thing to do for the taxpayer.
Points of Order
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that during the statement from the Health Secretary, considerable concern was expressed regarding the lack of notice given to Members of Parliament with hospitals and accident and emergency units in their constituencies that would be affected by that statement. Speaking personally, I was informed by my Whips Office just before 9 o’clock this morning that the statement was to be made. I had had no contact at that point from the Secretary of State.
The statement has major implications for Trafford General hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She found out about the statement when I phoned her. She was on the train to Manchester and had to get off the train and get on to another train going back to London to be here in time. Fortunately, she caught your eye, Mr Speaker, and you allowed her to speak. You ruled earlier that nothing disorderly had happened, but surely something discourteous happens when such important decisions are announced without any notice being given to Members. I wondered whether you could give us any further advice.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which was put to me in the measured and courteous terms that are his hallmark. As he implies, there is a distinction between disorder and discourtesy. The Secretary of State was not guilty of disorderly conduct in any way. Ultimately, it is for Members of the House to judge whether there was a discourtesy. I did indicate in my response to an earlier point of order that there are ways of handling these matters. It is often the case that a Minister will seek to inform Members in advance at least of an intention to make a statement on a matter, even if the Minister is not in a position to guarantee it or indicate the precise date. These courtesies are important. Members must form their own assessment, but I hope that in the future we can operate, in respect of matters of this kind, in a way that commands general assent across the House. That, I think, would be helpful to all concerned. It is probably best if we leave it there for today.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At last week’s Work and Pensions questions I asked the Secretary of State about the increasing number of people accessing emergency food aid from the Liverpool central food bank in my constituency. I put it to him that one of the chief causes of the increase were delays in receiving social security support. In his reply, the Secretary of State told the House:
“The story that the cause is an increase in waits is not true”.
He also claimed that a director of the Trussell Trust, the UK’s biggest provider of food banks, had said that the real reason was
“The growth in volunteers and awareness about the fact you can get this help if you need it”.—[Official Report, 1 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 604.]
The executive chairman of the Trussell Trust has since written to me to say that this is not correct. Further, figures released today by the Trussell Trust confirm that more people proportionately are being referred to food banks with benefit-related problems since the Government’s welfare reforms came into effect in April. Mr Speaker, can you please kindly outline by which means the record can now be corrected?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady, who is as perspicacious as any Member of the House, has identified the required method and she has deployed it. In that respect, she has found her own salvation. The concerns of the people in her constituency have been placed on the record. If a Minister judges that the content of an answer requires clarification, or indeed correction, it is incumbent on the Minister to provide it. Meanwhile, the hon. Lady has discharged her obligations. We will leave it there.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise you are in a difficult situation when Ministers wish to make statements to the House, but could you advise that, where possible, Ministers should always inform Members whose constituency or constituencies will be affected by a Government statement so that they can at least be sure to be in the House and represent their constituents on those matters?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes, I think that that would be helpful. Obviously, where Ministers are making statements of national application it is not reasonable to expect anything of the sort, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that. Where a statement affects a particular area of the country, and perhaps even a relatively small number of constituencies, or something a little greater than that but which has, if you like, a local or regional character to it, I should have thought that it would be regarded widely in the House as courteous to try to offer, if it is at all practicable, some indication in advance of the likelihood of the statement, because presumably the Minister would wish to be questioned on it.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have noticed the intransigence of the Leader of the House over withdrawing the motion on Monday relating to the opt-out. As there is such anger across the House and in Select Committees, which have not been consulted, how late will he accept amendments to Monday’s motion? Many people want to resolve this situation by joint action to ensure that we are consulted properly on all 136 items to which we have to opt in or opt out.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am conscious of the displeasure that has been voiced in different parts of the House on both sides of the House, and by Select Committee Chairs from opposite sides of the House on this matter. The answer to the hon. Gentleman on the question of how late amendments can be tabled is that they should be tabled by tomorrow. It is, however, open to me to select—I offer no guarantee that I shall do so—a manuscript amendment as late as Monday. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House and he knows that the scheduling has now been made. That is absolutely not a matter for the Chair. The Government are absolutely within their rights so to have scheduled, but it will be possible for amendments to be considered, if necessary, even as late as Monday. I hope that is helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to others in the House.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), Mr Speaker, it will not have escaped your notice that this is the second week running that we have had a problem with individual Members not being given notice of statements that affect their constituencies. Last week, you made a number of comments about the statement on the reserve forces. A Territorial Army centre in my constituency will close as a result of the measures announced in that statement, but I was given no notice of it taking place. For how long do you feel that this discourtesy can continue?
Mr Speaker
I think I have made my attitude to recent matters clear, and I have tried to be helpful to the House. It is my responsibility to help Members to help themselves, and indeed to help each other. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that most hon. Members will be looking forward to an agreeable summer holiday and a bit of rest and recuperation, and to the prospect of returning in the autumn and operating in a way that safeguards their own interests and shows due respect to the interests of others. The hon. Gentleman is normally a cheery soul, and of an upbeat disposition, and he must hope that matters will improve in September.
Backbench Business
Arms to Syria
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 114 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes no lethal support should be provided to anti-government forces in Syria without the explicit prior consent of Parliament.
I should like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to support the motion and to thank other colleagues across the House for supporting it. Matters of war and peace are extremely serious, whether we are talking about direct intervention, the provision of lethal support or, in this case, the narrower matter of arming the Syrian rebels. They therefore involve serious decisions for the Prime Minister—or for any Prime Minister. Lives are at risk, and while we accept that no decisions have been made on this matter to date, it is appropriate that such decisions should have the support of Parliament.
In many ways, the debate on this matter has already been a success. When we first discovered that the Government were seeking to lift the EU arms embargo, there was no statement from the Government; we discovered it for ourselves. Initially, there was some confusion. There was certainly no clarity as to whether Parliament should vote to authorise any arming of the rebels. At first, there was talk of consulting, and there were hints and indications. These were confirmed in media exchanges only three or four weeks ago, when colleagues on both sides of the House who support arming the rebels advocated that Parliament would not be bound by any such vote and that no such vote was required before a policy to arm the rebels was decided upon and executed.
Through the efforts of parliamentarians on both sides, and through the general debate on the matter, we have achieved greater clarity. The Government have firmed up on their promises over the past couple of weeks, culminating in the Foreign Secretary’s unambiguous statement to the House yesterday that any such decision would be subject to a vote in this place before such a policy was executed. That is definitely a positive move, and we now have greater clarity than when we first started this journey. That is very welcome.
I want to make a further point about parliamentary oversight. Having opposed the interventions in Iraq and Libya, and observed the morphing of the mission in Afghanistan into a nation-building programme, I sympathise to a large extent with the view that Parliament sometimes comes late to these decisions. We debated and voted on the question of Iraq as the troops were on the start line. When the mission in Afghanistan morphed into one of nation building, it was suggested—although not promised—that we would be in and out without firing a shot, but 440 lives later we are still counting the cost. The vote on Libya took place almost as the jets were leaving the airfields, so there are lessons that need to be learned on the parliamentary scrutiny of these important decisions.
Many Members believe that this debate is of paramount importance, because we fear the consequences of arming the rebels. There are no easy answers in regard to the bitter and bloody civil war in Syria—atrocities are being committed by both sides—but I and others would caution against the UK getting more closely involved from a military point of view. If humanitarian concerns are uppermost in people’s minds, which I do not doubt for a moment, it beggars belief that anyone could suggest that pouring more arms into the conflict would not add to the violence and suffering. The United Nations Secretary-General was absolutely right to say that there could be no military solution to the conflict. That is why putting more arms into the conflict would not be helpful.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Could we be sure, if we were to arm the rebels against Assad and Hezbollah, that we would not be supporting al-Qaeda or creating a Shi’a-Sunni cross-border conflict, and that we would not be supporting a proxy war between Russia and the west? Is it worth the risk?
Mr Baron
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One of the problems with this conflict is that there are extremists on both sides. On the rebel side, for example, we know that al-Nusra has close links with jihadist and extremist groups including al-Qaeda. The Government have not been able to answer the question about how they would track and trace weapons to ensure that they did not fall into the wrong hands. We need to remember that in that part of the world weapons are tradable assets. Very little escapes the bazaar. Given that the situation on the ground is fast moving and fluid, it would be nigh-on impossible to ensure that such arms did not fall into the wrong hands.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that things have moved on a great deal since we voted for or against the intervention in Iraq? That was a mess, and many people are now sorry that they voted as they did. It is important that we should be able to work out what is happening and make the decision ourselves. This should not be a decision for the Government.
Mr Baron
I take on board what my hon. Friend has said, and I agree with him in large part. There is a deficit of trust on these issues, partly courtesy of the Iraq decision but also because of Afghanistan. That is why it is even more important for Parliament to express its view. We should not be bounced into a decision simply because we are heading into a recess.
We need to learn from our mistakes in other respects as well. For example, we armed the mujaheddin in the 1980s, and we armed Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran. Some of those weapons were eventually pointed against us. Many of the weapons supplied to Libya have ended up in Syria and northern Mali. We have made mistakes on this front, and we must learn from them.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend at least acknowledge that doing nothing also has a cost, and that if we do nothing, two things will happen? The Assad regime will continue to try to slaughter its own people into submission. Where 12 months ago there were hardly any Jabhat al-Nusra on the ground, there are today perhaps 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000, and if we continue to do nothing, we create the space to allow more and more jihadis to come into the ground. If we support the moderate opposition, that will stop the flaking off from the Free Syrian Army to Jabhat al-Nusra.
Mr Baron
I take on board what my hon. Friend says, but I think it does him no service to try to create the impression that those of us who suggest that we should not arm the rebels are insisting that we do nothing. It is actually quite the opposite. I think there is an awful lot that we could be doing—on the humanitarian front and on the diplomatic front. I will return to the issue in a minute or two, if my hon. Friend will bear with me. I will allow him in again, if he wishes to come back to me.
If I had another concern, it would be that, as has been hinted at already, the civil war in Syria is in many respects a proxy war being fought out at different levels—whether it be Sunni versus Shi’a Muslim; the old Persian gulf rivalry of Iran versus Saudi Arabia; or indeed the west versus Russia and China. The risk of pouring more weapons into this conflict and of pouring more fuel on to the fire is that we not only increase the violence within Syria but extend the conflict beyond Syria’s borders in very large measure. That would be a mistake of historic proportions.
Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) about doing nothing, I would suggest that there is a lot more that we can do, particularly on the humanitarian and diplomatic fronts.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am listening carefully to what he is saying. Has he considered the risk of how this debate and his motion will be interpreted? The arms are pouring into Syria from the Sunni factions in Qatar and Saudi, and the Russians are pouring weapons into Syria, yet we seem to be sending the message that we will do nothing for the other side—the forces of democracy and freedom. Is that the message that my hon. Friend wants to send, because it may inadvertently be the message that the Russians will understand from this debate?
Mr Baron
I think my hon. Friend does himself a disservice by misunderstanding the stated intention of this debate. It is not that we should do nothing; it is that we as a Parliament should have a say and that our explicit authorisation should be given before any arming of the rebels. We are not making a decision today about whether we should or should not arm the rebels. The motion is very clear that no decision should be made about arming, or, rather, that no policy should be implemented about arming
“without the explicit prior consent of Parliament”.
That is an important distinction. Let me move on, because the issue has been raised before.
The argument is often made that we are to do nothing. Well, there is an awful lot more we can do. On the humanitarian front, for example, why are many refugee camps desperately short of basic amenities? Britain has done more than its fair share—I do not deny that for one moment—but the bottom line is that there are still desperate shortages, so we could do even more there. On the diplomatic front, most people would accept that there can be no military solution to this problem in the longer term; there has to be a diplomatic solution. Why, then, as is presently the case, is the west trying to exclude Iran, a key player in the region and within the country, from the forthcoming peace talks being arranged by the Russians? Time will tell when those talks take place, but there is no doubt that there is an intention at the moment to exclude the Iranians, which is nonsensical.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for introducing this debate. Is he aware that the UK’s humanitarian assistance to the Syrian crisis currently runs at £348 million, and is already the single largest funding commitment ever made by the UK in response to a humanitarian disaster?
Mr Baron
I am aware that we are leading the field when it comes to humanitarian relief. My response was really aimed at those who suggest that because someone does not believe in throwing more weapons into the conflict, they are advocating doing nothing. There is a lot more that can be done, even taking into account the assistance we are already giving. It cannot be denied that a number of these refugee camps are desperately short of basic amenities. As I say, more can be done on that front, despite the aid we are already putting in.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am conscious that there is a categorical difference between humanitarian aid and arming rebels against a Government. Irrespective of whether we support the rebels in their aims, the reality is, according to the Commons Library brief, that doing so might be an act of aggression under article 2(4) of the UN convention, so it might be illegal for us to do it anyway.
Mr Baron
I take on board my hon. Friend’s points. With law—international law in particular—one can find lawyers to substantiate both sides of an argument. I therefore tend not to focus too much on international law, although I have a sneaking feeling that we will return to the subject later on.
Mr Baron
I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says. That is why I think it is important that we focus on the practical and moral implications of such a policy.
In answer to colleagues’ points about doing nothing, I think that history provides a guide to what we should do. The last decade would suggest that trying to promote democracy and human rights, which is the Government’s stated objective, by force of arms can often be counter-productive. If we look at north Africa and parts of the middle east, we see the seeds of democracy stuttering into life where we have committed relatively few resources. If we look at Iraq and Afghanistan, however, it is not such a rosy picture, despite the huge cost in lives and treasure.
If we wanted to go back further, we could look at our interventions since the second world war. They have had a tendency to have an embedding effect—to reinforce the existing regimes. It is no coincidence, I put it to the House, that communism has survived longest in those countries where the west actually intervened—Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, even China. We have to be careful about our interventions.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned North Korea. Could we for the record confirm as a matter of fact that it was not the west that intervened in North Korea? It was actually the United Nations that was involved in defending the Koreans against aggression from the north and from China.
Mr Baron
To a certain extent, but the hon. Gentleman well knows that both sides put in forces up to the 38th parallel. Yes, the northern forces attacked, but the bottom line is that both sides—including the UN—put in forces initially. Putting that to one side, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not detract from the point that interventions have tended to have an embedding effect, particularly in the other examples I provided. We have to be very careful about intervention.
As an aside, I certainly believe that we need to make greater use of soft power—the ability to coerce and persuade by non-violent means—which can often be more effective and cost-effective than conventional hard power. It saddens me to say this, although I will do so while the Minister is in his place, that we are making cuts to our soft power capability, including the BBC World Service, the British Council and, indeed, the Foreign Office itself. We need to ensure that our military are up to the mark—one is not saying anything else—but the emphasis in the past was too much on hard power. We should better nuance our approach to foreign policy, particularly in this information age.
In conclusion, I am conscious that the debate has been over-subscribed and I look forward to hearing the contributions from hon. Members. It is terribly important that we put a marker in the sand, saying that Parliament must be consulted and that no lethal interventions can take place
“without the explicit prior consent of Parliament”.
That is not to prejudge the decision itself, but the principle is there. I welcome the fact that the Government have in recent months been on a little bit of a journey on this, particularly given the indications they gave at the start, which contained no conclusive confirmation that a vote would take place before any arming of the rebels. I welcome the development and I welcome the efforts of colleagues of all parties—and indeed this debate—in helping to crystallise that fact. I very much look forward to hearing the debate that follows.
Mr Speaker
Order. In view of the number of hon. and right hon. Members seeking to contribute to the debate, I have imposed a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, with immediate effect.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) spoke eloquently for the majority view in the House, as does the motion. May I apologise in advance for having to leave the Chamber if the debate runs past 3.15, as I have a long-standing speaking commitment?
I am not a pacifist. I was a Cabinet Minister when the decision was taken to invade Iraq. I was Africa Minister when we sent troops to save Sierra Leone from savagery. But as a former Foreign Office Minister responsible for middle east policy, including Syria, I vehemently oppose British military intervention of any kind in Syria.
We all share the Prime Minister’s genuine anger at the humanitarian disaster. We all agree that Bashar al-Assad has become a callous butcher who, instead of responding positively to non-violent protests when the Arab spring reached Syria in March 2011, drove his people into carnage and chaos. Russia and Iran have been culpable in the unfolding horror, and so have the Saudis and Qataris. But Britain, too, is culpable. We should have promoted a negotiated solution from the very beginning. Instead we began by demanding Assad’s unconditional surrender and departure. However, calling for regime change meant chasing an unattainable goal at the cost of yet more bloodshed and destruction, and so did supporting a rebel military victory.
That was fatal. Britain should have offered a practical strategy to end a deepening civil war, because this was never simply a conflict between a brutal regime and the Syrian people. Assad and the ruling Shi’a-aligned Alawite minority form a 10th of the population and were never going to give up power if it meant, as they fear, being oppressed by the Sunni majority. Christians and other minorities are similarly nervous about change. Together those behind Assad amount to nearly a third of the Syrian people; add the Kurds and the total reaches about 40 per cent. Few of them like Assad or his Ba’athist rule, but they fear even more the alternative—becoming victims of genocide, jihadism or sharia extremism.
This is not some simplistic battle between evil and good. Nor is it simply a battle between a barbaric dictator and a repressed people. It is a civil war, and a highly complex one into which Britain treads at its peril. It involves Sunni versus Shi’a, Saudi Arabia versus Iran and, a cold war hangover, the US versus Russia.
Mr Jenkin
I do not necessarily demur from a single word of the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the complexity of the conflict, but what effect does it have on the efforts to bring those parties to the negotiating table when the International Criminal Court makes it virtually impossible to manage any kind of orderly transition, let alone continuity in the existing regime? He seems to be suggesting that that might be one of the options.
Mr Hain
I will address that point in a minute.
Regime change in Damascus could be the outcome of a negotiated solution, but if, as the UK and the US are effectively doing, getting rid of Assad is set as the precondition for talks, the carnage will continue. Surely we should by now have understood from Britain’s long and bitter experience in Northern Ireland that setting preconditions will prevent attempts at negotiation from even getting off the ground.
The Prime Minister’s “good guys versus bad guys” prism is hardly made credible by the presence of al-Qaeda fighters among the west’s favoured rebels, nor is it by the barbarous murders of innocent Syrian citizens by some rebels. Other parties have started to intervene, such as Hezbollah, in turn dragging in Israel, another lethal development. The collateral impact of 1 million Syrian refugees in Jordan is especially dangerous. Iran will not back off because of its key interests.
If the regime were somehow toppled without a settlement in place, the country could descend into even greater chaos. Russia fears that anarchy because, like the US and the UK, it has key strategic military, economic and intelligence interests in the area; for example, Syria provides Russia’s only Mediterranean port in a region where the US is well placed militarily. The only way forward is to broker a settlement, with Russia using its leverage to ensure Assad negotiates seriously. Like it or not, Russia is critical, as is engagement with Iran: otherwise, a Syrian settlement will not happen.
The guidelines for a political transition approved by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council at the Geneva conference a year ago on 30 June 2012 still provide the best road map for a Geneva II, but the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia and their allies must drop their present stance and help to implement that. Preventing Iran and also Assad from attending a peace conference means that it will not even get off the ground. Transitional arrangements that reach the end point of democratisation are crucial, but their pace must be negotiated, not imposed. However unpalatable, Assad and his henchmen may have to be granted immunity to get them to sign up: hardly worse than the continuing barbarity and devastation of ancient heritage. All state employees, including the ranks of the armed forces, must be allowed to keep their posts, to avoid a repeat of the chaos caused by America’s de-Ba’athification in Iraq. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s call on 9 October 2012 for both a ceasefire and an embargo on more arms going to the opposition as well as Government forces, should now be heeded. A Yemen-type process may even figure. There a hated president did not actually resign but equally did not stand for re-election.
This will all be incredibly, tortuously difficult, and I understand that Foreign Office Ministers are seeking to grapple with this on our behalf, but what is certain is that UK policy was always going to fail. The Prime Minister began with a demand for regime change, which did not work. Then he supplied “communications equipment” and other resources, which failed too. Then he tried to supply British arms and got the EU arms embargo lifted, until cross-party opposition in Parliament made that very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Unless there is a radical change, all the hand wringing and condemnation as atrocity follows atrocity is empty. Two years after the Syrian uprising, it is high time for Britain, France and the United States to change course. They, as well as their allies, including Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, need to recognise that neither side is going to win the civil war now destroying Syria. Instead a political solution has to be the top priority.
Britain needs to work with its friends in the Syrian opposition and persuade them to go to Geneva with a credible plan for a compromise: local ceasefires, access to humanitarian relief, and the names of prospective members of a new Government of national unity, which will include Ministers from the current Syrian Government. Together they can initiate a process of constitutional reform for new parliamentary and presidential elections with UN observers. Only through mutual concessions by both the regime and the opposition can the people of Syria be saved from the current nightmare. All this is going to be incredibly difficult, as I said, but it is the only way forward, I strongly submit. The present policy and past policies have got us into this awful mess.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I must begin by apologising to the House, and indeed to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), for not being present at the outset of the debate. I was attending a meeting of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was held outside this building.
I agree almost completely with what my hon. Friend said and, not for the first time in the House, I am able to say that I agree in similar terms with the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). This debate is not strictly about the supply of arms; it is about whether the House should have a role in determining whether that supply should take place.
In considering the question at the centre of the motion, we must pay some regard to the consequences and to the questions that would necessarily arise. The first question is one I have repeated elsewhere: to whom would we supply arms? If we did supply them, in whose hands would they ultimately rest? What would we give? The sort of things that are being discussed are highly sophisticated—it is not like loosing off several hundred rounds from a Kalashnikov. Therefore, how would we ensure that any arms that we gave were properly used? We could only do that by sending either military or civilian technicians. That might not constitute boots on the ground in the traditional sense, but it would certainly constitute intervention.
The third question to which I believe we are entitled to seek an answer is this: what impact would the supply of arms have on the relationship between Russia and Syria? As we have already seen in the supply of shore-to-ship missiles over the last few weeks, anything that the so-called west attempts to do would be bound to be met by a similar incremental approach by Russia.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the supply to anyone of technically advanced weaponry would probably require training, which would also be boots on the ground?
Sir Menzies Campbell
I thought I made that point a moment ago.
We have in this House in recent years established not a precedent in any formal sense, or, indeed, a convention in any constitutional sense, but on the occasion of military action against Iraq the House was given the opportunity to vote, and more recently on the occasion of possible involvement with France, supported by the United States, in relation to Libya again the House was given the opportunity to vote. It might be argued that the supply of arms does not fall neatly into that category, but my argument would be that it constitutes a major change in the foreign policy of this Government, with unknown political, military and perhaps even constitutional significance. That being the case, I would argue as strongly as possible that the House is entitled to pass judgment on this policy before it is implemented. Indeed, I go further than that: were the Government to implement a policy of this kind without allowing the House an opportunity to pass judgment, it would be an abuse of process, and would most certainly be regarded as such outside this House.
Mr Newmark
The devil is always in the detail. I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about not giving arms directly to the opposition, but does he then believe that if we are selling arms to a third party such as Saudi Arabia and those arms then go on to Syria, we should again seek the approval of the House before selling any further arms to a third-party country such as Saudi?
Sir Menzies Campbell
My hon. Friend will be well aware that there is an agreement called the al-Yamamah agreement which regulates the sale of arms from the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia, and if he is suggesting we should violate that agreement I think he had better consult Ministers in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence and perhaps also the chief executive officer of BAE.
The point I want to make is that this is a decision of such significance and with such important potential consequences that the House should have the opportunity to pass judgment. There are those who say, “All right, we are doing nothing then.” That is true, in that we may not be doing quite as much as some of us would like, but I do not think it is an issue for regret that we are the highest single donor of humanitarian aid. I think we should be immensely proud of that, and having taken that decision, we should be encouraging others to do the same.
Let me give an illustration of that. Jordan is a country with which we are closely allied, and it is a neighbouring country in the region which has received very large numbers of refugees. The refugee camps are characterised by forced marriage, rape and violence, and the impact on the fragile economy—and, indeed, the fragile Government—of Jordan of an influx of refugees on the scale now being experienced must inevitably have an effect on that country. If we were preparing our humanitarian effort for its own intrinsic merit, we would also be creating a pragmatic outcome in helping to protect from possible instability a country that is of great importance to us and of great importance in the middle east, not least because it, along with Egypt, signed a peace agreement with Israel.
Another point the right hon. Member for Neath made very eloquently is that no solution is possible without Russia. That may be thoroughly distasteful to us, but it is a fact, and therefore establishing some agreement with Moscow and joining together—as John Kerry, the US Secretary of State suggested—could be a very powerful factor in providing the political solution that everyone agrees is necessary.
The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has twice said from a sedentary position that no one was barring Iran from any conference in Geneva, and I am delighted to hear that. He would give me even more comfort if he were to say positively that Iran would be invited, however, because this issue is of very considerable regional significance, and Ahmadinejad has been replaced by someone who is alleged to be of a less combative nature, and we now have an opportunity to test that out, and to see whether there is genuinely a change in Iran’s attitude on issues of this kind.
One further thing we can do, which I do not think has been mentioned yet, is to counsel Israel against intervention. The Golan heights, occupied by Israel, remain an issue of great political significance in Syria, particularly for the current President, whose father was the Minister of Defence when the Golan heights were lost. Israel has an interest in that regard, but I do not believe its interests would be properly served by becoming engaged militarily. I hope the British Government are putting that argument in the strongest possible terms to the Government of Israel.
Let me conclude by reiterating that this is a very significant foreign policy proposal. The Government have said that they have not yet decided whether to implement it, but if they want to have the discretion to take a decision of this kind, it can only be because they have considered that decision among a range of options. We need only look at who has signed this motion to see that they come from across the entire political spectrum. The motion is therefore the determination of those from all parts of this House, and that is why I believe the proper course of action is for it to be passed.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on initiating this debate. I am opposed to arms being sent to the rebels in Syria, but let me make this absolutely clear: if I had a different viewpoint, I would still be of the opinion that it is Parliament that should decide whether or not such a decision should be taken. A great deal is said about reforms and changes for Parliament, but one of the most important aspects of the House of Commons is that major decisions such as whether arms should be sent in such circumstances should not be taken without the express and direct consent of the House of Commons.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman but, in furtherance of his argument, would he also accept that even if it were not generally the case that Parliament should have its say before such a step is taken, when it is widely known that there is very substantial opposition to what is proposed, and that it is very likely that there would be a heavy majority of opposition in Parliament, it would be particularly unwise for the Government to go ahead without letting Parliament have its say and have a vote first?
Mr Winnick
I could not have put that better myself. It is very rare for the hon. Gentleman and I to agree. I hope that does not mean that we are in the wrong on this issue. My concern is that we are going into two long recesses and the Government could make a decision arguing that, given all the circumstances, it was necessary to arm the rebels in Syria, and although the House would almost certainly be recalled, the decision would have already been taken. The Government would be asking for support from their own Members on a three-line Whip. That is why is there is a good deal of anxiety—all the more so as we start our recess next week.
During the statement yesterday the Foreign Secretary said that it is “possible to anticipate” the supply of arms and that therefore there is no reason why it should not be debated “in advance”. Let me say to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that those words have been carefully noted and the Foreign Secretary will be held to account on them by all of us if any other decision is taken when the House is not sitting.
During that statement the Foreign Secretary also spoke about the amount of support already going to the Syrian rebels—those we support. We are talking about armoured vehicles, body armour and communications equipment. Moreover, as was stated, another £20 million of supplies will be sent in the coming months. Might not the argument then be, “With all these supplies already sent, why not lethal weapons?” These things escalate, although I am not altogether certain that what has been sent has been justified.
Let us be clear about the background to this debate. Nearly 100,000 people have died in Syria since the conflict started. So many of the people who have been killed have been civilians going about their normal lives—or trying to do so; these are the men, women and children who have been killed, on both sides. The bloodshed and the suffering continues now. The argument for the supply of arms is that the stronger the rebels—at least those rebels the British Government support—the more likely it is that the Assad regime will be brought to the negotiating table. That is the basic argument, and no doubt we will hear further arguments along those lines from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the former Foreign Secretary.
I would not dismiss that view out of hand; it is possible that there is some logic in that argument. Is it not, however, much more likely that arms supplies from the west, including from this country, would simply lead, as other hon. Members have said, to even more arms for the regime from its current backers? We would have an escalating arms race. Why do we believe that if the west started to supply arms to the rebels, the countries supporting Assad’s brutal, murderous regime—Russia, foremost, but also Iran—which, without question, has no legitimacy, would not increase the arms supply likewise? As I say, an escalating arms race can lead only to further death and destruction. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), neither should we overlook the sectarian aspect to the conflict, with support being given to both sides in accordance with a religious divide between Sunni and Shi’a. Again, we should not intervene in that.
I want to make it clear that there are circumstances where armed intervention from this country is justified. Nobody could have been more in favour of the support given in Bosnia and Kosovo than me. I believed that we had a duty in those places to provide support, and I was pleased to be among those who did so when Muslims were facing outright massacre. In the mid-1990s, at the time of the Bosnian conflict, I said that such support should be given—unfortunately, it was often not to be given until too late—but in Bosnia and Kosovo we were not faced with extremist elements; we were not faced with elements such as those in Syria, who obviously want to bring about a form of state run along more or less the same lines as the Taliban. Syria is a different situation altogether and that should be very much borne in mind.
What should we do in the circumstances? I could not agree more with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that we should, first and foremost, maximise humanitarian relief in every possible way, bearing in mind the suffering that has already occurred. More relief should be given. Every help should be given to innocent people who have been caught up in the conflict.
Finally, we must redouble our efforts to try to bring the conflict to an end, not by sending arms, but by trying to persuade Russia and other such countries to come to the negotiating table to end the suffering, to end the war and to bring about a situation where people in Syria can once again go about their everyday lives, however much there was a dictatorship there. That is a far better way of trying to deal with this terrifying problem than sending arms to those in Syria whom we believe are on the right side. Of course, we have no guarantee that if we were to do so, those arms would go to the people we believe should be supported.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and echo the apology of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for missing the opening comments of his speech because of the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) began his comments by saying that he had supported the Iraq war but believed that intervention of the kind being considered in Syria would be inappropriate, but I come at this from exactly the other way around. I opposed the Iraq war but I have, over the past year, come to the view that intervention of the kind we are discussing would be not only ethically justified, but politically desirable.
The fact that I have come to that view is not that important. What is particularly significant is that President Obama, who has been hugely reluctant to be involved, in any way, militarily in Syria, has nevertheless been persuaded, with all the advice available to him and with all the analysis that has been made, that the time has come to change position and give military support. The British and French Governments, who have supported the European embargo, have been forced to change their view towards a different position. Governments are often accused of pandering to public opinion—going for votes—but here it is the other way around; public opinion is against supplying weapons in Syria. No votes are to be won by doing this, so it is worth asking why three of the major Governments in the world have gradually come to the view that, far from being an irresponsible act, it may not be a good solution but it is less bad than the alternatives. That is the judgment we are being asked to make.
When we use the terms “rebels” and “Government”, we must remind ourselves that more than 100 members of the United Nations—more than half the UN—have broken ranks with Syria and have recognised the Syrian opposition as the legitimate spokesmen of the Syrian people. The Arab League has expelled the Assad regime and invited the Syrian opposition to take its place. So the term “rebels” is not necessarily as significant as it often is.
Mr Newmark
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we must not conflate wishing to support, and supporting, the moderate majority and the Free Syrian Army, with condemning Jabhat al-Nusra and others, who also may condemn the regime?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, because it has been part of Assad’s tactics from the very beginning to try to force his own people and the wider international community to believe that there is a stark choice between the Assad regime and jihadi extremists such as Jabhat al-Nusra and to ignore the fact that the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian secular forces and moderate Islamic forces, represent between them the overwhelming majority of the Syrian public, and to suggest that they are somehow irrelevant to this debate.
Let me share with the House why I changed my view over the past year. I did so for two reasons, the first of which is the humanitarian situation. More than 100,000 people have died so far. We are not talking about soldiers, militia or rebels; the vast majority of them were innocent men, women and children. All the analysis by human rights organisations—by Amnesty International and others—says not that every one of them was killed by the Assad regime, but that the vast majority were killed and slaughtered because of indiscriminate bombing by the Assad regime throughout Syria, particularly in the urban areas, where the opposition was active.
Mike Gapes
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it would be much more effective and better to provide a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridor to help the humanitarian situation than to give weaponry to people who might pass it on to other elements of the opposition that we might not wish to have it?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not think that a no-fly zone is practical. It could not be legitimised by the Security Council and would involve massive attacks on Syrian air defences, which would essentially mean Britain, America and other countries going to war. That would not be appropriate or justified.
On a humanitarian basis, quite apart from any other argument, the Syrian opposition deserve weapons to protect their own communities. This time next year, 200,000 men, women and children will have been slaughtered in Homs, Aleppo and the various other centres that the Assad regime is trying to recontrol. From that point of view, such an approach is a consideration.
My second point goes straight to the comments made by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I hope that we are all agreed that a political solution will ultimately end the conflict, but to have a political solution requires getting people to Geneva who are willing to make the compromises required. On what possible basis should Assad contemplate such an approach when he has refused all along to contemplate not just his own demise but any transitional Government or any new Government involving the Syrian opposition? He has ruled that out entirely. At this moment, he is even less likely to be interested in that argument.
The hon. Gentleman talked about escalating new arms supplies from Russia or Iran, but the one thing the Syrian Government and Assad regime do not need is more arms. They are satiated with arms and they have been supplied with them for the past two years. Assad knows that supply from Russia and Iran will continue for as long as he needs them, but on top of that he has Hezbollah militia fighting with his forces. That is foreign intervention and, incidentally, it shows the weakness of the Assad regime that it could not recapture the small town of Qusair by itself a few weeks ago but had to get several thousand Lebanese Hezbollah militia—
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I have given way twice already, I am afraid—[Interruption.] But as it is my hon. Friend, I will give way.
Mr Baron
I appreciate the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend is being so accommodating and I shall keep my question short. Can he answer the practical question that the Government have so far been unable to answer? How does one track and trace the weapons going to the rebel cause to stop them falling into the wrong hands? Up to this moment, that answer has not been supplied.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Let me go straight to that point. It is perfectly fair, but I do not think it is as convincing as my hon. Friend clearly believes. First, if we provide the weapons that the Syrian moderate secular opposition want and of which they are desperately short—they are the only people who do not have such weapons as the jihadi nationalist extremists and the Assad regime already have them—on what common- sense grounds should we anticipate that to any significant degree, the Free Syrian Army, for the first time given proper means of defending themselves and advancing their cause, should wish to hand them over to the jihadi nationalists who already have them and are their sworn enemies? Jabhat al-Nusra is not even part of the Syrian National Coalition. Of course, we cannot exclude the possibility that the odd weapon might go in that direction, but to rule out providing them on those grounds alone seems unwise and unreasonable.
The broader point is that if Assad knows that he not only has Hezbollah forces fighting for him, which he needs to advance on Homs and Aleppo, but has been promised Iranian revolutionary guards and if he has the weapons, what possible reason would he have to be prepared to reach a compromise that involves his sharing power, never mind giving it up? When hon. Members who take a different point of view say that we must have a diplomatic solution, I agree. When they say that lots of things can be done on humanitarian grounds and through diplomatic initiatives, I utterly agree. They know as well as I do, however, that in the middle of a civil war, diplomacy by itself will not deliver the results required. Why should it? That happens only when both sides to a civil war realise that they cannot get military victory by themselves and therefore must compromise.
At this moment in the conflict, the Assad regime has no reason to come to such a view. It is not short of weapons and it is not short of fighters from other countries—Lebanon and Iran—so such an approach will not succeed. By all means, let us say that this is not our war and that it is all terribly tragic. By all means, let us accept that events will go on as they have been, but hon. Members must not kid themselves that anything that relies on diplomatic initiatives alone, without the real pressure that strengthening the secular opposition would provide, has even the remotest prospect of bringing peace and preventing the continuing slaughter of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women and children over the months and years to come.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Democracy was born in Greece some 2,000 years ago and has come to these islands in stages. In most sophisticated democratic states, they would regard it as astonishing that we are discussing whether the elected Parliament has the right to declare war. That is taken as obvious in most states. We have begun to debate whether we should go to war rather than who should take the decision, but that is what we should be talking about today.
Dr Julian Lewis
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even those people who believe that we should arm the rebels ought to vote aye for this motion, given what the Foreign Secretary and others have said from the Government Front Bench?
Paul Flynn
I absolutely agree. The assumption is being made that Governments decide whether we go to war, but even that is not true. The decision to go to war rests with the monarch under the royal prerogative. That is a key point, particularly as we might well have a change of monarch in the foreseeable future—although it is a long way off, we all hope. The change of monarch would not strengthen the case for continuing the status quo when we know that the future likely monarch has written letters that we are not allowed to see because it might endanger his status and his future prospects as the Head of State. A decision was taken by the Government, after a freedom of information inquiry and a decision by a High Court judge that anyone who lobbies Parliament should have the contents of their lobbying letters published, to censor that correspondence. That person will be in a key position on any decision about going to war. We might say that that does not matter, but it does.
The same issue came up in a little-known practical example published by the former MP for Cambridge, Robert Rhodes James, who wrote of the fear in the Conservative party, when it decided to get rid of Mrs Thatcher, that she might call a general election. At that time, she was much more popular in the country than she was in her own party and she could well have come back. No one could have stopped her in Government, in the Cabinet or in Parliament, but one person could have stopped her calling a general election if that person had said that Mrs Thatcher was a Prime Minister who was acting in her own interests and not in the country’s. I think we all know that the present Queen had the strength of character to ensure that Mrs Thatcher did not act in her own interests.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman was diverted —or allowed himself to be diverted—by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), but I know that he will now return specifically to the subject of a parliamentary vote on Syria.
Paul Flynn
The reason we need Parliament to be supreme, and not the Government acting under royal prerogative, is the bitter experience we have had. In 2003, this House was bribed, bullied and bamboozled into voting for the war in Iraq.
Mike Gapes
I am very sorry, but some of us voted the way we did because we believed that it was right to protect the Kurds in Iraq and for the Iraqi people to be liberated from fascism. I do not feel that I was bamboozled or bribed and I hope that my hon. Friend is not impugning my integrity.
Paul Flynn
My hon. Friend is referring to Parliament and the majority here: 139 Labour Members voted against. Nearly 50 Labour Members who had already signed motions against the war and who were already opposed, were pressurised into changing their minds and abstaining or voting for the war. That is the truth of what happened then. It was on the basis of what was probably a lie or a misunderstanding. It was certainly untrue. We went there to defend our country against non-existent weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by Saddam Hussein. We proceeded to the second greatest error that we have made in recent times. That was in 2006 when we went into Helmand province, as has been said. The hope was that not a shot would be fired and we would be out in three years, having cleared up the drug trade. We now know what happened. At that time only two British soldiers had been killed in combat. The number is now 444. What were they doing in Helmand province? Defending the country against a non-existent Taliban terrorist threat to this country.
Around 52 terrorists have been convicted for actions within the United Kingdom. Not one of them is from Afghanistan. They are mostly people who were born and brought up in this country. So we have had two wars on which we embarked on a false premise, and it is right that we should ensure that the decisions are taken by the House on the best information that is available. While people are rehearsing what the argument should be in the future, we have to escape from the influences on this House. There are many influences, including the influences on politicians.
We know what happens to those in Government of all parties when the prospect of war is heard—with the drumbeats banging away, they adopt a Napoleonic posture, dig out the Churchillian language and try to write their page in history. We know the pressure from people in the arms industry. Frederick and Kimberly Kagan were at the side of General Petraeus in Afghanistan. They were at every secret meeting. They wrote part of his report to the Secretary of State in America and they constantly put pressure on to keep the war going and to discourage any peace initiatives. The Kagans were not employed by Petraeus. They were not employed by the American Government or the military. They were employed by the arms contractors in America.
There is a pressure for perpetual war. We know that millions were made in Iraq by the firms there after the Iraq war. We know that they will have contracts in the Syrian conflict. After those two great errors, pressure is on us now to prepare ourselves for war in Iran to protect ourselves from non-existent long-range Iranian missiles carrying non-existent Iranian nuclear bombs. We have to look to all these pressures, which have sent 623 of our brave soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those decisions are made here. We take them, we should be responsible, and there certainly should not be any Government pressure that settles those decisions. We should do it in future in free debate.
There should be alterations to our constitution. We have conventions now—the one going back to 2003. That should be our model for the way we face every armed conflict in which our troops might be employed.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
Given that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House have given firm pledges about having a vote before arming any rebels, the motion is somewhat academic. With everything that is going on in the middle east at present, I mean no disrespect to the Minister when I say that I regret that we are not having a wider debate on the middle east, possibly with the Foreign Secretary replying.
The concern arose when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary said yesterday said that there was possibility that they would have to act without having time for the House to express an opinion. I think that that is not an unreasonable position, and I for one trust the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to make the right decision if they find themselves in those circumstances.
Mr Baron
May I respectfully suggest that my hon. Friend could not be further from the truth when he says that this is an academic debate? Quite the opposite. There is a clear showing that the Government have moved some way since we first discovered that they were lobbying for the arms embargo to be lifted. No assurance was given in the early days, as illustrated by the fact that there were media exchanges where proponents of arming the rebels were clearly making the point on the Governments behalf that they were not confined by a vote in this place. This debate, plus the efforts of parliamentarians on both sides, have been useful in getting clarity from those on the Front Bench.
Richard Ottaway
I have no wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend. What I was saying was that the motion was academic. The debate is very important. On his second point, the words that the Foreign Secretary used yesterday were almost identical to the original words used by the Prime Minister.
A number of criteria must be met before we intervene in these situations. We must be clear that the situation has been properly thought through. The first criterion should be that we should not intervene unless it makes a difference to the lives, prosperity and security of the Syrian people. When we examine that closely, it is a hard ask. It is increasingly unlikely that we will move to a situation where President Assad is forced out. He has the support of Iran and Hezbollah and Russia, who are using as a justification for their support for Assad their concern over the interpretation of the Libya resolution. They argue that there was a generous interpretation of that resolution and the bombing campaign went too far. I see that as a diplomatic excuse on their part. The Russians are concerned for two primary reasons. One is that, with an eye to Chechnya and the Muslims at their back door, they do not wish to offend their Muslim community and they do not want to lose their port on the Mediterranean.
The second criterion that must be met is that we ask ourselves whether we have exhausted all diplomatic solutions. Hopes must rest on the Geneva conference but optimism is fading. The earliest that the conference will take place is in September. I agree with others when I say that I believe Iran should be present at such a conference. I wish the Secretary of State for the United States and Mr Lavrov on behalf of the Russians well in trying to set an agenda. The most likely outcome is a rehash of the Annan plan and that President Assad will stay in office. That may turn out to be the least bad option.
On this point, I detect that the Government have changed their position. At the outset it was a precondition that President Assad should go. Of late, speeches by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister in the House of Lords have dropped that requirement. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm when he winds up whether it is a pre-condition that Assad should go as part of any negotiated settlement, or whether he accepts that we may yet have to work with him.
Thirdly, we have to ask ourselves whether there are military operations that we can sensibly undertake that will make a difference. The region is in turmoil. It is no longer the regime versus the rebels. The rebels are split into good rebels and bad rebels. Chemical weapons have clearly been used, although it is not clear by whom. The concern now, and it may well be the reason why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary set out the option to take action without consulting the House, is that those chemicals stocks may fall to the rebels. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his winding-up speech, could confirm his assessment of the risk set out by the Intelligence and Security Committee the other day and what steps he will be taking if there is a threat that they may fall into the wrong hands.
On the military side, where do we go from here? I for one do not think that throwing a few cases of rifles into the rebels’ hands will make a difference. As many have pointed out, the Saudis and Qataris are already supplying a large number of weapons. If we supply more sophisticated weapons, that will produce a response from Russia, which has pledged to match like for like. However—this is important—it might be the only way we can bring Assad to the negotiating table, so to that extent I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
Andrew Bridgen
My hon. Friend is making his points with great passion. I recently saw an interview with a very reasonable gentleman who lives with his family in Damascus. He made the point that although he was no fan of Assad, if the rebels win, his wife will probably have to take the veil and his daughters will not longer be able to go to school. He felt that his country would go back 100 years. What is my hon. Friend’s view of that?
Richard Ottaway
I think that is a slightly exaggerated view, but no doubt there is a risk that women will be intimidated in a fundamentalist Islamic society.
To return to my point about bringing Assad to the negotiating table, I am beginning to agree with the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes)—I am afraid that I must disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington—that some form of no-fly zone might yet turn out to be the only credible solution, and it would address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay about weapons falling into the wrong hands. We have to ask ourselves whether that is possible with a sophisticated air defence system. If it does happen, it should be on an international basis. Why must we always look to the west for solutions? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey all have perfectly good air forces, and there is a case for an international coalition.
The fourth criterion that must be considered is whether we are prepared for the long term. We have learned many lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and much needs to be done to stabilise the region. The fifth criterion is this: exactly what is our national interest? That must be spelt out before any intervention. If chemical weapons are to be used as a justification for an intervention—I have made this point to the Minister before—the House should be shown the evidence about their use. All options must be on the table, which is why I am uncomfortable about the motion, because in truth they are not.
Finally, where has international law gone? I believe that there is more than a grain of truth in the remarks my hon. Friend made a moment ago when he argued that to intervene would be illegal. I am not convinced about the legality of an intervention. The intervention in Libya was legal because it followed a UN Security Council resolution. Taking sides in what is essentially a civil war has no legal precedent and no legal authority. Whatever the outcome of this situation, the United Nations must seriously reassess the basis of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The House owes the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) a debt for securing the debate, and I was pleased to support him in the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that it would take place. I hope that the House will agree with the motion, even though the Minister has already indicated that a Government motion will be tabled before any arms are sent to Syria. I look forward to his confirmation of that when he responds.
This really goes to the heart of the power of Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, because anyone outside this place, and indeed anyone outside this country, would find it extraordinary that in the 21st century we still do not have a war powers Act and that the Prime Minister can still use the powers of the royal prerogative to take us to war, supply arms, sign treaties or anything else. Surely a democratic Parliament and democratic accountability of the Executive require a vote in the House of Commons before any major decision can be taken that would have enormous implications for our foreign policy.
Indeed, the vote on whether to intervene in Iraq was not the first consideration of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He came to that conclusion somewhat later, and I expect as a result of expediency on his part, because he wanted to corral a lot of MPs into backing the war and because many of us were demanding that a vote be held so that we could register our opposition. We have had 10 years since to pass war powers legislation, but we still have not done so. I note that next week we will debate the progress of the Wright report. It was a very good report, but perhaps we could make it a little more progressive and a little faster by making some progress on this matter.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
A Minister who did not follow the terms of such a resolution that had been passed could be referred to the Privileges Committee for contempt of Parliament.
Jeremy Corbyn
That presupposes that we pass the resolution and that the Government do that but do not consult us, so we are about four stages away from a Minister being in contempt of Parliament. If a Minister was to be held in contempt of Parliament, the House would have to deal with it. It is more important that we get to a point at which there is proper consultation.
I believe very strongly that any decision of the House must be made well in advance of any action. I remember the House being recalled in January 1991 to support the Government’s intervention in the Gulf war, at which time a large number of British and American troops were already in the area preparing to go into Iraq, so the die was already cast. We do not want to be brought back here in August when the Government have arranged large shipments of arms to go to the Syrian opposition, which will all be stacked up at Stansted airport ready to go, and we will be asked to approve it. We want a serious decision well before any such action is even contemplated by the Government.
Mr Hain
Does my hon. Friend accept the distinction between action that pretty much has universal support across the House—for example, going to war against Hitler or sending troops to Sierra Leone—and this or similar situations where there is clearly no consent, or at least substantial cross-party opposition, which is why this motion is so important?
Jeremy Corbyn
My right hon. Friend is right. The motion is so important because there is such a large degree of concern over the parliamentary process and the actions that might or might not be envisaged by the Government at the present time. I do not know how many Conservative MPs are opposed to arms being supplied to Syria—I have heard lots of figures, including 50 and 80. We do not know what the figure is. I also know that a large number of Opposition Members are equally concerned about it. There is a big Back-Bench opinion on this, which is why we have secured the debate and why I hope we will get this decision, encouraged by the strength of Back-Bench opinion.
Those Members with long memories will recall that interventions and arms supplies have all kinds of unintended consequences. When the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan in support of the Najibullah Government, who were under a lot of pressure, the USA responded by supplying vast quantities of arms to the mujaheddin opposition, along with training, facilities, logistics and all the other things that are now being talked about in relation to Syria. Those arms all ended up with what eventually became the Taliban, and then with what eventually became al-Qaeda, and they are still around and have perpetuated the most appalling situation in Afghanistan for many years, including our intervention in that country. We should think a little more carefully about where the arms go.
Other Members have made the point about the more recent intervention in Libya and the supply of large quantities of arms to a rather complicated set of opposition groups that are not interlinked, and where are those arms now? They are in Mali, Senegal and all over north Africa. They are promoting all kinds of conflicts across the region. Were we to be so unwise as to supply arms to the opposition in Syria, where will they end up, in whose interests will they be used, and who will use them against anybody else within the civil war in Syria?
I say all that not because I am in any sense an apologist for the Assad regime. The Oxfam report estimates that about 93,000 people have already died in the recent conflict and that there are 1.7 million external refugees and a very large number of internally displaced people. The situation is truly appalling, as are the human rights situation and police state methods of the Assad Government. However, there is a far from clear commitment by all the opposition groups in Syria to any respect for human rights or any democratic approach. If we send arms, we will be supporting groups whose intentions we do not know, nor do we know where those arms will end up. All we know is that we are sending arms into a situation, people are going to use them, more people are going to die, and the prospects for peace are much further away.
We should also recall, again for those with short memories, that there have been times when the Syrian Government have been very popular with the west. Syria has been a supporter on various occasions. There are suspicions that it has been used as part of the extraordinary rendition process. There have been lots of temporary allies across the region. Indeed, successive British Governments sought to have good relations with Gaddafi at various times, and there have been many others.
Finally, I want to make two brief points. First, on the refugee question, there are a very large number of Palestinian refugees in Syria who have made their way there from Nakba in 1948, from Iraq after its invasion, and at many other times. They are now being driven out, being treated very badly by many of the opposition groups in Syria, or ending up in Lebanon with very little support or resources, just like all the others.
Secondly, the answer has to be to look for a political solution to the whole issue that must involve Iran, Russia and all the neighbouring countries. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are pouring money and arms into the situation. Russia is supplying arms to Syria at the present time. Iran, as a neighbouring state, feels that the war in Syria is a precursor to a future invasion of Iran. I want the Minister to say that there is a serious attempt to use the opportunity of the new President of Iran to engage with the Iranian Government. We should obviously condemn Iran’s human rights record—the executions and all the other human rights abuses—but we will not achieve a political solution in the whole area unless we engage with all the powers that be, which must obviously include Iran. A date needs to be set for Geneva II so that we can bring about some kind of political solution that will end the fighting. All wars have to end with a political solution; let us have it now rather after another 100,000 are dead.
Mr Speaker
Order. The excellent speeches so far have nevertheless been somewhat longer than expected. As a consequence, the time limit on Back-Bench speeches must now, with immediate effect, be reduced to four minutes.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I begin with a word of appreciation to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting a debate on this motion. Without wishing to be over-pedantic, I think it is necessary to remind the House of what the motion states:
“That this House believes no lethal support should be provided to anti-government forces in Syria without the explicit prior consent of Parliament.”
This is not a debate about whether lethal force should be made available to the Syrian opposition: we will want to have that debate if and when the Government propose to supply such lethal assistance. I have to say that some Members, though not the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), have made entire speeches that made virtually no, and in some cases absolutely no, reference to the terms of the debate.
I shall indeed keep my remarks short—perhaps even shorter than the four minutes that I am now allowed—by making one specific point about the debate and one specific point about the debate after this one, which I hope we will get if ever we reach the possibility of lethal weaponry being supplied. If the assurances from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House are worth what we wish and believe they are worth, there should be no prospect whatsoever of anybody on the Front Bench or on either side of the argument about supplying arms voting any way other than for this motion. I trust that they will do so. I also trust that there will be a vote today, even if its mechanics require a certain degree of contrivance by those of us who have sought to bring this debate to the House.
I have been making my point about the debate after this one week in, week out, month in, month out. It is a simple point about weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction—chemical weapons—are known to exist in very substantial quantities in Syria. We went to war in Iraq precisely to keep al-Qaeda from any possibility of getting its hands on weapons of mass destruction—chemical weapons—that were thought to exist in Iraq. In this situation, people who wish to supply lethal aid can have no guarantee that, if Assad falls, the chemical weapons that he holds will not fall into the hands of the jihadists who are fighting on the side of the opposition. You do not have to believe me, Mr Speaker—you just have to look at the Intelligence and Security Committee’s annual report, which says at paragraph 67:
“The security of these chemical weapons stocks”—
that is, Assad’s stocks—
“is also of serious concern. The Chief of SIS noted the risk of ‘a highly worrying proliferation around the time of regime fall.’ There has to be a significant risk that some of the country’s chemical weapons stockpile could fall into the hands of those with links to terrorism, in Syria or elsewhere in the region—if this happens the consequences could be”—
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. There is already some evidence that certain rebels have swapped sides to the al-Nusra Front.
Dr Lewis
I am extremely grateful for that intervention. I am absolutely certain that there can be no guarantee—in playing with weapons with an opposition as mixed as this one—that the people who end up on top will be the moderate, secular, democrats about whom we have heard so much in this debate. I must finish the quote from the ISC report, which concluded that
“if this happens, the consequences could be catastrophic.”
There are almost as many strands in the alliance of opponents of supplying weapons to the Syrian opposition as there are in the Syrian opposition itself. I have not made some great journey from the Thatcherite right of the Conservative party to the centre left of the political spectrum—despite your excellent example, Mr Speaker, in that respect—and I do not intend to do so. I believe in the security of this country, so I will vote no in the future debate about supplying weapons to the opposition, but we should all vote yes in today’s vote on Parliament having its say first.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), because I recall that he and I went to Sierra Leone together when we were both members of the Defence Committee when our Government had, rightly, intervened to defend democracy against people who were practising a form of terrorism against the population.
I am, by instinct and nature, a humanitarian interventionist. I support the responsibility to protect. I believe—I still say it, and it will get me criticised in some quarters—that voting for the intervention in Iraq in 2003 was the right thing to do, and I will not apologise for it. I believe that there are sometimes circumstances where it is right to take action without a United Nations Security Council resolution. For example, when John Major’s Government introduced a no-fly zone they did so without a UN resolution.
Mike Gapes
I will come to Kosovo, but I do not want to get diverted into the Balkans at the moment.
I also believe, though, that we have to look to the consequences of our actions and make judgments. I am not persuaded about suggestions that we provide sophisticated weaponry to opposition groups in Syria; in fact, I am very concerned about them. I am a member of the Committees on Arms Export Controls. We have accountability through the House and its Select Committees, and we monitor the transfer and sale of arms to states. However, the Government seem to be preparing to adopt a position that is not about transferring weaponry to states, but about providing weaponry to factions within a state. We might say that the National Coalition is the sole legitimate representative, although I do not hear that phrase being used quite so forcefully now, but it is certainly not the Government. Our Government would therefore be taking a decision to supply weaponry to a faction within a wider faction, within a state that still has a Government who control part of the territory, while other areas are controlled by warlords and tribal clans—the Kurdish people have almost total autonomy in one part of the country, as was the case for the Iraqi Kurds. Fundamental questions are being raised, so there would need to be an explicit vote in the House if such an action were taken, because it would set a lot of precedents. We all remember things such as arms to the Contras in the United States.
I will support the motion not simply because it is time to assert parliamentary sovereignty once more, but because there would be wider implications of such a decision by the Government. I am also worried that arms would be given to neighbouring states and then passed on, which raises additional problems. We need to explore issues such as end-use agreements, but any proposal will require an explicit vote of support.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
For many reasons, it is absolutely right that the House expresses its view before any lethal action is taken in Syria. If we arm the rebels, that is likely to be the first of many interventions. We cannot place arms in the hands of rebels and then wash our hands of the consequences, and history tells us that we cannot get half-involved with lethal force in a conflict zone and then expect a quick, simple and bloodless exit at the time of our choosing. If we impose a no-fly zone, as has been mentioned, we will need aggressively to remove anti-aircraft assets, and if we arm the rebels with sophisticated weaponry, we will need to get in there and train them. This step would be the first of many on a slippery slope, so Parliament must have its say. If step one is to arm the rebels, step two is to become engulfed in a war and to be dragged into all the consequences that follow or, worse still, to risk the moral hazard of abandoning the rebels we wished to encourage and support. By arming rebels, we also risk catalysing an explosion of violence in the middle east.
We cannot half-fight a war by arming rebels, so I urge the coalition Government to honour their commitment on giving Parliament a say. It would be unwise to oppose the motion, as it confirms the Government’s position, and they would stand to gain by taking note of the motion, which expresses the views of the majority of the British public.
When it comes to declaring war and sending our troops into battle, I for one believe that it is the Government’s job to decide. War making is the Government’s responsibility, but arming rebels is a different matter. While the view of the House today will not be binding, it would be unwise to forbid it, or to ignore its expression, which is why I support the motion that was kindly tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). The motion puts us in a position in which we can debate and vote, and thereby avoid the first step on the conveyor belt to all-out conflict, so it is right that we are having today’s debate and that Parliament is allowed to express its view.
I shall cut down my speech, given the time limit, but let me say that war is a serious business, so there is honour in a calm, considered and reflective approach that takes account of the interests and wishes of the people as expressed through their Parliament. Parliament must be allowed to express its view. We must not lead Britain into a foolhardy conflict on a false premise for reasons of misdirected concern. Britain should not dive head first into another bloody conflict with a tenuous link to our national interest, as has been said. Such a conflict could cost us dearly in terms of lives and repercussions over decades. Action should certainly not be taken without the buffer of a prior parliamentary judgment. I want to play no part in fuelling a conflict in pursuit of an ill-defined goal, so I urge hon. Members to support the motion. Above all, however, I urge the coalition Government to support the motion because it confirms their current position.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As the House may recall, in 1992-93, I was the first British United Nations commander sent into Bosnia. I was sent for humanitarian reasons and with the mandate of the Security Council. The Bosnian Muslims were fighting for their lives, with precious few arms or equipment, primarily against the Bosnian Serbs, who had largely appropriated the weapons and equipment of the Yugoslav national army. In comparison with the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serbs—and indeed the other warring faction, the Bosnian Croats—were well equipped. I never saw a Bosnian Muslim tank. The only armoured vehicles they possessed seemed to be a few 4x4s with makeshift metal plates strung along their sides.
I remember despairing that so many civilians were dying but no one was able to defend them. In my reports up the chain of command, I repeatedly argued that we should get involved, as well as arm, equip and train the Bosnian Muslims so that they could better protect themselves, even though that would have meant challenging the then European arms embargo. Of course I felt that way on the ground—who would not have done, given what my soldiers and I witnessed? If I was in Syria today, I would feel exactly the same way. My heart bleeds for anyone trapped in that country.
With the passage of time, I have often wondered whether there would have been a change in events if we had armed selected belligerent parties in Bosnia. My conclusion now is that it would not have made much difference. However, Syria is not like Bosnia, and I shall cite two obvious differences.
First, the Bosnian Muslims were united, unlike the diverse groups that constitute the Syrian rebel opposition. Worse still, it seems that the most militarily successful group among the rebels is the al-Nusra Front, which is directly affiliated with al-Qaeda. The rebels in Syria are hardly a credible, unified entity. Even if we were to arm the apparently moderate Free Syrian Army, there is no way we can forecast its chances of securing power after the eventual fall of Assad.
Secondly, we operated in Bosnia under Security Council resolution 775, which was agreed by all five permanent members of the highest international authority in the world. However, there is no international mandate for action in Syria—Russia and China will not sign one.
I would be willing to consider supporting humanitarian active operations into Syria itself. Under certain circumstances, I might even support some form of international military protection for aid convoys. However, I have two caveats. As things stand, there is neither the agreement of the warring factions to such operations, nor a Security Council mandate for action. In truth, addressing those circumstances seems highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Unless circumstances or the current situation change radically, I would not support British arms being sent to the Syrian opposition, if such a question ever came before the House.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate. Given the shortage of time, I shall focus on the wording of the motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, we are discussing the principle of the House having a vote on any decision, not the merits of sending lethal assistance into Syria. I believe very strongly that it is Parliament that should decide and that we should give the Government our steer. A second debate would give us all the opportunity to give our views and listen to contrasting ones, and then we could decide whether we should get involved in Syria and how. That is what today’s debate is about: giving this House its say.
I believe that many people in this country feel there is a democratic deficit. They do not feel engaged with us in this place and I think that if a decision is made outside this House, it will further widen that gulf. We should give Parliament and Members of all parties a say. We were voted in here to represent people’s views and that is what we should do.
When we sent troops into Iraq it was controversial and many people had a view on it. I was not a Member of this place when that decision was taken, but it was voted on here. If the decision about Syria is made elsewhere, how will we be answerable to our constituents? If we make the decision here, we will be. This is about the democratic deficit.
There is no bigger decision for an elected member than whether to send our troops to war—it is a huge decision—but deciding whether to send arms and lethal assistance is a close second. That is why the decision should be taken by this House. It should be taken not only for ethical reasons, but for democratic reasons. This House will be held responsible for the decision no matter who makes it. We will have to answer to our electorate, whether it be through our surgeries, e-mails or letters. That is why I think that we as Members should be allowed to contribute to the decision.
As has been said, the British public remember Iraq and Afghanistan. Outside these walls, I sense among my High Peak electorate a growing reluctance for this country to get involved in foreign conflicts. My constituents ask whether it is our place to be the world’s policeman. We could debate these issues in a second debate, to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East referred so eloquently earlier on. If we have that second debate—I believe we should—the public may not agree with the decision this House makes, but if they can see that it has been made through democratic means in this Chamber I think they will acknowledge it. If it is not made in that way and is made in a closed room, I think they will be unforgiving.
It is ironic that in a discussion on democracy in a far-off land we are debating our democratic right to make a decision. Democracy is a very precious commodity —that is why we are talking about it. Other countries would love to have it. Democracy should not only be held and cherished; above all, it should be used. In this case, it is crucial that we use it, and use it in this place.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and I shall be as brief as possible.
Like other Members present, I spent some time as a member of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, which gave me a picture of some of the issues at stake. Like every previous speaker and many of my constituents, I am appalled by the unfolding events in Syria—by President Assad’s attacks on his people, the bloodshed, the destruction of whole communities of whole towns and cities, and the huge transfer of refugees out of, and displaced people in, the country. Like many other contributors, I am frustrated that the usual levers do not seem to work, that ethics and morality do not seem to have any force, and that nations outside Syria are making the situation ever more complex. Even an appeal to the basic common sense and pragmatism of the country’s leaders is not delivering results. In the meantime, the killing and destruction continue. There is also the threat of chemical weapons, which I will ask the Minister about when I conclude.
We are, of course, very angry about our impotence in this situation. I caution the Government against letting their anger spill over into a feeling that something must be done to assuage it. This has to be about principled and measured steps. There are already at least two bulls in this particular china shop and we should not put a third bull in there.
That brings me to the issue of any proposal to supply arms and military equipment to the Syrian National Coalition and its affiliates. There are many issues on which the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who introduced the motion, and I do not agree, but on this issue we very much do agree. Of course, it is right for this or any Government to use careful and deliberate decision-making processes when deciding whether they want to use force and, if so, what level of force. Of course, they will want to keep their cards close to their chest—they do not want every card they hold to be put up in lights before it is played—and, of course, they will want to choose the timing of any announcement, not simply because it might meet this House’s satisfaction, but because it may be very important in terms of international negotiations. I accept all of those constraints —if I may put it that way—on how the Government might proceed, but I have to say that successive Governments have a very poor record of judging which cards to play and how and when to play them.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what should not be lost in the political debate is the people aspect and the fact that 4 million people are internally displaced in Syria, more than 1 million people are refugees outside Syria and more than 100,000 lives have already been lost? Surely the Government’s focus should be on both an humanitarian and a diplomatic resolution.
Sir Andrew Stunell
I shall devote at least 15 seconds of my remaining time to precisely that point. Examples have already been given—I will not elaborate on them—of decisions taken by previous Governments of all colours that have not always turned out for the best.
I say to the Government that it would be really unhelpful if all their thinking, assessments and deliberations resulted in them activating their decision on, let us say, 29 July, bypassing this House completely. I believe that that is the concern that lies behind the motion. It would be just as unfortunate if Ministers were to say on 29 July that the House had considered the issue today. This is not the debate about whether this House approves or disapproves; it is a debate about this House approving. I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is nodding. I know that he is a gentleman of great good will and understanding and I look forward to his explicit confirmation of that point.
What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the risk of chemical weapons falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and its affiliates and potentially being directed, ultimately, at the United Kingdom? Will he acknowledge robustly that the constitutional and parliamentary situation has evolved in the past decade and that the Government now accept that this Parliament must have oversight in good time and must be the body with authority when the decision is taken?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this important debate on parliamentary consent for arming the Syrian rebels.
Last month, I wrote to the Prime Minister to highlight what I believed were the very real concerns among colleagues and the public about the possibility of British involvement in Syria escalating, and I asked for assurances that prior to any decisions being taken to supply arms to the Syrian National Coalition, or any other groups in Syria, a full debate and vote would be held in Parliament, and that if Parliament were in recess, it would be recalled to facilitate this important debate. In addition, I wrote that I believed that the division and sensitivity the issue evoked, among colleagues across the House and the general public, dictated that the matter be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny and debate before we potentially became further involved in another middle eastern conflict.
More than 80 colleagues on the Government Benches co-signed the letter, as they were concerned that this action could be taken without the consent of this House. The only precedent during this Parliament for the use of military intervention abroad is Libya, where a Government motion was carried after the intervention had started. I accept that events dictated that swift action was necessary in that case and that in some matters of defence time does not always allow for a parliamentary debate, but I do not believe that this constraint applies to the proposal to arm rebels in Syria. I point out that I still await a response from the Prime Minister to the letter.
On my specific concerns about arming Syrian rebel groups, I return to Libya and what has happened since the collapse of the Gaddafi regime during the Arab spring. Professor Michael Clarke, when giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee a couple of weeks ago, stated:
“There is a lot of evidence that Libyan weapons are now circulating pretty freely in the Levant”—
the Levant comprising several countries in the eastern Mediterranean with unstable regimes or internal issues. He also made the following shrewd observation:
“Weapons never go out of Commission; they just go somewhere else. Almost all weapons find a new home once a war is over”.
That sums up two principal concerns of many Members: about the groups it is proposed be armed and about what control we and other NATO members would have over those arms once supplied. The evidence in Libya suggests that the new Government have little control over weapons stocks and that they have seeped out of their control, no doubt finding their way on to the weapons open market and into the hands of the highest bidder.
These concerns need to be addressed in a parliamentary debate, especially given that they are held by many groups and individuals outside the House. For instance, Amnesty International has stated:
“Unless the UK government can first ensure and demonstrate that such requirements are met and there does not remain a substantial risk of misuse for serious violations of human rights or International humanitarian law they should not supply any weapons or munitions to any Syrian armed opposition groups.”
It also points out that although it is clear that the Syrian Government are committing the majority of war crimes, armed opposition groups are increasingly resorting to hostage taking and to the torture and summary killing of soldiers, members of pro-Government militias and civilians.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, on 14 June the United States announced that it would supply direct military aid to the Syrian opposition. I would ask the question—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I must now call Mr Walter.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
I echo many of the sentiments expressed today; any decision on arming rebel forces must rest ultimately with Parliament.
I want to stress that this type of decision cannot be taken lightly. I have visited refugee camps in Turkey and talked to those who have fled for their lives, and I believe we need a chance to scrutinise the situation carefully and to consider the consequences of our actions, for which we would all be responsible. We all want to see the balance of power altered so that the Syrian people have a chance at rebuilding their country, but my concern is that the Government’s suggested proposal—that to strengthen certain rebel groups would bring Assad to the conference table—is like a very high-risk chess move or a game of bluff that could go badly wrong. One has only to consider the reaction of Russia and Iran to the easing of the EU arms embargo. They immediately bolstered the Assad regime militarily.
I want to consider another question that underscores the complexity of the challenge. Why, after more than two years of fighting, is Assad still in power? We can point to the material support provided by Iran and Russia, which is significant; another factor might be the international community’s reluctance to intervene militarily; but what is often underestimated is Assad’s domestic backing from key communities beyond his core Alawite constituency. The Ba’athist regime has promoted a secular society in which the Christian community, which constitutes 10% of the 22 million population, as well as Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Turks, Druze and other Shi’ites and secular Sunnis have coalesced to shore up Assad’s base.
What motivates and unites these communities is not so much any inherent love of the Assad regime, but fear—fear of the chaos that would ensue if Assad was overthrown; fear that the rebels will bring about not the peaceful, multi-sectarian society to which we all aspire, but violent retribution against them. This is where my concerns lie.
Rebel groups have been accused of the indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas such as Aleppo, and there are reports of extrajudicial killings of pro-Government civilians. Human Rights Watch found that Syrian rebels have kidnapped, detained and tortured Government fighters and supporters, and we all know that when the heavy lid of authoritarian rule is lifted, sectarian and tribal aspirations are often violently unleashed.
If the Government’s plan A is to force Assad to the conference table and it fails, and if plan B is for the various opposition groups to succeed militarily, we may face a humanitarian catastrophe. Those groups already show no mercy and will, I fear, set out to massacre any group seen or perceived to have supported the Assad regime. We will then not be dealing with 1.5 million refugees, but with perhaps 4 million, 5 million or 6 million people fleeing across the borders to Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. I believe the priority is to bring Assad, Iran and Russia to the conference table.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, and I have probably spent more time in Syria than most Members of this House, including meeting Bashar Assad up to 10 times over a six-year period. My experience of Syria is very different from the Syria we have heard about today. Syria has always been a highly secular country. There is no Salafi tradition in Syria; it has more of a Sufi tradition and a mystical approach to Islam. There was no sense of radicalism there, so how have we got from where we were to where we are today with a highly sectarian divide and the potential for a fragmented Somalia on the Mediterranean?
We must remember how this began, which was when a 13-year-old boy in Daraa had the audacity to urinate on a poster of President Assad. The security forces took him, beat him up, killed him, cut off his penis, and returned him to his parents. That sparked massive outrage among civilians in five different cities and was the beginning of the Arab Spring. Those who point to hardly any complicity of the Assad regime in causing what is happening today should think carefully. It made a very bad situation worse with civil disobedience met by repression. Ultimately, individuals felt that they had to protect their communities, and small militias were set up in various towns. The Free Syrian Army was really a fragmented group of people, and only more recently has it become a little more co-ordinated under General Idris. The Syrian National Council has been equally dysfunctional and has not sought to reach out at all beyond the Sunni community.
In February when I was in Cairo, there was an opportunity and the Russians said that they would try to lead engagement. The regime was feeling insecure, but unfortunately Minister Lavrov dropped the ball. He did not do anything and, in fact, the opposite happened. Iran and Russia provided more arms, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard bolstered the Assad regime, including his personal bodyguard, which became a member of the IRG. Until then I had always believed in engagement, but Al-Qusayr was a turning point. The regime knew it could not win alone, so Iran and Hezbollah came in and gave it the support to win Al-Qusayr. I changed my mind and believe that one needs to do a little more than simply provide humanitarian aid. From my understanding of Assad, he will have to be pushed, or driven kicking and screaming to the negotiating table.
My solution is fivefold. First, radical diplomatic engagement is absolutely necessary including—I agree with all Members of the House—with Rouhani and the Iranian regime. This is time to press the reset button.
Mr Jenkin
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we persist in doing nothing, the situation will continue to deteriorate and the radical Sunni factions will come to dominate the opposition to Assad? They are providing a playground for terrorism, where British citizens are going to train as terrorists and coming back to this country.
Mr Newmark
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, there are 70 to 80 citizens of the United Kingdom who are today with Jabhat al-Nusra and the more radical groups. However, those groups represent only 5,000 or 6,000 people on the ground, versus the silent majority of 15 million Sunnis.
The second part of the strategy, beyond radical diplomatic engagement, should be containment. We must protect the likes of Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey from becoming infected by this explosion. Thirdly, we must provide more aid, not just to Jordan and Lebanon, but internally.
Bob Stewart
I am in favour of considering military intervention to escort aid into Syria. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mr Newmark
Yes, I do, although that is not without its dangers. When we ask the UN to do something, we have to think about what protection it will get.
My fourth point is that the Syrian National Council must become less dysfunctional. It cannot be a puppet of the Qatari regime, which it has been to date, representing just the Sunnis. It must reach out to the Alawites, the Kurds, the Druze and the Christians.
My fifth recommendation is this. I am not asking for British soldiers on the ground or for our pilots’ lives to be put at risk; I am asking for what the Syrian people have set out to me time and time again. We need to rebalance the situation on the ground. We need to arm the Free Syrian Army and support General Idris. If we do not, unfortunately more and more of the Free Syrian Army—the moderates—will drift towards the extremists. I am afraid that inaction will breed extremism and the fragmentation of Syria. Supporting the Free Syrian Army is also more likely to bring Assad and Russia to the negotiating table.
Returning to the point of this debate, I would not wish to bind the hands of the Executive on a foreign policy matter where our soldiers’ and our pilots’ lives are not at risk. Therefore, I would oppose the motion.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the House in 2011:
“We will also enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 799.]
Today we are making a far smaller request to the Government. We are not asking for a veto on declaring war, or even on the right to be heard before using deadly force. Many would argue that we should, but we are not. We are simply saying: let us vote before our Government sell or give weapons to people who may one day want to turn them on us. Today is not about whether we should arm the rebels; it is about whether the Government will listen to their MPs. As has been said, if we were to give arms, what possible assurances could the Government provide us with that such weapons would not find their way into the hands of terrorists or jihadists? Today we are asking for Parliament to be allowed to share the enormous responsibility for such a decision.
We in this Chamber do not act for ourselves; we act together, collectively, on behalf of a nation. We did not get a vote—nothing was put to Parliament—in 2001 following the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan or when British troops were deployed to Mali. They were far greater commitments, risking the lives of British servicemen and women. Those men and women and their families have no choice but to put their trust in their elected Members of Parliament to protect them from the Executive when the Executive might have been misled. We can all look back through history to see where mistakes have been made. That is relevant, because the consequences of arming the rebels might not lead to the deployment of our troops, but they will still be the target of terrorists and they will need the support of the public.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even more important that Parliament should have its say and a vote before any such thing was considered because the British people are uneasy about the interventions made in their name in other places in the last decade?
Bill Wiggin
As always, I have no difficulty in agreeing with my right hon. Friend.
We are behind our forces because they are fantastic. They are fantastic because they perform brilliantly, morally and humanely, and we are proud of them because they protect us. We, as MPs, must protect them from the risk of terrorism, and from fights and wars that we do not need.
We have a precedent for lethal force debates. All we are asking is for a similar opportunity to vote before arming the Syrian rebels. On Libya, Parliament was given a say. In March 2003, the Labour Government held a debate and a vote on the deployment of British troops in Iraq, even though they were not obliged to hold a vote and not obliged to take heed of the result. However, Parliament was given the opportunity to express a view.
We ask today that the coalition Government extend a lesser courtesy to us than the Labour Government did in 2003. After all, Parliament is elected to act on behalf of the people. How can we act on behalf of the people if we are not given the chance to vote on a matter as important as involving ourselves in a foreign conflict?
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
My speech has changed about four times in the course of the debate as I was trying to find a way, without fear of repetition, of saying things that have not been said already. I note the motion, and I note that essentially this is a legal and constitutional debate. With all due respect to those on the Front Bench and the Minister, I wonder why there is no legal representation here.
The debate is necessary because of the complexity of Syria and the wider region, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing it. I look up at the Annunciator screen, which shows the title of the debate as “Arms to Syria”, and wonder whether it should say “Arms to the Middle East”. We are considering arming the Free Syrian Army, but we also have arms contracts going back many years with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. We have never come to this Chamber to authorise the Government to make those arms deals. I am therefore not in favour of the motion.
If the motion concerned committing British forces on the ground in Syria, I would suggest it appropriate, for reasons that pre-date my time in the House, to have a debate and a vote. On Iraq and on other conflicts we have been involved in, the public have lost faith in the democratic process in relation to how Britain engages in military conflicts around the world. All I see in the world at the moment is increasing chaos, so I suspect that we will find ourselves involved in other conflicts in the middle east in the near future. We need to take the British public with us, and that involves our being able to go back to our constituencies and make a case for intervention.
Syria is a country created by the colonial pen strokes of Sykes-Picot, and other countries across the middle east were created by former colonial masters. On top of that, one lays the Sunni/Shi’a split, a sense of an Islamic reformation taking place, and the unresolved issues concerning democracy and Islam. I am no historian, but it feels like the Catholic Church in the 16th century wrestling with how to give power back to Governments of free and increasingly democratic nations. Because of the complexity of the situation and the fact that we are trying to look at these issues through the prism of countries that will probably not exist in 10 years’ time—there will be fragmentation—it is extremely difficult to come here and talk about sending arms to a particular country that would not have existed had it been created on tribal lines and by taking ethnic loyalties into account.
I have a lot of sympathy with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but UK foreign policy should be about what is in Britain’s best interests. I think it is in Britain’s best interests to have as coherent and consistent a policy as can be applied across the middle east. After Syria, this situation could fall into Lebanon, Jordan and, dare I say it, Saudi Arabia, with the consequent impact on energy prices and so on. It is in Britain’s interests to garner the trust and support of the wider Arab public, and not just intervene and fiddle around the edges. I could come here and vote for a commitment on the ground in the middle east. I struggle to come here to vote for a commitment to arm just one particular force.
Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
Last year, when I was in north-east Lebanon, I went to a village that had been shelled by the Syrian regime. I met a woman who had just come over the border. She had lost her children, her husband and her legs when she was hit by a Syrian army shell while fleeing from her village. Imagine being in a village in England with the Royal Artillery shelling the village, then being harried by the Grenadier Guards and 42 Commando the Royal Marines. It is unthinkable.
I totally accept that it is perfectly reasonable for a Government to do something without the consent of Parliament in an emergency, in order to maintain surprise or while conducting covert operations. However, we are not talking about Bosnia today; we are talking about Syria, and the House of Commons should be given a say.
I want to echo something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said earlier about public distrust. I agree with him, given the disastrous cock-ups in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a journalist and as a Member of Parliament, I have seen the way in which pliant officials in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office have done the will—or what they think is the will—of their political masters. In future, if it is possible, we need the reality check of a Commons vote in order to create clarity and avoid the activities of some of the more pliant civil servants who will always play back what they think their political masters want.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) to speak, I should inform the House that I have asked the Front Benchers to stick to 10 minutes each, which they have kindly agreed to do. It will then be possible to have a brief wind-up speech from the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), said that the debate was academic, but with all due respect, I disagree with him. He then proceeded to make many valuable points in an excellent speech, which rather defeated his earlier argument. It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway), who eloquently illustrated the seriousness of the situation in Syria through an individual experience.
I have only a little time, and many hon. Members have already spoken, but I shall of course make reference to the horrific situation in Syria, and to the fact that more than 90,000 people have died there. I shall not focus on that, however, because, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has pointed out, the motion relates to the question whether a debate and a vote should take place before lethal support is supplied to any opposition group in Syria.
On this side of the House, we have for some time supported the provision of non-lethal support to Syria, including water purification, vehicles and other support of that nature. But we and many Members from across the House remain sceptical about the merits of sending yet more weapons into Syria’s brutal war. For many months, Labour has been calling on a regular basis for Ministers to come to Parliament to make their case before any decision was taken to arm the Syrian opposition. It is therefore highly appropriate that we are debating the matter today, and I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing the debate. I also thank those who supported the application to the Backbench Business Committee to secure the debate. It is important that we require the Government to come back to the House before any decision is made to supply lethal weapons to anti-Government forces in Syria.
The House still has no codified role in approving participation in military action. In 2003, the Iraq war debate established a working precedent—certainly a powerful political precedent—that UK troops should not be committed unless there had been an opportunity for Parliament to express its view on the matter. In addition, retrospective approval for the deployment of forces to Libya was sought on 21 March 2011—three days after the announcement of British participation.
Opposition Members believe that this House should observe the existing convention and help build a convention that before UK troops are committed to conflict, the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate and to vote on the matter—except, of course, where there is an emergency and where such action would not be appropriate.
The national debate about the Iraq war defines the present context in which the approach to intervention takes place. We have seen that intervention of itself does not secure answers. Rather, it is a starting point, which can have both positive and negative consequences. The United Kingdom has a long history of involvement in the middle east—a history that colours perceptions of any actions that we take in this area. We must take account of those perceptions when assessing whether any intervention we take will be for the best. We must also define very closely indeed what the intervention should be. If lethal equipment is supplied, to whom will it be supplied and how do we ensure we support its end-user?
Andrew Bridgen
Given that the United States announced on 14 June that it would supply direct military aid to the Syrian opposition, what could we provide that the Americans cannot?
Ian Lucas
I think the hon. Gentleman should direct that question to the Minister rather than to me. I am sure that the Minister will respond to it in his winding-up speech.
The motion does not relate specifically to the deployment of British troops. The unique nature of the issue—supplying arms to a non-state actor—was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). We are supplying arms to a selected group within the opposition. While there might be a strong breadth of international support for that group, in the context of an ever-evolving and moving situation in Syria, it is difficult to know exactly who these people are and how on earth we could in any sense restrict the supply of any equipment to a particular group. We need a real opportunity to discuss the issue closely before committing to supply lethal equipment. We need to discuss it and to vote on any Government proposals before a final decision is taken. Difficult questions must be addressed and answered before any steps are taken to commit lethal UK resources. We have a responsibility to ensure that our actions will not make the position for the people of Syria worse.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary wrote to the Foreign Secretary at the beginning of this month to ask what assessment the Foreign Office had made of the EU common position on arms sales, to which the UK is a signatory. My right hon. Friend asked whether the Foreign Office would share that assessment with the House. Can the Minister confirm whether that assessment of the common position will be shared with us? We are clear that the need to have a debate on this issue is not an alibi for ceasing to strive to reach a negotiated political transition at a Geneva II peace conference. We want that to happen as soon as possible, and we would welcome an update from the Minister about the current status of preparations for such a conference. Picking up a point made by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is it a precondition of UK Government policy for President Assad to step down before any discussions take place? That needs to be clarified at this juncture because that was a precondition at an earlier stage.
We are aware that the UK, the US, Russia and other countries have agreed in principle to a Geneva II conference, but there are delays. One reported reason for the repeated delaying of the conference is the disagreement among different groups over electing a new leader for the opposition. Now that Ahmed al-Jarba has been elected, when is the conference likely to convene? It is obvious that the need to secure a ceasefire is of the utmost urgency, so will the Minister please confirm that anyone who can play a role in securing a ceasefire can be involved? Earlier, he seemed to indicate from a sedentary position that that was the case. I would be grateful if he clarified that at the Dispatch Box.
What role is the Arab League now playing? It was active at an earlier stage in trying to secure some breakthrough but we have heard much less about its role in recent times. If any party at all is being excluded from the talks, can the Minister explain what the grounds are for exclusion?
The continuing tragedy is that Syria is a stain on the institutions of the international community because we have all failed to prevent the scale of the killings in the past two years. We must not lose sight of the scale of the horror that is happening in the country. I am sure that the Minister will do his utmost to secure some kind of breakthrough, but it is equally important that the House has the opportunity to discuss the implications of supplying lethal equipment to opposition groups in Syria before that decision is made. We have heard this afternoon that the House, not universally but overwhelmingly, supports the motion. I would be grateful if the Minister did so, too, on behalf of the UK Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for raising the issue. I agree that it is more than useful to have this debate. I have no intention of opposing the motion before the House today. I would like to set out briefly the situation in relation to Syria, to comment on the substance of the motion and then to deal with some of the questions that have been raised on the motion and wider issues. Clearly, however, so much was covered that we will not be able to get through it all.
The situation in Syria is genuinely appalling and is getting worse at an ever-more rapid pace. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the number of deaths will soon exceed 100,000 people. Since last July, on average, 170 people have been killed every 24 hours. By the end of the year, 10 million people—half of Syria’s pre-conflict population —will be likely to be in need of humanitarian assistance. Neighbouring countries are struggling with the refugee crisis.
The brutal Assad regime has used chemical weapons on his own people. We are concerned to see new, unconfirmed reports over the weekend of further chemical attacks in Homs. We judge that Iran is providing personnel, equipment, weapons and financial assistance to the Assad regime, which is also being supported by thousands of Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon.
The Syrian people and the legitimate opposition are caught between this brutal regime and its backers on one side, and extremists on the other. We must not accept what Assad wants us to believe—that the only alternative to his brutal regime is extremists and terrorists. I am keen to disabuse any colleagues who have strayed into that area during their remarks. There are millions of Syrians who want a peaceful and democratic future, and legitimate forces are fighting for their interests. We should be on their side. However, the extremist groups operating inside—affiliated to or aligned with al-Qaeda—are taking advantage of ungoverned spaces created by the conflict. They pose risks to UK national security. We judge that more than 100 UK-linked individuals of concern have travelled to Syria. Some individuals returning to the UK could pose a long-term terrorist threat.
As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in his statement to the House, faced with this growing and protracted crisis to which there is no end in sight, we have three objectives: to promote a political solution in Syria, which I again make very clear is the Government’s overriding imperative; to help to save lives; and to protect the national security of the United Kingdom.
To this end, we have doubled our humanitarian assistance for Syria to £348 million. I commend to colleagues a very good document—this is straying into the interests of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development—on UK aid in response to the Syria crisis, dated 4 July. It deals with some key facts on what we are doing. I will ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that it is e-mailed to every colleague, because, as more than one Member has mentioned, the humanitarian assistance is not a by-product of the UK’s involvement. We are entitled to be very proud of what this country is doing in that regard, and I would like colleagues to be well aware of what we are doing and to talk about it. We must not consider it to be some sort of backwater.
Alistair Burt
No, not yet.
We are also providing technical assistance for the protection of civilians. That includes advice and training on how to maintain security in areas no longer controlled by the regime, on how to protect civilians and minimise the risks to them—including in respect of helping the opposition counter regime forces as they attack towns under opposition control—and on co-ordination between civilian and military councils, and on how to maintain security during a transition.
Amending the arms embargo on Syria in May also supported these aims. As the Prime Minister has said, lifting the arms embargo on the Syrian National Coalition sent a powerful signal that there is no moral equivalence between Assad on the one hand and the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people, recognised by over 130 countries, states and other entities, on the other. It also increases pressure on the regime to negotiate seriously. We now have the flexibility to respond in future if the situation continues to deteriorate and if the Assad regime refuses to negotiate.
Let me come to the nub of the motion, just to be clear once again to the House. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in his statement to the House:
“On the question of any future lethal support—arming the opposition or intervening militarily ourselves—the Government’s position has not changed. No decision has been made, and any decision would be put to the House on a substantive motion.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 379.]
And as he said in the House on 18 June:
“We certainly would not want to pursue any aspect of our policy on this issue against the will of the House of Commons. That is neither feasible nor desirable, so of course we have made clear that there would be a vote. I have also made it clear that we would expect it to be before any such decision was put into action.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 746.]
Mr Baron
I absolutely applaud the Minister and I have great respect for his being absolutely clear. I agree that there has never been any change to the policy or the wording of the view that no decision has been taken, but I suggest with great respect that there has been movement by the Government on the assurances in the wording of the motion since it first travelled this journey. I urge the Minister to look back at what was said initially when many of us in this place urged the Government to put such a motion to a substantive vote.
Alistair Burt
Well, I do not believe so. Let me comment on something that is at the nub of this: the long shadow of Iraq. I am convinced that when this Government took office we were very well aware of the deficiency in trust felt in the nation on account of that. My sense is that, particularly in respect of the area my portfolio covers, in the last two or three years both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly updated the House on circumstances as they have arisen. They have been very conscientious in doing that. The National Security Council was created precisely to try to find a structure that could address the concerns about foreign policy decisions that people had felt in the past. I believe that right from the beginning as the UK considered all its options—and I repeat, despite whatever I have said, that all options remain on the table—both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been very keen to ensure that the House has been engaged, because ultimately this is an issue of trust.
That leads me on to the point made by the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) about the possibility of something being sneaked through in the recess. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) also talked about that. The whole point of what the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have been doing has been to generate trust in the House. If the Government were to do something and then seek retrospective support in respect of an issue where Members felt we should have come before the House in advance, that trust would be broken, which would run contrary to what the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister wish to convey. It may still be the case, of course, that emergencies arise that require the Head of Government to have the flexibility to make decisions in the national interest, as the House would expect, and the debate on Iran some time ago indicated that no hands should be bound. The clear intention of what I am saying and what the Foreign Secretary has sought to do, however, is that the Government want to keep the confidence of the House by going this extra step. So there is no question of our trying to use the recess or another opportunity to do something, because we would then have to come back to the House—and what would be the House’s reaction? I have tried to make clear the intention on which the Government are determined to act.
In the brief time available, I wish to cover one or two more of the questions raised, including those about Geneva and President Assad put by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who spoke for the Opposition. I know that you are very generous to us, Mr Speaker, so if I stray for one minute, having taken an intervention, I hope you will kindly let me do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) said that many people were asking what is in our national interest. Importantly, whether a decision is made to arm or not, there is a UK interest that needs to be considered. Let us make no mistake: whether we continue on our current course or do something different, we are involved. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we have an interest in promoting peace in the most conflict-ridden areas. It is to the discredit of the international community that that has not been possible, but that has not been due to any sparing of effort on our part at the United Nations. The conflict has been spilling over into neighbouring areas, as we have seen with Hezbollah and Lebanon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) said, if empty space is used, that is where a threat to and an attack on the United Kingdom can come from. We know that people are going out there to be radicalised, and that will come back to bite us as well. Whatever is done—whatever decision is taken—nobody in this House can escape the fact that there is British interest in Syria. Accordingly, our main interest is in closing this down and ending the conflict. This is not a plea from me to arm; I am saying that unless the conflict is ended, British interests will continue to be further damaged.
Iran clearly has an interest in this. It did not accept Geneva I. Who knows what is possible, but Iran’s interest is noted and is there. The removal of Assad is not so much a precondition from the United Kingdom; this is not the UK’s involvement in negotiations. It was clear from the beginning that this issue is difficult for an opposition that is being killed daily by Assad’s regime, but the practicalities now are that there are no preconditions if people can get to a position to negotiate that we want.
Richard Ottaway
Will the Minister clarify that? If a negotiated settlement comes out of Geneva, does he accept that it may result in President Assad staying in office?
Alistair Burt
The point I want to make is that if a negotiated solution emerges, it will have been negotiated by representatives of the Syrian National Coalition. I think that, in a way, it is their call; it is not for us to say. The reason we take the view that Assad’s legitimacy is gone is plain from the facts, but the United Kingdom is not involved in setting preconditions for the negotiations; that is for the parties involved.
I want to correct one misconception that has been abroad: that all the opposition is the same and we are allied with people we have seen performing extremist acts and acts of the greatest brutality. That is not the case. On 20 April, the Syrian National Coalition declared its commitment to democracy, ethnic and religious pluralism, and the rule of law, and it rejected discrimination and extremism. It also declared that it would guard against the proliferation of any supplied lethal equipment and would return such equipment at the end of the conflict, and confirmed that the supreme military council operates under the civilian authority of the coalition.
As for whether each side is as bad as the other, we condemn human rights abuses perpetrated by anyone involved in the violence in Syria, but we note that the last report by the UN commission of inquiry on Syria, published on 4 June, said that although there was evidence of human rights abuses committed by the opposition, those
“did not…reach the intensity and scale of those committed by Government forces and affiliated militia.”
There is no equivalence.
My final point is that if colleagues here are to get us to the position we all want to get to—a negotiated peace—they would do well to consider the graphic description by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) of why that might not happening at the moment. No matter what we decide to do in the future, I suspect that his remarks, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree, should be taken in by everybody here as we go forward and take the difficult decisions we have to take. This is not easy—there is more than one side to the question—but the arguments raised by my two colleagues will take some consideration by all of us.
Mr Baron
This has been a well-informed, well-attended and useful debate, in which the wording of the motion has been paramount. Since we first discovered that the Government were aiming to lift the EU ban on arms exports, the Government have travelled some way. There was a lack of clarity at the start of the journey, as illustrated by the fact that very recently—only a few weeks ago—Members who are in their places in the Chamber today were appearing in the media believing that the rebels should be armed and expressing the view that Parliament did not need to give its explicit prior consent. We have that clarity now and I thank the Minister for it. I also thank Members on both sides of the House for pressing for clarity from the Government.
Let me turn briefly to the specific issue of whether or not to arm. There has been no answer to the charge that more weapons would mean more violence and more suffering, to the charge that it would be nigh on impossible to track and trace weapons to stop them falling into the hands of extremists on the rebel side or to the charge that if one pours more weapons into the conflict and adds more fuel to the flames it could extend the conflict beyond Syria’s borders. Most who have spoken would agree that more can be done on the humanitarian and diplomatic fronts.
I urge all Members to support the motion, regardless of their views on whether we should arm. I for one will not press it to a vote, but I would fully understand colleagues who might wish to do that given the strength of feeling on the issue. I urge all Members to support the motion, if they can.
Question put.
Piper Alpha Disaster
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster.
On the night of 6 July 1988, an incident occurred on the Piper Alpha platform that led to the deaths of 167 men. It was the worst tragedy in the offshore oil and gas industry anywhere in the world. It was the direct consequence of negligence, bad management at every level, poor maintenance, extremely weak regulation and failure to have proper work systems in place or a proper safety strategy for major incidents. The regulation management and safety systems failed at every level. Those 167 men died, survivors suffered the most traumatic experience that any of us could imagine, many of them being seriously injured, and of course the families and relatives of those involved have been irrevocably damaged.
I am very pleased and proud to have the opportunity to open this debate to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha tragedy and to remember those who died and their families, and, of course, the rescue services involved and those who supported the survivors and families after the incident. As well as the Piper Alpha victims, it is important to remember all those who have died during the lifetime of the UK oil and gas industry, whether at sea, on land, on a platform, or on transport.
Last Saturday, along with several hundred others, I attended a memorial service in the Piper Alpha memorial rose garden in Aberdeen. I met many of the survivors and the families of victims. I was delighted to see the Secretary of State for Scotland and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), at that event representing the Government and the Opposition. Four hundred of those who attended were survivors or families of victims. Most of the individuals and families have moved on, but the mood on Saturday was as sombre as the mood in 1988. It was quite clear that for most of the people involved the memory of the horror of that day in 1988 remains just as vivid and distressing as it was then. The pain does not go away. Many things stand out about that service, but the most poignant and difficult was the roll call of victims—as graphic and emotional a way of underlining the sheer scale of the tragedy as any.
The 25th anniversary of the tragedy has had a good deal of media coverage, and it does not serve any real purpose to go through again all the detail of what happened on that night. However, I would like to focus on just a couple of issues relevant to the present and possibly also to the future.
As colleagues are well aware, following the disaster Lord Cullen was appointed to lead an inquiry into the disaster. He made 106 recommendations. The Cullen report was welcomed on all sides. It has changed the safety culture in the North sea and throughout the global oil and gas industry. Aside from the practical workplace and management issues, the most important recommendation was on the question of who should be the regulator. From the beginning of the North sea industry, the Piper and all other North sea installations were regulated by the then Department of Energy. The Department had two fundamental problems. The first was the conflict between its responsibility to maximise oil production and its duty as a regulator. More importantly, the Cullen report made the Department’s inadequacies abundantly clear. Cullen recommended that responsibility for offshore safety should be handed over to the Health and Safety Executive, where it resides today.
In the main, the HSE, through its offshore division, has been a good regulator, and there has been substantial improvement in the industry’s safety record. Recently, however, concerns were raised when the HSE announced that the offshore division was being merged into a new energy division. The announcement was made without any apparent consultation with the industry, unions or Members of Parliament. That raised concern on all sides, particularly as to whether the decision was driven by cuts in funding. However, we eventually received from the chair the rationale for the move. Ministers also came in with a promise of some extra inspectors.
The most recent information I have on staffing in the offshore division is that it has 109 full-time equivalent staff—14 more than 2010, so that is significant progress. However, across the HSE the total number of inspectors has fallen by 75 from 1,316 to 1,241. In future, with a merged division, it might be much more difficult for us to identify the precise numbers of dedicated offshore inspectors. Broadly speaking, there has been a steady improvement in the safety regime and in accident rates, but the industry remains dangerous compared with other UK industries. In 2011-12 the fatality rate was 6.9 per 100,000 workers compared with 0.6 for all UK workers. The major injury and fatality rate per 100,000 workers for offshore oil and gas is 130.8, compared with 90.4 for all UK workers. However, at a major event last week, a representative of one of the major oil companies cited a statistic suggesting that, on the basis of last year’s figures, the industry was the third safest, behind banking and education, but I have not seen that information.
Beyond safety, the other major issue facing the industry is the continuing problem of gas escapes on offshore platforms. We should remember that a gas leak led to the Piper Alpha tragedy. In 2011-12, there were 94 hydrocarbon releases, 44 of which were classified as significant. Nine of those were identified as a major incident, which is a leak that, if ignited, would cause an explosion capable of causing multiple casualties. Those nine cases were therefore very serious incidents. Last year, the Elgin-Franklin complex, which is operated by Total, was closed down because of a major gas leak. It was restarted, but then shut down again, and it was not fully operational until March this year. Gas leak statistics, like those for injury rates, are showing a steady improvement, but the volume of escapes and the scale of the Elgin-Franklin problem show that there is still a lot of work to do.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that one life lost is one life too many, and that that is why all the authorities and companies must work together to achieve maximum safety and security for all those working in such dangerous places to ensure that no life is lost in the future?
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this valuable debate. Does he share my concern about reports that the number of planned inspections throughout the HSE’s entire operation in Scotland is likely to be significantly reduced this year? Given that last year, unfortunately, the number of casualties in Scotland increased overall, there is utterly no room for complacency on health and safety at work.
Mr Doran
I will come to that point later in my speech, as I am dealing with the offshore oil and gas industry at the moment, but I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes.
The HSE has been increasingly proactive. It has embarked on several projects, one of the most important of which is the key programme project, which involves an assessment of the integrity of offshore installations. The KP3 report, which was published a few years ago, followed an assessment of 100 platforms. It told us that, in a number of cases, the industry was slipping back on areas such as the maintenance of platforms. In the run-up to the 20th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ordered a review of KP3, which showed that the industry had responded to its findings and that improvements were being made.
We have now reached the KP4 stage, and the interim report identifies several issues relating to ageing plant. Oil and Gas UK, the industry body, has established working groups to produce guidance and promote improvements. I understand that, as at the end of March, HSE had undertaken KP4 inspections of more than 75% of operators. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has also set up a senior oversight group, which includes the HSE, to supervise the implementation of the review’s recommendations. Such an integrated approach is necessary and appropriate.
While the industry is making progress on safety, the KP3 report shows that the regulator needs to be ever vigilant. A good job has been done, but several points still need to be considered. The trade union side recognises that progress has been made in the industry, but its officials are aware that there are several installations on which workers are afraid to bring up safety issues with their employers. Some employers tell union officials that they are put under pressure by the staff of the operator—the client—to cut corners.
The regulator also identifies problems. At the Piper 25 conference, Steve Walker, the retiring head of the offshore safety division, made several points, including about the control of work. The inadequacy—and failure—of the permit-to-work system led directly to the Piper Alpha disaster, and it is still a key weakness for the industry. Poor isolation and inadequate adherence to permit systems remain a common thread during incident investigation.
Another key Cullen recommendation is not being fully adhered to by some companies. The regulator is regularly taking enforcement action for maintenance and testing temporary safe refuges. A Health and Safety Executive inspection in 2011 found that there was still variation in the implementation of safety representative legislation. In other words, it is not being applied properly.
That last point is important, because one of the major steps that has been taken by the industry, with the full support of the HSE, is to recognise that safety offshore can only improve with the full engagement of the work force. That process is being led by Step Change in Safety.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. I was on the energy desk at the Treasury when the Piper Alpha accident happened and it was truly terrible. One of the things I remember is that there were communication difficulties, because at that time quite a lot of foreign workers working offshore on British and American-managed platforms simply did not understand what was going on. Does my hon. Friend know whether that situation has improved in the past 25 years?
Mr Doran
That certainly was not an issue for Lord Cullen. I think that the communication difficulty was the failure to have a proper management structure in place with a process to deal with such an incident. The only message that was put out was a mayday message. From recollection, I think that two foreigners—a Frenchman and, I think, a Spaniard—were killed in the Piper Alpha incident, so there was no issue there.
Under Step Change in Safety, materials have been produced and conferences held to encourage employers to accept that top-down management does not work. Full engagement and involvement of the work force at every stage of the work process is crucial. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of traction in the principles being set out by Step Change in Safety and most operations offshore are embracing the changes, some more enthusiastically than others.
At the Piper 25 conference, I attended a session where employees of Maersk Oil, which is fairly new to the North sea, spoke about its approach. It has gone for full engagement and has introduced a system that involves new rules about handling safety issues, encouraging workers to come forward with ideas to improve safety and to report safety concerns without fear of sanction and so on. Maersk Oil has produced statistics which show that since the inception of the new ideas, accidents have declined significantly and profits have increased. They present a win-win scenario—safer workplace, increased profit.
Others, while accepting the basic principle and making some progress, have been less enthusiastic. Old habits die hard and trade union officials and regulators tell me that as soon as they step off the helicopter and on to an offshore platform they can read the mood of the work force and what sort of approach the employer is taking to work-force engagement.
Despite that, there is no doubt that serious progress is being made. I have been involved with the oil and gas industry in one way or another for nearly 40 years. For most of that time, management was top down, harsh and very anti union, with a few exceptions on the contracting side. I would be a fantasist to suggest that the industry fully embraces trade unions. However, significant progress is being made. The industry recognises that the unions can make a valuable contribution to the workplace and safety. Trade unions are represented on the board of the industry training body OPITO—the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Organisation—and one of the representatives chaired it for a number of years. Two full-time union officers were appointed to the separate taskforces set up to look into the Super Puma helicopter disaster a few years ago and the consequences of the Macondo incident in the gulf of Mexico. At this year’s industry safety awards the keynote speaker was the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
One of the major issues for the industry this year has been the threat from the European Union to take control of offshore safety. A number of very senior figures in the industry have assured me that the turning point in a meeting with the Commission was the presentation made by John Taylor, a full-time official of Unite who would put to shame the Prime Minister’s cartoon image of Unite members—I guarantee it—and who is totally dedicated to the interests of his members.
I raise these issues because my biggest fear about the integrity of the steadily improving safety environment in the offshore industry is that the process is running in direct contradiction to Government policy. If we leave the union relationship aside, the industry is putting huge effort into its worker engagement and involvement strategy. It recognises the value of the worker on the shop floor, seeing him or her as a vital part of the business, contributing to the safety of the enterprise and—if we follow the Maersk line—its profitability.
Meanwhile, at the national level, we have various reports, including the Beecroft report, whose objective seems to be to take us back to Victorian times, chipping away at rights at work and job security, and changes to health and safety legislation. At a time when the oil and gas industry is still operating in one of the most dangerous work environments in the country, placing responsibility for safety on its work force and valuing each individual as a key part of the enterprise, I do not want to see these gains whittled away by Government action. Out of the Piper Alpha tragedy, there is clear evidence of serious progress on safety brought about by the close working together of industry workers and trade unions, but the North sea is a dangerous place and we cannot be complacent. The memory of the fate of the workers on that night in July 1988 should spur us on to achieve and maintain a safe working environment for all workers.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Unfortunately, to get everyone in, we will have to have a five-minute limit.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) for securing this debate and his work over many years campaigning for improved safety for those who work in the North sea. We should listen carefully to his words and advice; he was in the House at the time of the Piper Alpha disaster, and one of the challenges we face is that with the passage of time, those with direct experience of the horrific night of 6 July 1988 and those in office at that time are moving on, although I anticipate that he will be in his place for some time to come. There is a danger that those direct experiences and lessons learned might fade away and that the pursuit of safety might become a routine box-ticking exercise. This must not happen, and we owe it to the memory of the 167 men who died always to ask ourselves what more must be done to improve safety in this dangerous working environment.
I represent a coastal constituency where for centuries the economy and jobs have been inextricably linked to the North sea: in fishing and over the past 40 years in the oil and gas sector. While Piper Alpha was in the northern North sea, the tragedy could have occurred anywhere, and the people who work in the sector are often drawn from communities in Scotland, the north-east and East Anglia. They share a bond and invariably there are no boundaries to where they work. At present, increased activity in the North sea in both the oil and gas and renewables sectors presents East Anglia with considerable job creation opportunities. I want us to make the most of those opportunities, but in doing so we must always keep safety at the forefront of our minds. Corners must never be cut and we must always strive for the highest standards. The Government and business owe this ultimate duty of care to all who work at sea. The North sea has plentiful assets, which we must utilise responsibly, but always remembering that it is a dangerous place, particularly where hydrocarbons are present.
In recent days the newspapers, television and graphic words of those who saw the horrific events of 6 July 1988 unfold before their eyes have brought home to us the dreadful events of that night. This was not an unpredictable “act of God”, but an accumulation of errors and questionable decisions. Lord Cullen’s thorough and excellent inquiry left no stone unturned in establishing what happened and made 106 recommendations to improve safety. All these were accepted and implemented, and some have been taken further.
It is important that his legacy endures for a long time and that there is no room for complacency. The North sea is changing, and new challenges lie ahead. The blueprint that Lord Cullen set down should be viewed as a living document that must evolve to meet these challenges. To be fair, though, I do not detect any complacency from the Government in their pursuit of the highest safety standards. In the 10 years following the Step Change in Safety initiative in 1997, the number of fatal and major injuries fell by 70%. The 2010 target for reducing the number of hydrocarbon releases by 50% in three years looks as if it will be achieved, while the Piper 25 conference last month focused the minds of those who worked in this sector.
This debate provides an opportunity to pause, reflect and pay tribute to those who lost their lives and took part in the rescue mission. We must also remember that the lessons learned from Piper Alpha are as relevant today as they were in 1988, and a vivid reminder of the consequences of failure to manage health and safety properly. Yes, lessons have been learned and a very different approach and attitude prevail today, but there is an ongoing challenge for all involved in the oil and gas sector to continue to strive for the highest safety standards. In the words of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, we should ask, “What more should we be doing?”
The North sea is one of this country’s most important assets. In realising the opportunities it affords, we must not only respect and nurture it, but place at the top of our list of priorities the safety and well-being of those who work there.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I want to make a short contribution to this debate because when I was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I responded to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) five years ago, and I pay tribute to him for ensuring that we do not forget what happened at Piper Alpha.
To echo the hon. Member for Waveney, we must remember the human side to this tragedy, and I beg the House’s indulgence if I give the personal testimony of someone who was pretty well known to us—Gavin Cleland, a pensioner from Glasgow. I want to read some extracts from a speech he made to a conference on safety and corporate criminal accountability in October 2003. He opened by saying:
“My name is Gavin Cleland and my younger son, Robert, was killed in the Piper Alpha disaster, just over 15 years ago. On 6th July…167 men on board the Piper Alpha oil rig were killed, and Robert was one of them…My story is just one of those many tragedies. When Robert was killed he was 33 years old…Before I tell you of some of the things that I have done over the past 15 years to get justice—”
he was a tireless campaigner—
“I want to say a few words about our dear son, Robert.”
This is what will, I hope, bring the issue home to us as politicians.
Robert was born in 1954 in, as Gavin said,
“the best room of his granny’s council house, in…Carntyne”.
He was the youngest of three boys, and he left school and served his apprenticeship as a plumber. He joined the Royal Highland Fusiliers and went to work in the North sea in the offshore oil industry.
As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, there was probably no constituency in Scotland that did not feel the impact of the Piper Alpha tragedy. Many men—the boys, as they were often called—would leave every other fortnight to go to the North sea. They included people from the area where I lived as much as those from around Aberdeen. It was a time when young, talented and skilled men had to get a job.
Gavin goes on to say that he could not believe at first what was happening to him and his family, and to that lovely young boy born in his granny’s council house, and he became a tireless campaigner all the way through what was left of his life. Scottish Members will remember that there was probably no conference that Gavin did not attend, and there was rarely a situation that he did not write about, or as he said, “pester” MPs, Prime Ministers and MSPs, to try and get, as he saw it, justice for the people who died on that terrible night.
I remember it well. I was making my children’s breakfast before they went to school and we could not believe what was unfolding in front of our eyes on television. If my memory serves me right, the voice of Jane Frankie—a BBC journalist of some renown—tried to bring this story into our kitchens, living rooms and homes, and we should never forget that. That is why the challenge for the Government and the Health and Safety Executive outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North is crucial. We cannot cease to be vigilant about what is happening in the North sea.
I want to ask the Minister some questions to test him on whether the commitments I gave five years ago—on behalf of government in its generic sense—have been pursued and to find out what progress has been made. The partnership between trade unions, workers and operators is crucial. We need to ensure that it is strengthened and deepened. Is that happening? My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North mentioned the KP3 report. I would like to know what is happening on that front. The amalgamation with the energy section has flagged up concerns about the focus of that new division in the Health and Safety Executive. It is not just people in this House, but the Gavin Clelands of this world—all the mums, dads, brothers and sisters who lost their sons and brothers in the Alpha disaster—who deserve to have the confidence that the HSE will continue to be vigilant.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I am pleased to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing it. Indeed, I acknowledge all the work he has done, both inside and outside the House over many years, to campaign on safety in the oil and gas industry.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I was at the memorial service in Aberdeen, on a sunny morning last Saturday in the memorial garden. I was moved perhaps more than I expected to be, particularly when the families were invited to come up with their wreaths—we are talking about 400 people. Watching young adults, who were obviously babies when their fathers were killed, holding up tiny children just to touch the names of the granddads they never knew brought home to me in a personal way just what a human tragedy this was.
I was on a trade and industry visit to Romania at the time. It is worth recording the fact that the incident was all over before I had even heard about it. There was no e-mail and no mobile phones. I felt a long way from my people who were suffering and unable to do very much—although to be honest, I am not sure that that is when Members of Parliament are at their most useful. What we did have to do, obviously, was provide support to the families and the bereaved, ensure a process that would get to the bottom of what was wrong, and put in place mechanisms and a culture to ensure it would never happen again.
Oil and Gas UK and its contractors produce figures from time to time. Usually, my constituency has the highest or second highest number of people working in the industry. It is important to remember, 25 years on, that the industry is still huge. It is still the driver of our economy. Although a 100% guarantee of safety is never possible, there are still thousands of people working or travelling offshore who need the assurance that everything is being done to ensure that safety is paramount.
A number of the events around the 25th anniversary have illuminated the fact that there are still some worrying cultural problems, to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen North alluded. He talked about the danger of a top-down approach. My instinct is that I genuinely believe top management when they say to me, “Safety is paramount.” They believe that that is what drives their culture. The problem is that people down the line have a dilemma. Their job is to produce oil and gas. If somebody says, “I’ve got a problem,” or, “I’ve got an anxiety,” there is a tension. Bob Keiller, the chief executive of the Wood Group, made an impressive speech at a dinner a couple of weeks ago in Aberdeen, in which he highlighted that dilemma. His view was: “Safety is paramount—period.”
That is crucial, but it is worth making the point—Maersk is a good example of this—that safety is paramount because there is a moral responsibility to ensure that people get back to their families, but in the end, if a company does not act, its commercial viability will be destroyed. Whoever hears of Occidental in this part of the world now? Indeed, after the Macondo and Texas disasters, one more disaster would be the end of BP. Had Total not got on top of Elgin, it would have been the end of Total. I give the company credit for the work it did and for not rushing back into production until it was fully satisfied that it was on top of things.
I noticed in the very good documentary that was shown on the BBC this week that one of the men said, “We always thought that the biggest risk in this job was the journey to and from the rig,” and that is still the case. It is ironic that only yesterday the Civil Aviation Authority said that it is ready to give clearance for Super Pumas to come back into operation. I think there will be a great deal of caution and reservation about that, and nobody should be getting into a Super Puma until everybody is sure that everything possible has been double-checked to ensure a proper degree of safety.
We should recognise that this is a dangerous environment and that a culture of safety must be paramount. Nobody at any level should ever think twice about stopping production if there is the remotest concern about safety—it is in the best moral and commercial interests of their organisation. If anything can be learned from Piper Alpha and the excellent Cullen report, it must be that.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this important debate on this tragic anniversary. None of us who saw the television pictures of the Piper Alpha disaster will ever forget the horror of that night and its tragic aftermath.
The oil and gas industry is a vital part of the local economy in my constituency, as it is in many others throughout large areas of Scotland. I have many constituents who are employed in the industry not only in the North sea, but around the world. Many companies in my constituency do a great deal of work for the oil and gas industry. Many of my constituents have friends and relatives who work in the industry. They all want to ensure their safety at work.
Twenty-five years ago, 167 people died and 62 survived. It is right that we reflect on them and on the tragic impact on their relatives and loved ones. Many survivors suffered huge trauma. The families, as we have heard from tales told on television in the past couple of weeks, suffered greatly with them. We need to remember the heroic work of the emergency services, in particular, the crews of the fast rescue craft, who, I understand, recovered 45 of the 62 survivors in very difficult circumstances. Their bravery was commented on by Lord Cullen in his report.
The Cullen report put forward a large number of recommendations, which substantially improved safety offshore, and that work continues. We can never afford to let our guard down and we must ensure that we maintain the safety record that has now been established in the North sea industry. The emphasis on safety is vital for those who work offshore, for those constituents whose friends and family work offshore, and for all of us who recognise the economic importance of the industry.
As has been mentioned, a range of events are taking place to mark the 25th anniversary of Piper Alpha: the restoration of the memorial in Hazlehead park in Aberdeen; the major conference that has been mentioned; and the film referred to by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), “Fire in the Night”, which has recorded for ever the testimony of those who survived the disaster, and that of their families. These events will ensure that we never forget what happened.
Oil and Gas UK’s health and safety report was published last month. It showed a 48% reduction in the number of reportable hydrocarbon releases over three years; a much better record on non-fatal accidents; and a steady reduction in the incidence of over-three-day injuries. However, the industry faces difficulties on safety. One thing that has been apparent for some years is the ageing work force in the North sea. Many of them remember Piper Alpha and have been brought up in that safety culture. That is changing now, as more and more young people are being encouraged to join the industry through very good work by OPITO. There is a danger that many youngsters do not remember what it was like before Piper Alpha. We must ensure that the safety culture is understood by everybody, and especially by the youngsters now going to work offshore.
The industry itself is changing. Many installations in the North sea are quite old, with some coming to the end of their lives. They pose an inherent danger, and it is important to recognise that and for there to be proper safety inspections. The industry is moving: the traditional North sea is a mature basin these days, but the industry is still exploring the Scottish coast. New exploration is taking place west of Shetland, in very deep and dangerous conditions. It will be very difficult to get oil out of there, and it is important that we continue to send out the safety message. It is of paramount importance that our constituents who go out to work on the rigs to get the oil and gas that is so important for our economy are able to work in a safe environment.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on giving us this opportunity to pay tribute to the victims of Piper Alpha and to ensure that we remember the lessons that need to be learned. I should of course remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that relates to the oil and gas industry, particularly my shareholding in Shell. However, my interest in the debate, like that of the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Angus (Mr Weir) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), stems from the fact that we represent a part of the country that is touched by, and lives with, the oil and gas industry on a day-to-day basis.
We need to remember that the work force in that industry, particularly the offshore work force, come from throughout the country, and that people from all parts of the United Kingdom were touched by the tragedy. Our thoughts today are with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives, and with the survivors, as we remember the terrible events. The re-dedication of the memorial garden involved a poignant and moving service that reminded us that, above all, the oil and gas industry is a people business. It might contain a lot of big industrial structures and high-tech industry, but ultimately it is people who make it work and it is people who suffer when it goes wrong.
I also pay tribute to Lord Cullen for the lessons that he has given us, and the legacy that he has left us. His investigation led to a sea change in the whole offshore safety regime, and to a permanent restructuring and refocusing of the system. It also led to the introduction of the safety case regime, after which companies could no longer simply tick a box and say, “I’ve complied with the regulation, so I’ll be okay if something goes wrong.” Under the regime, a company has to assess the risks and come up with its own safety case. That, too, is a lasting legacy.
The Piper 25 conference brought together representatives of the industry, the work force and the regulators, to refocus their efforts to ensure that all the lessons are being learned and all the issues are being dealt with. I want to pay tribute to the organisers of the conference. It would have been easy to have had a conference that simply paid lip service to the 25th anniversary and went through the motions, but the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and I, who were both there, agreed that it was a genuine attempt to take forward safety matters and to ensure that more lessons were learned.
We must avoid complacency. It has been pointed out that there are still many leaks, although fortunately they have not been ignited. If they had been, there could have been equally tragic consequences, so a redoubling of efforts is crucial. There have been other incidents in the North sea, and more lives have been lost, although not on the same scale as Piper Alpha. They are none the less equally tragic for the victims and their families and friends, and we must remember them, too, at this time.
There has been a refocusing on safety, but a danger is creeping in because the risks that are the easiest to measure are the slips, trips and falls—the people safety risks. There has, therefore, been a chasing of statistics that has focused on that element, and perhaps a lack of recognition of the importance of structural safety and integrity. The KP3 and KP4 reports focused on ensuring that that was understood. Structural safety issues might not show up so often in the statistics, but when something goes wrong, the effects are far more dramatic and serious. That structural safety element must be paramount.
Certain challenges remain, including that of ageing infrastructure. Ironically, the really old platforms were so over-engineered that, even though some of their equipment and processes might need rededication and redesigning, the actual structures have many years left in them. In a sense, the more dangerous legacy is the stuff that was built at the time of low oil prices when costs were kept to a bare minimum. The structural integrity of those platforms needs a great deal of investigation.
We have heard about the concerns relating to the new energy division. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, some reassurance has been received, but the jury is still out. Much of what was attempted was designed for the best of motives, but it was perhaps not presented in the most effective way. Post-Macondo, we have the restructuring of the safety and environment regime as a result of the EU’s intervention, which will divert resources into resubmitting safety cases, rather than looking at new safety cases. Someone working offshore now aged 30 was just starting primary school when Piper Alpha happened. It is important for that legacy to be passed on to the next generation and to the new owners who have mainly not inherited the same culture as the original owners of the platforms. Redoubling safety is the best legacy for the members of Piper Alpha.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), who knows as well as any and perhaps better than most that things changed for ever as a result of the events of 6 July 1988. They changed for the families, the wives, the children and the parents of the 167 who died. Things changed for the 61 who survived, who remain haunted 25 years on by the memories they still have of the events of that day. Many of those men still live with both the physical as well as the mental scars of surviving when so many others—colleagues and friends—did not.
Things changed for ever, too, for the families of the survivors who have had to live with the effects on their loved ones and on the communities from which the men who died came. I know that things changed for my neighbours who worked offshore when they suddenly realised, “There but for the grace of God”; it was not until the Piper Alpha disaster that they realised just how dangerous the job was. It certainly changed for ever the offshore oil and gas industry, which woke up to the dangers of the business and how heavy a price had to be paid if safety was not embedded into everything it did. Here was a stark and tragic illustration of just how important a strict safety regime is, and how crucial it is to carry out maintenance in a timely and safe manner, in order to keep the workers safe. It is terrible that it took the worst offshore disaster in history to act as a wake-up call to an industry that had in many ways behaved like the Klondikers of the American west.
The biggest change, of course, was the implementation of all 106 recommendations of Lord Cullen’s report. All those recommendations were accepted by both the Government and the industry, and the offshore culture did change. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North, I think the most significant recommendation was that the Department of Energy could no longer be the regulator of the industry, and responsibility was passed to the Health and Safety Executive.
When I was a student, I worked in the purchasing department of Occidental’s headquarters in Aberdeen throughout the summer of 1977. Occidental was the operator of Piper Alpha, and it was found culpable by Lord Cullen’s inquiry. Despite that, no one was prosecuted. It was enough, however, for Occidental to disappear as a company and in a supreme irony, the building that housed Occidental in Aberdeen, where I had worked throughout that summer, became the home of the Health and Safety Executive, and it was renamed “Lord Cullen House”.
On Saturday morning, I attended the incredibly moving ceremony to mark the 25th anniversary in Hazlehead park at the Piper Alpha memorial garden in my constituency. There was much poignancy—a fly past of a Sea King helicopter, the seven minutes it took to read out all 167 names and the touching of the memorial. Some may say that marking the anniversary of such a disaster is somehow maudlin, wallowing in tragedy and should be only for those directly affected, but I am not one of them. The memorial is very important for the whole offshore industry. It acts as a stark reminder of just how important it is to take safety seriously, never to let standards slip and to listen to people who are expressing concerns about particular working practices. Memories do fade, and attention to a safety regime can fade too, so regular reminders of what can happen when safety is not at the forefront of people’s minds are necessary as well.
Although there has been a Step Change in Safety in the offshore industry and attention to safety is much more prominent now, it remains a dangerous industry. Lives were lost most recently in the helicopter crash of 2009 when 16 people died. Remembering events such as Piper Alpha forces those working in the industry to pause and to take stock of what improvements could be made, to shake out any complacency that may have crept in, to emphasise the need for regulations and to question whether there are enough inspectors of a high standard working in the HSE’s new energy division to keep an eye on the ageing infrastructure in the North sea.
The offshore industry is not only important to the economy and prosperity of the north-east of Scotland but is one of the main economic drivers of the UK economy. It is a crucial industry, but the wealth it creates should not come at the cost of the lives and well-being of the people who work in it. The 25th anniversary of tragic events such as Piper Alpha serves to remind us all of how high the human cost can be in making sure that the oil and gas on which we all depend in our daily lives keeps flowing.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing the debate.
No one who watched the BBC documentary on Tuesday evening or who saw the pictures at the time can have failed to feel tense and even horrified at what happened 25 years ago at the Piper Alpha platform. The horrors were evident, as was the tremendous courage of the people who worked on the platform or were involved in the rescue attempts.
Twenty-five years ago, I was in my third year working in public relations for British Gas in the northern region. I had been privileged to visit offshore platforms in the North and Irish seas—and it was a privilege to rub shoulders with those who lived on a pile of steel many miles offshore to find and extract the vital energy our country needed. I pay tribute to them. On Teesside, we built many of those steel piles utilising some of the most highly skilled workers in the world, and there are many hundreds from the area I represent helping to maintain and operate the platforms not just in British waters but all over the world.
I know that health and safety—words often ridiculed as the most dangerous in the English language in terms of being a barrier to advancement and profit—has come a long way in 25 years and is not something that is important just offshore. It is a way of life. So it worries me, and worries the people who put their lives at risk working offshore, that we could be moving a little bit backwards in our commitment not only to having the highest standards, but to monitoring and enforcing them.
The tragic events that befell the Piper Alpha platform remain, to this day, the world’s deadliest offshore oil disaster. While 61 survived the events of 6 July 1988, we cannot repeat enough the fact that 167 people did not. Eight of those who lost their lives were from the Teesside area, where my Stockton North constituency is located. So were some of the survivors.
Lord Cullen’s critical report in November 1990 changed the entire safety culture for offshore firms and workers alike. The 106 recommendations he made for improving safety in the North sea resulted in a root and branch overhaul being accepted and implemented by the Government and the sector. I am sure that Members will wish to join me in applauding the HSE for its work in developing and implementing that regulatory framework, but it needs to remain in a strong position to address the issues as they arise and to continue the work to prevent disasters.
I was horrified to hear the HSE announce at a meeting of the Offshore Industry Advisory Committee that the planned restructuring will involve the abolition of the offshore safety division, the very inspectorate set up on the recommendation of the Cullen inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster. On 1 April, as part of a Government exercise to restructure the HSE, the OSD was merged into a single division covering the whole of the UK energy sector. As Members may already be aware, on 5 June, I tabled early-day motion 192 in connection with that. I was appalled that that decision, which will pose a challenge to the significant and continuing progress made in offshore health and safety, was taken without a meeting first being held with industry bodies, the HSE and the trades unions to discuss the transfer of that highly specialised role.
In pushing through plans to restructure the HSE and abolish the OSD, the Government could be demonstrating a certain level of contempt not only for Lord Cullen’s recommendations, but for the safety of the 30,000 or so offshore oil and gas workers plying their specialist trades in the North sea. Arguably, those irresponsible actions fly in the face of the European directive introduced last month, which requires member states to nominate a “competent authority” covering offshore safety to implement the directive’s provisions on planning for responses and preventing major hazards. Prior to the reorganisation of the HSE, I would have thought that such a move was unnecessary for the UK, as that extra regulation would largely mirror the reality on the ground. Now, however, I am not so sure. Not having a body responsible solely for offshore safety seems to me to be incompatible with the spirit of this directive and flies in the face of the lessons to be taken from Piper Alpha.
Concerns at the cessation of a stand-alone, specialist offshore safety inspectorate within the HSE and the link to the safety of the work force have also been voiced by those active within the industry. A survey in May this year of 5,000 offshore workers found that 75% think that the decision to scrap the OSD will undermine safety, with 62% venturing that changes of this nature risk a repeat of Piper Alpha. This is not a risk we should be taking, particularly at a time when platforms and infrastructure are ageing and the risk of safety issues is potentially increasing. Indeed, when speaking with a constituent who was aboard the Brae B platform at the time of the Piper Alpha tragedy, it was made exceptionally clear to me that this move could undermine the fight against complacency in the industry.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this important debate.
As we have heard, 25 years ago 167 men lost their lives 120 miles off the coast of Aberdeen. My constituency of Inverclyde lost five men that night. They were fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, husbands and partners. It is said that my constituency is just one big village, so each and every community knew someone from Inverclyde who was lost on that dreadful night.
We can all recall where we were and what we were doing when we first heard the news of the disaster—it is one of those moments in time. I remember being on holiday back in July 1988 and finding myself frozen in front of the TV as I watched the unbelievable pictures on the screen. I knew then that men who had taken their skills into an industry whose business was extracting oil and gas in one of the most demanding of environments had paid for that with their lives.
The dangers could only be imagined at that time, but they came horribly true that night as the safety errors began to stack up. For the men lost that night who had families, those families will now be grown up and have families of their own, but each and every day they remember those who never returned from work. For these families, I dare say that 25 years has not passed quickly or easily, and for those who survived, the events of that night feel as if they happened yesterday.
If any Member missed the BBC 2 documentary on Tuesday evening, I encourage them to view it. It described the true terror and horror that night in the words of survivors. Even after 25 years, men were reduced to tears when recalling their escape and those they knew who had not escaped.
Each time we turn on our heating or ignite the gas to prepare our meals, I wonder if we ever give a moment’s thought to those who work in these extremely challenging environments. I wonder if we ever consider the level of risk under which these people, who apply their skills in cutting-edge exploration to find and retrieve oil and gas to meet our ever-increasing demand, are working.
So what went wrong that night? The causes of that terrible disaster are complex, yet they involve failure in some of the simplest procedures. Even though the initial explosion and fire were large, they should not have resulted in the total loss of the platform.
There seem to be two important reasons for the severe escalation in the events of that night. First, the Tartan and Claymore platforms continued to feed oil and gas to Piper in spite of the fact that they could see Piper was on fire. They did not stop the oil and gas flow because the communications systems had been destroyed in the explosion and
“no one told them to stop.”
The second reason for the severe escalation was that the pumps where the initial explosion occurred were not protected by a blast wall. Piper Alpha had originally been built in 1976 as an oil platform and was later converted to handle gas. The original structure had only firewalls. With the addition of gas, these should have been replaced with blast walls. Like so many disasters before, it would be an accumulation of errors that would bring about the Piper Alpha disaster.
What came out of the investigation afterwards were over 100 recommendations on safety improvements. Even basic health and safety procedures were scrutinised and found wanting. The men of Piper Alpha had paid a terrible price to emphasise yet again the need always to prioritise health and safety.
Twenty-five years have passed and we can be thankful that we have seen no other disasters of this scale in our offshore oil industry. However, complacency on safety in the environments we now look to explore could again exact a terrible price if we do not remember Piper Alpha. We have seen again evidence of concern with the BP environmental disaster in the deep waters of the gulf of Mexico, which reminds us that we are pushing the boundaries of oil and gas exploration and retrieval. The men of Piper Alpha should never be forgotten as those who paid the ultimate price; they were pioneers prepared to work in one of the most dangerous environments, so that we can enjoy an uninterrupted supply in our energy demand. The lasting legacy of Piper Alpha should be a legacy of dedication to good health and safety practices. We rightly remember the men of Piper Alpha in this Chamber today, but let us also remember the families who lost a loved one. May they continue to have strength and courage each day to bear their loss.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Last Saturday, I, attended, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, the remembrance service for the victims of Piper Alpha at Hazlehead park in Aberdeen, as did many hon. Members here, including the Secretary of State. As hon. Members have said, it was a moving tribute that reminded us of the full scale and depth of the tragedy, and we saw again the sorrow of the families left behind. In this House today, we offer them our deepest sympathy.
I, too, remember Piper Alpha and the pain that was felt throughout Scotland at the loss of those who had given so much for a vital Scottish industry. May I, like others, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), who has been a constant advocate for the victims of Piper Alpha and has consistently worked since then to ensure the safety and protection of the workers in the oil industry? He speaks with great authority and has gained much respect for his work on these matters.
We have heard from many hon. Members about the events of 6 July 1988, and no matter how many times we hear these stories, they do not get any easier. Most of us have waved a husband, wife, son or daughter off to work in the morning—it is part of the rhythm of life—but few have had to deal with them not returning. That is what happened to the families of the 167 men who died as a result of the disaster on the Piper Alpha platform. The families of those who work in the North sea already make the sacrifice of having long weeks with loved ones away from home, and they worry about them working in a potentially dangerous environment. The very least that those who work in hazardous conditions can expect is that we have done all we can to guarantee their safety. With Piper Alpha, and with the whole oil and gas sector at that point in the 1980s, that was, sadly, simply not the case.
When Lord Cullen was appointed to lead the inquiry into the disaster, the then Government gave him a wide-ranging mandate to investigate the sequence of events that night and to make recommendations about how to prevent a similar disaster in the future. As many hon. Members have said, he completed his inquiry in 1990, producing a comprehensive and far-reaching report, and we still owe him a debt of gratitude for the work he did to bring in a new safety regime for the North sea.
Before turning to Lord Cullen’s recommendations, I want to spend a moment or two revisiting some of the points made by hon. Members about the sequence of events on board the platform on that terrible night. As has been said, the first explosion happened at just after 10 pm, when there were 226 people on board. Most of the witnesses remember the final thing they heard before the explosion as the pips from the radio news and the start of “News at Ten”. The captain of the Lowland Cavalier, which was stationed 25 metres away from the platform, reported seeing the start of the explosion, which looked like “a gas burner”. He said that
“it seemed to go along the bottom of the platform like a light blue explosion or ignition.”
Between four minutes past 10 and eight minutes past 10, three mayday calls were sent from Piper Alpha. Mike Craig, former chair of what was the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee, was a radio operator on board another platform in July 1988, and he remembered hearing the first of the maydays from his radio room that night. He recalled recently that
“the radio operator on the Piper was heard sending a series of alarmed Mayday messages, and the whole horror of the disaster began to unfold. It was a long and harrowing night.”
At 20 past 10, another major explosion occurred on the platform when the Tartan gas riser ruptured, and the first men began jumping into the North sea from the north-west corner of the platform. By 10 to 11, there was a further massive explosion caused by the rupture of another gas riser, this time from MCP-01. That was the most powerful, projecting debris over 800 metres and with enough force to be felt more than a mile away.
All that time, the majority of the remaining survivors on the platform were following the instructions they had been given for emergencies, which were to gather in the accommodation unit and await rescue, but by this point no helicopter rescue was going to be possible. As Lord Cullen notes in his report:
“there was no organised escape. If leadership occurred in these escapes, it arose by individuals joining those who seemed to know their way around.”
Those actions probably saved the lives of the 28 men who escaped the accommodation block, but, as we know, many more did not make it out and when the block was salvaged later in 1988, 81 bodies were found inside. Just three hours after the first explosion, the centre of the platform had collapsed into the North sea and the few survivors who remained were picked up in the hours that followed.
The full horror of what happened on Piper Alpha can be seen from the many photographs that were taken that night. They show the platform engulfed in flames, fuelled by a constant stream of gas from the risers that did not properly shut down. The effect, according to one eyewitness, was like a giant “bunsen burner”.
The scale of the disaster called for a radical rethink of the safety measures in place in the North sea and that is what Lord Cullen provided. His 106 recommendations covered the safety regime, design of platforms, procedures for evacuations and the involvement of the work force. The safety case regime meant a rigorous system that elevated responsibility for safety on the platforms to board level. The move of the regulator from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive removed the conflict of interest caused by the Department being both regulator and beneficiary of the oil and gas extracted from the North sea.
Those wide-ranging changes in the oil and gas industry were absolutely necessary, but Members should be in no doubt that they could not have happened without the pressure brought to bear by the families of victims, their supporters and their trade unions.
Since then the industry has done much to mitigate risk and, as has been said, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of fatalities in the industry in recent years, but we must not be complacent. Concerns remain, particularly around the regulatory environment and the Government’s proposed changes to the Health and Safety Executive.
One of the linchpins of the Cullen report was the establishment of the regulator in a separate part of the HSE. After the Government’s proposed reorganisation of the HSE, the regulator for oil and gas will become part of a new energy division inside the organisation, ending the dedicated division for the first time since Lord Cullen’s recommendations were implemented. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) said, that was done with a lack of proper consultation with trade unions and with oil and gas companies.
In conclusion, will the Secretary of State assure the House that those changes will not affect the UK’s safety case regime and that that world-leading safety regime will not be affected? The increased risk that comes with operating ageing platforms and drilling in more hazardous environments and the events in the last year on the Cormorant Alpha platform, as well as the major gas leak from Total’s installation in the Elgin field in March 2012, mean that it is more important than ever that we do not forget the lessons of Piper Alpha. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he is satisfied with the inspection regime? What action has been taken on the issues identified in the interim report on key programme 4 and when will we find out when that report is to be published?
In particular, will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has had with the oil and gas industry regarding the HSE’s observation that when it comes to ageing infrastructure,
“more innovative work is required…to involve the workforce”
in health and safety issues.
Twenty-five years ago Piper Alpha took 167 lives. The youngest victim was just 19—Mark Ashton from Inverurie. The oldest was David Wiser at 65. They were all men with lives left to live. Speeches in honour of them in this place are a fitting memorial, but today we should rededicate ourselves to taking continued action to ensure that such a disaster never happens again. In that way, we pay due respect to the victims and their families.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
As the speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) has just underlined, the events on Piper Alpha 25 years ago this week remain deeply shocking. The legacy of the tragedy has been profound. It is right that in this House we remember those who died and focus on what we must do to ensure that nothing like that ever happens again.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this important debate through the Backbench Business Committee, supported by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and others across the House. They have all made hugely important contributions to the debate and I hope that in the brief period available I will be able to respond to a number of the points that have been raised.
As many have observed here this afternoon, the events of 25 years ago on the Piper Alpha platform were truly horrific—unimaginable, indeed. But the loss of 167 lives is something that families and communities across Scotland, the rest of the UK and overseas have to deal with every day, to this day. We must never forget those who lost their lives. On Saturday, like so many others, I had the honour of attending the service to mark the 25th anniversary of Piper Alpha at the memorial in Aberdeen’s Hazlehead park. Along with the First Minister, the Provost of Aberdeen, the shadow Scottish Secretary, local MPs and MSPs, and many industry representatives, I was privileged to join hundreds of family members and others in the act of remembrance.
The service led by Chaplain Gordon Craig was a moving and fitting tribute to those who lost their lives on 6 July 1988. The floral tributes from the families were many and varied. All were beautiful and all were a powerful reminder of the pain and loss so many have suffered. The flypast by the RAF Sea King helicopter reminded us of the work of the emergency services. The roll-call of those who lost their lives was a haunting reminder of the human cost of the disaster. The garden of remembrance, fully restored in time for the anniversary, provided a beautiful setting for the service. The restoration work in the gardens now allows the memorial to be set off appropriately.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene. May I ask him a question in relation to the emergency services? The Royal Air Force played a very important part in responding to the tragedy, including the loitering of a Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, which performed vital tasks. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the UK is now the only North sea country not to have a maritime aircraft capability, and could he explain how the tasks that were performed by the Nimrod 25 years ago could be matched, should there ever be a tragic accident again?
Michael Moore
I join the hon. Gentleman in the tribute that I pay to the RAF of that time and since for the work that it does to maintain our maritime safety and in so many different guises. If he does not mind, I will not revisit the debate, which I appreciate he has sought to have on many occasions about maritime safety, other than to say that we remain thoroughly committed to the highest possible standards of maritime safety, as I hope the rest of my remarks will underline.
Before and after the service on Saturday we all had the chance to speak to some of the survivors and families and those, such as the social workers, who have been by their side all these years. That was a humbling part of the proceedings—the quiet dignity of the survivors; the shared stories of the families; the determination that the legacy of Piper Alpha will be an endless quest for the highest possible safety standards.
The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) underlined that with her speech, highlighting the tireless efforts of Gavin Cleland and other family members over the years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) rightly focused on the safety culture that needs to run right the way through all organisations. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) stressed the importance of ensuring that new and young entrants understand the safety culture. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) focused on the industry’s efforts, particularly at the recent Piper 25 conference, to ensure that serious impetus is given to structural safety and that many other aspects are not forgotten.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) rightly underlined the importance of the memorial in her constituency, which looks fantastic. By the time the roses are out, it will be a truly special place. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), like the hon. Member for Waveney, highlighted the fact that this is not just about Scotland; it is a broader tragedy. He rightly made some challenging comments about the Health and Safety Executive, to which I will return shortly. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), repeating some of the earlier themes, highlighted the extreme complexity of the series of problems that occurred that tragic night. The hon. Member for Glasgow East gave a graphic reminder of the disaster and its legacy. I hope to deal with the points she raised in the remaining time available.
As well as focusing on the families, as was right, every contribution we heard today also focused on safety. In my role as Secretary of State, I have seen at first hand over the past three years the work of many companies in north-east Scotland that are at the forefront of the industry. The people who work for them are at the front line, and all the way back through the supply chain it matters that safety counts at every turn. The industry employs over 29,000 people offshore at any one time and supports hundreds of thousands more jobs onshore, and £11.2 billion was paid in tax on production in 2011-12, so it is really important to the country.
The industry faces challenges in the years ahead as we seek to access reserves that are becoming ever harder to reach. We are rightly focused on ensuring that the correct fiscal regime is in place to drive the necessary investment to maximise the returns from the UK continental shelf and underpin future decommissioning, but that will count for nothing unless we maintain the strongest possible safety regime for those working offshore. We need to ensure the viability and security of that key sector of the UK economy, but every bit as important is the protection of the individuals who work in it.
We have heard many observations this afternoon about the Cullen inquiry. We still owe Lord Cullen a huge debt for his recommendations, which have been implemented in full. A revolution took place in North sea safety as a result of the lessons learnt from the Piper Alpha catastrophe. We have a duty to maintain the highest possible standards. Only recently the European Commission published its directive on oil and gas safety and environmental measures. It borrows heavily from the United Kingdom’s regime, which we welcome. We are committed to meeting the implementation deadline in July 2015 and will immediately be working with the industry, the work force and other interested parties to develop the necessary legislation. We envisage the formal consultation taking place from the spring of 2014.
Piper Alpha might have revolutionised North sea safety, but Deepwater Horizon, the Cormorant oilfield and the Elgin leaks remind us that there is never any room for complacency, and that must begin in government. We recognise that this is not just about action from the industry; it is also about the role we must play at every turn. Regulators must share lessons and evolve to meet current and future challenges.
A number of Members mentioned the Health and Safety Executive and the creation of a new energy division that will bring together its offshore division, its gas and pipeline specialists, both onshore and offshore, and its mines inspectorate. At the heart of these changes is our desire to enable the HSE to meet the wider challenges of emerging and new energy technologies but also to underpin the core efforts that we must continue to make in the North sea and the offshore sector.
Our approach to inspections will not change. We will still have the proactive programme, as in the past, and that is important. The HSE has also been given ministerial approval to recruit additional offshore staff and to widen the range of recruitment methods to maximise the chances of identifying suitable recruits. Hon. Members have made detailed points and broader points about health and safety, and I will ask the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), to address them after this debate.
Another issue that has been raised is the impact of asset life extension on safety in the North sea, and it is right that we should turn our attention to that. In the 2008 debate mentioned by the right hon. Member for Stirling, there was a commitment to review the key programme 3 report on asset integrity, which had shown some less than satisfactory outcomes. The review found that the industry had allocated considerable new resource and effort to improve offshore assets, supported by evidence of good progress in addressing more general issues identified by the KP3 work. The findings of the review show that we all need to recognise the ongoing need to keep our focus on the assets that we have. That is why it is so essential that the HSE-initiated KP4, the ageing and life extension inspection programme, also comes to fruition. That programme will run until December this year before finalising its findings. An interim report was published last autumn and we aim to publish the final report as soon as possible after it has concluded.
Throughout the debate, Members have rightly focused on the role of the work force in the North sea. We continue to seek the highest level of engagement with the work force at every turn, particularly in relation to safety. Nobody is closer to those hazards or understands them better than those who work on the different platforms and installations, and we have to ensure that we work closely with them in designing and maintaining our safety regime. However, as Members have highlighted, safety culture cannot be achieved simply through legislation. It is a combination of many factors, including leadership and basic competence that translates into a set of behaviours at all levels in an organisation. That is why it is so important that the industry keeps working with all its different stakeholders to ensure that safety is at the heart of every regime.
I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee and to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for bringing forward this debate in this particular week. It is so important that we remember the tragedy of 25 years ago. Above all, we must not forget the lessons of the past. We must not forget those who lost their lives on Piper Alpha. We must continue to take the action necessary to ensure that safety is at the heart of everything in the North sea.
Mr Doran
First, I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. It is an important debate not only, as has been said, for those of us in the north-east who are in direct contact with the industry, but for those whose constituents work in the industry. Those workers come from all over the country and from many other countries. As everyone has recognised, it is a significant industry that makes a huge contribution to the Exchequer.
Two thoughts occur to me. First, it is always helpful to have a debate about the reality of health and safety and the consequences for those who work in any industry of poor safety systems, a lack of safety systems, or poor management of safety systems. We have been talking about the awful reality in, yes, an admittedly extreme case. Away from the cauldron of party and ideological differences, we have made the important point that health and safety is fundamental, as Bob Keiller said and as many others involved in the North sea are recognising, as are, I hope, people throughout the country.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) reminded me of Gavin Cleland, whose son tragically died in the incident. I first met Gavin in the Shadow Cabinet Room after it happened. He was part of a group I had brought down to London because they wanted to meet the various politicians involved, including the then Secretary of State for Energy. One of Gavin’s ambitions was to campaign for a prosecution, because that is one of the key things that is missing from the case. Despite all the evidence in the Cullen report and everywhere else, there was no prosecution. I am not calling for a prosecution at this stage, but at a time when many historical cases are being looked at in retrospect, such as Hillsborough and events in Northern Ireland, re-examining the Piper Alpha case is worth considering. What holds me back, however, is the fact that that might be difficult for a lot of those who were involved, especially the survivors and the families—
Business without Debate
Franchising of Stockton Crown Post Office
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of Stockton-on-Tees and surrounding areas in opposition to the Post Office’s proposal to downgrade our local Crown post office. It was signed by many hundreds of people over only a few days.
The petition states:
The Petition of the people of Stockton-on-Tees and surrounding areas,
Declares that the Petitioners totally oppose the franchising of Stockton Crown Post Office and believe the proposal will severely damage the provision of services.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call upon the Post Office to withdraw their plans and retain Stockton Crown Post Office.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001195]
Planning Guidance (Children's Homes)
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
Over the past couple of years, there has been an increase in public awareness and understanding of the myriad problems facing children and young people who live in children’s homes. I welcome the Government’s recent initiatives to improve the quality of care in children’s homes and the clampdown on the high number of children placed miles away from home, as well as the improved collection of data on missing children. I am also pleased that the suitability of an area is to be taken into account before a children’s home is allowed to register because that will stop clusters of children’s homes springing up in run-down hot spots where there might be drugs problems or a bail hostel housing released sexual offenders.
A joint parliamentary inquiry by the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, and the all-party group on looked-after children and care leavers, which I chaired last year, revealed that a significant minority of vulnerable young people living in children’s homes are targeted for sexual exploitation. Recent high-profile court cases, such as the Oxford case, have also highlighted that problem.
I shall focus on planning legislation in my speech because it is the final piece of the jigsaw on children’s homes and tackling child sexual exploitation. I also want to explore how we can marry the Department for Education’s new and admirable proposals to stop children’s homes springing up in the wrong areas with the fact that existing planning laws do not specify that that is a material planning consideration.
The national minimum care standards for children’s homes, on which Ofsted bases its inspections, state that children’s homes should be located in safe areas. The inspection should assess whether the
“home’s location and design promotes children’s health, safety and wellbeing and avoids factors such as excessive isolation and areas that present significant risks to children”.
The Department for Education’s new proposals, which are currently subject to consultation, take that further by including a requirement for the providers of children’s homes to carry out a risk assessment of the area in partnership with the police and the local authority. Registration will be refused or suspended if the area is deemed unsafe. In the light of those new proposals, I argue that we need fresh planning guidance to reflect the fact that a home deemed by the police and Ofsted to be in an unsafe area will not get registration and to state that that needs to be a material consideration at the planning stage.
It is crucial that planning guidance is re-examined; otherwise we will have a crazy situation similar to that recently brought to my attention in Birmingham, where the planning committee is considering a planning application to open a children’s home in an area renowned for prostitution, drug dealing and serious crime—a red light area. I find this staggering. The papers for the planning committee reveal that there has been a history of young girls in this area being groomed for prostitution, and that it even led to the closure of another children’s home on a nearby road. The concern is that opening a new children’s home in the same area would result in the same risks of vulnerable children in care being targeted by sexual predators. There have been an enormous number of objections, including from the police and the cabinet member for families and children, yet the council officers recommended that permission be granted because there are no planning grounds to refuse consent.
The decision clearly flies in the face of the Department for Education’s new proposals and illustrates my point exactly that the planning guidance from the Government needs changing. Of course, I accept that the planning system is separate from the child protection system, but it is hard for the public to understand how planning permission can be granted for a children’s home when there are so many objections on child protection grounds. I also understand that planning authorities have a lot of discretion and are able to turn down planning applications on any grounds that they think are appropriate and that are linked to local and regional planning policy.
I have been aware of planning problems for a number of years. On 1 February 2010, I held an Adjournment debate on planning applications for children’s homes. When I first worked as a social worker in Stockport in the 1980s, small, family-type care homes provided a family environment for quite young children, and the carers were often a resident couple. Now, younger children are placed with foster families and the young people placed in children’s homes are older with difficult and challenging behaviour. They often come into care with multiple problems and complex needs.
Stockport has 34 privately owned children’s homes—one of the highest numbers in the country. There are 241 children living in children’s homes in Stockport, but only 26 of them actually come from Stockport.
Stockport council recently held a scrutiny review of the relationship between its agencies, private children’s homes and the police. The review highlights concerns about current planning regulations and the proliferation of children’s homes in residential areas. It recommends changes to planning policy so that the number of existing homes in an area can be a material consideration at the planning stage of a new application for a children’s home. That arises out of concerns for the implications on local resources of children with complex needs being placed in the area from out of the borough.
When I first raised the matter of planning guidance for children’s homes in 2010, I was primarily concerned that certificates of lawful development were being issued for children’s homes opening in family homes where I felt if would have been more appropriate for planning permission to have been sought as a class C2 use rather than class C3.
The current rules relating to when a change of use for a building does and does not require planning permission are set out in The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Use class 3 is a dwelling house occupied by a single person or people living together as a family. It can also include not more than six residents living together as a single household, including a household where care is provided for residents. Use class 2 is for residential institutions and applies when there are more than six occupants, or when the occupants are not considered to be living together as a single household. The issue of when planning permission is required for a children’s home is still a matter to be determined depending on the circumstances of each individual case, which will turn on whether a “material change of use” has occurred from class C3 use to class C2.
In 2010, an appeal was made to the Planning Inspectorate because of a failure to secure a certificate of lawful use for a children’s home in Stockport. The planning inspector refused the appeal and concluded that the residents could not be said to be living together as a single household. It said that there was a lockable office and other rooms and that this was more akin to institutional, rather than normal family home life. He also said that the residential use of the property by troubled children could bring more disturbance than most family homes. That, among other factors, led him to conclude that there had been a material change of use.
A paper issued by the planning services department at Leeds city council in December 2012 entitled, “Guidance Note—Planning Permission for Children’s Homes C2 or C3”, said that the problem of whether a children’s home would fall into category C3 could turn on the definition of a single household. It quoted a North Devon judgment on the definition of a single household. Justice Collins said that it was unrealistic to expect children to look after themselves in a single household. It clarified that carers who provided 24-hour care but were not resident could not be regarded as living together in a household. The paper concluded:
“A children’s home run on shift patterns could not be considered to fall within Class C3…because clearly, this is not occupation of a dwelling house by a single person or people living together as a family.”
The judge said, however:
“Although it may sound somewhat illogical, it is accepted…that, notwithstanding that this may fall within Class C2, rather than Class C3, nonetheless planning permission may not be required if the change of use was not a material change of use.”
The courts have held that whether a change of use is material or not is a matter of fact and degree for the local planning authority to determine, having considered the individual facts of the case.
On children’s homes, the present use categories, C3 and C2, create confusion, and as the judge said, it seems illogical that having established that a proposed children’s home is in use class 2, which one would think would require a planning application for a change of use from class 3, it would then have to be established that the change of use was material and therefore needed a planning application. This adds further confusion. I accept that planning is a judicial procedure based on case law, but I think there is a lack of clarity from Parliament. I think the Minister will appreciate that my constituents also find it extremely confusing.
The confusion about material change of use could be sorted out by having a different use category for children’s homes, spelling out how a children’s home is defined, including, for example, rotating shift workers, visits by therapeutic staff and lockable offices. I understand, however, that the Government are reluctant to introduce new use classes, so my other suggestion would be the issuing of new planning guidance saying what constitutes a children’s home. However, the other issue is about when planning permission for a children’s home should be refused. I hope he agrees that it cannot be right that a children’s home can be recommended for planning permission in an area that is clearly unsuitable for vulnerable young people.
I would like to see planning guidance on when it would be appropriate to refuse planning permission—for example, when there are concerns about the safety of children because of activities in the area, such as prostitution or drugs, or where there is already a proliferation of children’s homes, which has implications for local resources. As I said, Stockport has one of the highest numbers of private children’s homes in the country. There is concern that the geographic distribution of children’s homes—more than 25% of all such homes are located in the north-west—means that children are being placed many hundreds of miles from their own areas. A change in planning guidance would also help to ensure a better distribution of children’s home to meet children’s needs.
Guidance would be extremely useful, because as the Minister knows, Government planning guidance is regarded as a material consideration in planning decisions. It is right, in the interests of the welfare of young people in children’s homes, as well as the wider community, that the suitability of the location be considered. In effect, I am calling for the kind of planning guidance issued for development on green-belt land, where the Government state what they would consider to be an inappropriate development, which is used as a material consideration in planning applications. If it can be done to protect our countryside, it can be done to protect our children.
That would also mean that the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government would be singing from the same hymn sheet. Under the new Department for Education proposals, which say that children’s homes should not be allowed to open in an unsafe area, it seems unlikely that the children’s home I mentioned would get registration. We therefore have the ludicrous situation where planning permission is recommended for a children’s home near roads that have been closed by the council to stop kerb crawling. New Government planning guidance that spelt out that the safety of an area to vulnerable children is a material factor to be considered would ensure that such a situation does not arise.
I hope the Minister will agree that it is time to clear up the confusion and issue new planning guidance on children’s homes to bring clarity to this unsatisfactory situation. The Government have—quite rightly—given priority to tackling child sexual exploitation and improving protection for children in our care, and I hope the Minister will respond positively to my suggestions, which are aimed at engaging his Department in achieving that admirable objective.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)
I thank the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for securing this important debate on planning guidance for children’s homes. As she said, providing safe accommodation for looked-after children must be a priority for all local authorities. Sadly, we are all too well aware of the outcomes for young people who have been let down by the care services. She has been a real champion for children in care, and I know she speaks with authority on these issues.
The hon. Lady raised a number of issues about the provision of children’s homes, some of which I know are based on specific cases. I hope she will understand that as such cases are subject to further consideration and planning decisions, I will not be able to discuss those particular issues, and I apologise in advance that my comments will cover such matters in their generality. I hope to show, however, that her proposed solution to these issues, and particularly the creation of a new class, is not the most appropriate way forward, and I believe that the issues and concerns she raises can be dealt with outside the planning system.
On the location of children’s homes, although we must give priority to the needs of vulnerable children, we must also consider the needs of the community in which they live. Government policy on looked-after children seeks to ensure that all children’s homes are properly run and situated in locations that take into account the safety and protection of the children living there.
The hon. Lady eloquently outlined the planning arrangements, and I hope she will forgive me if I go through them to make things absolutely clear. Use classes orders operate by grouping together land uses that have similar impact into “classes”. The order—this is the specific point—allows changes between certain land uses where the impact would be minimal, without the need for planning permission. Change of use is allowed within the same class, and there are cases, as the hon. Lady rightly says, where movement between classes is permitted. For example, premises currently used as a restaurant, which is class A3, could be converted to a shop—class A1—without seeking planning permission. That is because the impact of a shop on the surrounding area is likely to be the same or less than that of a restaurant.
The hon. Lady suggested the creation of a new use class category for children’s homes. The use classes order is intended to be deregulatory, however, allowing changes of use with minimal impact on land use and amenity. That removes the time and expense of making planning applications, and allows local authorities to concentrate their planning resources where they are most needed.
Under the use classes order, children’s homes—depending on their particular type—can either be in an ordinary family home, which as the hon. Lady rightly says is classed as C3, or in a dedicated residential institution, classed as C2. It is for local planning authorities to decide on a case-by-case basis into which class a particular use falls. I would expect most children’s homes to fall into the C2 category, which is the same class as other residential institutions such as nursing homes or training centres. Some smaller children’s homes could fall into family house class C3, which provides for small groups of people living together as a single household, including cases where there is an element of care.
When a change of use happens, the local planning authority must consider whether a material change has occurred that would require planning permission. It is an important principle that the test for planning permission being required is whether a material change of use occurs.
The hon. Lady has drawn attention to the need to consider carefully the location of a home for looked-after children in relation to the needs of those children and young people, and the host community. I absolutely agree that such considerations should be carefully applied, but I do not accept that such consideration can take place only in the context of a planning application, because planning is concerned primarily with the use of land and the effect on amenity of an alteration or change to the use of land. Planning is not intended to deal with problems such as antisocial behaviour by occupants or the location of a home in respect of other children’s homes.
The national planning policy framework clearly sets out that local authorities should work with public health leads and health organisations to understand and take account of the health status and needs of the local population, including expected future changes. It sets out the Government’s key priorities for the planning system, but we have given local authorities the freedom and flexibilities to make decisions locally about how best to meet their development needs. Therefore, we do not believe it would be right to set out specific planning guidance on this issue.
However, I agree with the hon. Lady that we must do more to ensure that all looked-after children in children’s homes are given the best possible support. In particular, they must be kept safe from exploitation and abuse. We have seen in the recent court cases involving children in Rochdale and Oxford that we have not always been able to do that. She mentioned the recent changes announced by the Government to improve the quality of children’s homes. I thank her for all the work she has done, through the all-party group and the Department for Education’s expert working group, which have greatly influenced the proposals.
The proposed reforms announced last month by the children’s Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson)—will lead to a much sharper focus on the quality of children’s homes and stricter measures to hold local authorities and care homes to account for their decisions, which is the critical point. We are therefore introducing rules so that Ofsted will allow new homes to be opened only in safe areas where they are run by competent providers. We will also ensure that homes already open in less safe areas demonstrate that they can protect children; otherwise, Ofsted will close them. As the hon. Lady said, the Department for Education is seeking views on various changes to the regulatory framework, including requiring the registered manager of a children’s home to complete an annual risk assessment of the area where the home is located. That work would require liaison with the local police and the local authority children’s services responsible for safeguarding.
The Department is also consulting on a parallel change to the Care Standards Act 2000 (Registration) (England) Regulations 2010—known as the registration regulations 2010—to require the potential provider of a children’s home to complete a risk assessment of the area in which they plan to operate and a list of safeguards regarding how they will mitigate any identified risks. That would include the sort of issues raised by the hon. Lady about prostitution, drug dealing and serious crime. The potential provider would be required to liaise with the police and the local authority about any concerns that might impact on the welfare of children, relating to the area where it is proposed to open a children’s home.
There will be a further requirement that the risk assessment and a list of safeguards are forwarded to Ofsted, so that it can consider whether the home has carried out an appropriate risk assessment and put in place adequate standards and safeguards. If Ofsted considers that a children’s home has not complied with those duties, registration could be refused or suspended. I hope that will reassure the hon. Lady that we are putting in place the necessary measures to ensure that the location of children’s homes and the safety of children will become a much more important consideration in the registration of homes than it has been in the past. We also want to reduce the risk of exploitation and harm by reducing the number of children placed a long way from their home—a point she rightly raised—and by addressing the quality of support provided in all homes.
Our changes will therefore include strengthening the current regulatory framework in respect of local authorities placing very vulnerable children at significant distance from their home. We know that such children are more likely to go missing from care and be at risk of exploitation. Proposals include a requirement for a senior local authority official to sign off all placements that are at a significant distance from the child’s home. They also require the placing authority to consult with the area authority prior to placement to ensure that it can meet the full range of the child’s needs.
The proposals set out that all homes should have an environment and culture to support positive behaviour that all staff understand and implement; and that homes should meet children’s emotional and behavioural needs as set out in their care plan. Such support can prevent vulnerable children from being exploited or getting involved in crime. We are consulting on plans so that children’s homes work much more closely with police and local authorities to prevent children going missing. We are strengthening the rules so that local authorities take decisive action where children are at risk of going missing, especially when they are placed away from home.
In conclusion, we fully agree with the hon. Lady’s aims, but do not believe that changing planning law is the best way to achieve them. The changes we are introducing to the statutory framework for children’s homes will, we believe, achieve the required outcomes that she is seeking. My Department receives numerous requests to change use classes orders. Some want to make it easier to change use, while others want to see greater restrictions. I think that we probably have the balance right at the moment, but I give the hon. Lady the assurance that we will continue to keep under review the use classes order in general, and we will continue to keep under review the issue of planning guidance, particularly in relation to the point she raised.
I end by saying a huge thank you to the hon. Lady for securing the debate and for the work she has done to help influence significantly important changes in Government policy. She should be congratulated and thanked.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Social Care Reform (Disabled People)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I was pleased when I heard that you were chairing this debate, Ms Clark, as I know that you have strong views on this issue. Most of us ought to have strong views on it.
In everyday conversation, we tend to use the word “ability” to indicate that we believe that someone has a special talent. We mean that someone has the ability to play the piano or tennis or to speak in public rather well. That is an inaccurate way to use the word, but it can sometimes lead to the false view that a disabled person is seeking special attention. We have heard that for ourselves: “They’re always after something.” Such disparaging remarks are often made. The reality is that that is simply not true. What disabled people seek constantly is not special attention at all—as a good liberal, I would say this, wouldn’t I?—but the basic human right to a normal life.
Of course, that does not mean that people with disabilities cannot ascend the heights and cannot have unbelievable special abilities—we know that all too well, and history is full of countless examples—but the starting place must be the basic human right to access all life’s opportunities, such as work, leisure and family, things that non-disabled people far too often take for granted. As a good left-of-centre liberal, I believe that the state has an important role to play in supporting people, not necessarily through direct state provision but by helping them attain their rights.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me time for this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) for her support, as this debate is co-sponsored. I also congratulate her on the work that she has done on the issue—I am sure that she will refer to it—as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on local government.
I thank Scope for the great support that I have received so far on this campaign and for the partnership work that we are carrying out in Bradford, where we are preparing at this very moment for the launch of the “Bradford Cares” campaign, part of the wider national Scope campaign “Britain Cares”. The launch will take place next Monday in Bradford, and I am delighted to say that the former Care Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) will be speaking.
To add more power and force to our arguments when bidding to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate, we were rightly asked to justify the time devoted. We were given eligibility criteria, including topicality and importance. As for topicality, we know that social care is the largest remaining area of reform for the coalition Government in this Parliament, and the Care Bill is on its way through the legislative process. The crucial issue of eligibility, to which I will return, is extremely topical, not least for people in Bradford, where the council is one of the few remaining local authorities to use the moderate level of need when assessing support. However, the council is consulting as we speak with a view to moving to assessments of substantial need. That consultation will last until 4 August.
As for importance, we must acknowledge that much of the debate about meeting and funding care needs has focused on the elderly. We understand the reason perfectly, but we must also remember that one third of care users are working-age disabled adults. That one third equates to more than 500,000 people between the ages of 18 and 64. It is a big issue for us as a nation, and the numbers are projected to increase substantially. In addition, working-age adults have considerably different aspirations from the social care system. They are not more important, but they are different and must be clearly understood when developing social policy.
A report called “The other care crisis: Making social care funding work for disabled adults in England” was published in January this year by Scope, the National Autistic Society, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Sense. The report highlights the fact that, since 2008, there has been a constant move from moderate to substantial needs as the basis for assessment in local authorities. Since 2008, the number of people using care, at a time when we know need is increasing, has fallen by at least 90,000, or one in six of all people using care. We also know that there is a shortfall of £1.2 billion in the funding required to support social care for working-age disabled adults.
The report states that if social care reforms go ahead as planned, a further 100,000 people or more risk losing vital care and support. I know the Minister, and I know that if that is true, it will not be acceptable him. I am willing to admit that all the organisations that I mentioned and I must be wrong in our fears, but the trouble is that I cannot see how, which is why I wanted to have this debate.
On the first page of the briefing prepared for this debate by the Library, there is an article by Baroness Grey-Thompson, who apparently can see that we are all wrong. She states:
“The Chancellor announced a £3.8 billion investment”—
I know that the Minister will refer to it—
“including £2 billion of new money, in social care—the support disabled and older people get from their council to get up, get washed and dressed and live independently.”
My understanding is that setting the national eligibility threshold at the substantial level of need would mean that that was simply untrue. People would not get that support. The needs that Baroness Grey-Thompson refers to would not be met.
I know that the Minister will say that local authorities can provide support at what levels they choose. They could provide it, as many did for many years, at the moderate level of need, but the trend is moving in the opposite direction and at a rapid rate of knots, hence the figures that I gave earlier, which are getting smaller and smaller, on the number of people receiving support.
We all understand the need to avoid the existing confusion with the so-called postcode lottery—the differing levels of support in different parts of the country—but I must ask a question. What is the value of having the certainty, wherever I live in the country, of being guaranteed a level of support that fails to provide me with my basic human right to live an independent life? That is not a freedom: to be told that I cannot have the life that I deserve. It is not an improvement to provide the certainty of not knowing what care I will get, which we have at present, with the certainty of getting almost no support at all. I know the Minister and that that is not his intention, so I am in the Chamber today not to bury Caesar—not to criticise my hon. Friend—but to understand better how the planned reforms will work. I cannot work them out; we cannot work them out; and we desperately need to know.
I read the discussion document on the draft national minimum eligibility threshold for adult care and support and I do not get it. To me, there seem to be four crucial elements to the provision of care and support, and there may be more. First, without sufficient funding, there will be a problem, no matter how effectively and efficiently we deploy the available resources. Funding will always be vital. The other three parts are integration, eligibility and the actual care services provided.
We are told that £3.8 billion—£2 billion of new money—is there to help with that crucial integration, but good integration will improve the efficiency and quality of care and support at any level of funding. If we were given 1p, through good integration we could spend that penny better than by being disorganised and chaotic. Eligibility, however, will determine the level at which a person can access the wonderfully improved care and support that we will achieve through integration. Eligibility is the gateway, and the integration can take place at any level of care. We could remove all the postcode lottery uncertainty by setting the eligibility level at critical and yet integrate wonderfully, but how would the improved integration help the hundreds of thousands of people whose needs fall below the threshold level? I do not get it.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
If my hon. Friend were to go somewhere such as Torbay, where completely integrated teams of health and care workers have been created, he would see that those teams can together make rational judgments about the people who need care and support, by identifying the individuals most likely to end up in hospital and allocating a worker from an integrated team to support them. I absolutely recognise that the eligibility criteria play a role, but the joint team can assess the needs in the area and do whatever is necessary to maintain people’s health and to prevent the deterioration of health and people ending up in hospital. Integration seems to be essential to what he seeks to achieve.
Mr Ward
It is not an either/or, or a route from one to the other. We can integrate at any level of support, and greater integration would certainly improve the system with greater economies and, we hope, greater equality of provision. If the Government had planned to introduce a whole new system and remove all criteria—looking simply at people and their needs—I could possibly see, with a wonderfully well funded and integrated system, how that might work. What is planned, however, is not that but an eligibility threshold against which people will be assessed. At that point, even with the washing, the getting dressed and all the other things that Baroness Grey-Thompson was talking about, the decision might be made that the person is simply not at the required level—the threshold—to be given support.
In the foreword to the discussion document, the Minister stated:
“We are establishing a system that will place a greater focus on prevention, which will mean that the care and support needs of people will be considered earlier than is currently the case.”
That is good, and it must refer to the early identification of potential future needs through improved integration. From my own background—in particular, in the area of children with special needs—I am well aware that early identification, so that support can be given, even from mainstream provision, can stop those needs developing to a level at which additional funding and support are required.
I understand all that, but a working-age adult can, for example, have a stroke—something that we saw at the Stroke Association event yesterday—and move, within a day, from being perfectly healthy to having needs that might even be classed as critical. On the direction, however, this is not about progression for many working-age disabled people, because they may move from critical or substantial down to moderate, but about how someone who has had a stroke perhaps may never move back to a point at which support is not required and live a truly independent live. The danger is that such people might go down, in terms of the needs as assessed, and fall out of the system. Where will they then end up? Later, at greater cost, they will go back into the system. That is the concern.
The discussion document refers to the creation of a working group to take matters forward. My problem is that it also states that developing and evaluating the research carried out by the working group may take three to four years. Too many disabled people, however, may quite literally not have that long.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark.
I warmly welcome this Back-Bench debate, which allows us the opportunity to discuss the findings of the joint all-party group’s important report on social care reform for working-age disabled people. I congratulate my colleague, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), on securing the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow him.
I take a moment to thank the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), the Baroness Campbell of Surbiton and the all-party disability group for joining me and the all-party local government group in writing our report, “Promoting Independence, Preventing Crisis”. I also thank Scope for all its superb help in facilitating the inquiry.
Social care reform is a cross-party concern and provides a clear example, notwithstanding what has recently been splashed across the media, of how all-party groups do good work in Parliament. I applaud the Government’s commitment to investment in social care, which they set out in the 2013-15 spending review—£3.8 billion is not a small sum. As our joint inquiry underlined, the social care system has faced decades of underfunding, and the Government’s understanding of the need to address the problem effectively should be recognised.
It was extremely important to me to be involved in the all-party group’s inquiry. For the first time, we managed to bring together the voices of working-age disabled people with those of local authorities. That represented a valuable and timely opportunity to continue to build on the Government’s positive vision for social change, and to develop the positive disability strategy, “Fulfilling potential: making it happen”.
We want to bring the focus of social care on to working-age disabled people. I praise the Government’s ambition to deliver a care system that is capable of meeting the needs of both the older population and working-age disabled people. The plans to improve integration and closer working between health and social care bodies have been a positive development. However, in the Chancellor’s speech on the spending review no reference was made specifically to the one third of care users who are working-age disabled people. I hope that the Minister will confirm the Government’s commitment that the purpose of moving the money from the NHS to local government was to meet not only older people’s needs but those of disabled people of working age. We must ensure that this group remains in the spotlight when reforming the care system.
I want to reiterate the importance of addressing the national eligibility criteria that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East raised. Despite the intention that the current fair access to care services criteria should be a broadly national framework, councils have considerable leeway in setting the threshold for eligibility. That has resulted in significant variation throughout the country. Moreover, councils have been tightening their own local eligibility criteria in response to budget pressures. That is completely understandable, but the implications are that people are living with the fear that they will lose their support. The new eligibility framework and national threshold proposed in the Care Bill will therefore go a long way towards alleviating the lottery of care, and will be vital in ensuring more clarity and consistency in the provision of care for disabled people in England.
The Government published the draft regulations for the national eligibility threshold on 28 June and confirmed in the accompanying document their intention to set the threshold at a level equivalent to “substantial” in the current FACS system. People tell us that that means that, for more than 100,000 working-age disabled people, the bar has been set too high to receive the care and support they need to live independent lives. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
Norman Lamb
I reiterate that the proposed eligibility level set out in the document to which my hon. Friend referred would maintain for the vast majority of people what already exists within their local authority area and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said, do absolutely nothing to prevent other authorities that choose to be more generous from maintaining that level at “moderate”, as currently exists in Bradford and about 15 other places around the country. Nothing will take away from anyone what they already have as an entitlement.
Heather Wheeler
I thank the Minister for his intervention.
I turn to what social care means to our constituents when real help is given. It means that someone can get up, and be washed, dressed and fed each morning. Those are basic, everyday actions that many of us take for granted. When that level of support is offered comprehensively, the person may hold down not only genuine social interaction but employment. Real social care may also prevent social isolation. For example, a member of the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society has said:
“I feel overly tired most days. Outside of work my participation in activities has been reducing. I don’t spend as much time as I used to socialising with friends and family. I used to be very active and go out in the evenings but now I have early nights instead.”
It is brilliant that, with help, that person feels able to remain in the work force, but we must ensure that the care offered is not at the cost of other factors, such as mental health or well-being.
Well-being is an unambiguous concern of the Government and is clearly addressed through the well-being principle in clause 1 of the Care Bill. That reflects the fact that it is, first and foremost, a human issue. The principle is the thread that runs through the whole of the Bill and ensures that the care system not only delivers basic support but promotes disabled people’s independence, allowing them to realise their potential by participating more fully in their communities. That is a bold vision for the future and will truly revolutionise the care system.
It has been stated that for some people social care means
“being able to have the same aspirations as others. I hold down a job, live independently and I am able to live life in the way that I choose. I believe this is a fundamental right, but it has also given me an immense sense of freedom and satisfaction as I am able to contribute to society.”
Those great quotes come from our inquiry.
Well-being and independence also means providing support when an individual moves from one local authority area to another. The Care Bill should ensure that the receiving authority has a duty to ensure that any social care provision for an individual will ensure the same outcomes as those of their previous local authority. I stress to the Minister the importance of that portability factor to our constituents. They live in a mobile world.
A preventative social care system not only has benefits for the quality of care and the lives of disabled people but represents a financially sustainable approach for the future. In addressing the concern about the eligibility threshold, local authorities will be in a position to deliver appropriate care at an earlier stage, reducing escalation of the crisis. As the British Red Cross told the all-party group’s inquiry:
“There must be a dramatic rethink to the way social care is organised in the future, with a focus on preventing crises before they occur and keeping people independent for as long as possible.”
Without a truly preventative system, councils will have no choice other than to intervene at crisis points when the personal and financial costs are already too great. The former president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, Sarah Pickup, told the inquiry:
“Prevention is one of the very few things where you can get both a better outcome and a reduced cost.”
The Government have recognised that local authorities are delivering innovative solutions in social care provision, and have rightly chosen health and wellbeing boards as the mechanism through which social care can be delivered effectively. The boards have been implemented fully since April 2013. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 mandates a minimum membership consisting of one local elected representative, a representative of the local healthwatch organisation, a representative of each local clinical commissioning group, the local authority director of adult social services, the local authority director of children’s services and, crucially, the director of public health for the local authority. That will ensure a wide range of views and experience on the boards and will help with the implementation of preventative social care.
If the Government fully resource local authorities to implement preventative social care, the financial returns to local authorities, national Government and the NHS will be significant. Deloitte’s economic modelling in Scope’s report, “Ending the other care crisis”, has shown that a £1.2 billion investment in establishing a lower national eligibility threshold would lead to a £700 million saving for the Government and a £570 million saving for local authorities and the NHS. That is care and compassion at a better net price for the nation.
In addition, that money must be available to be used for care services within communities that are not exclusively health focused such as housing and employment. Such support would aid many disabled people in actively contributing to society as independent, participating, tax-paying citizens. As Sue Brown, head of policy at Sense, told our inquiry, the employment market currently risks losing out on the contributions that disabled people can make. That is the crux of the debate; we want to get disabled people living the lives that they want to lead, and being as independent and as self-sufficient as possible. Not only do they benefit from that, but the economy benefits too.
The National Autistic Society told me that new economic modelling by Deloitte published earlier this month shows that for every £1 invested in support for people with autism—and other disabilities—who have moderate needs, returns of £1.30 are generated. As the Government have rightly recognised, social care is not merely about allowing people to survive; rather, it is about enabling them to live full and independent lives. The Bill explicitly places a duty on local authorities to provide care that promotes the well-being of individuals. Let us now establish that the regulations fulfil the Government’s ambition and ensure that more than 100,000 disabled people with significant needs can live full, varied lives, with the basic dignity that we all take for granted.
To reiterate—and to be absolutely clear—I feel that the care provisions that we put in place need to be standardised between local authorities in order to promote portability. Those affected by the provisions are the most vulnerable in society. We do not want to make moving house an ordeal for people, with tensions and stresses about the level of care that they can expect to receive in the new area. Before the excellent changes to this groundbreaking, joined-up government measure can be implemented, we would like to ensure that a proper impact assessment is undertaken. We would like any administration costs, or other associated costs, to be known to local authorities before implementation. We want to ensure that costs do not force the most vulnerable in society to be left behind, because of new bureaucratic layers imposed on local government.
In conclusion, the Care Bill is a significant, welcome step in the right direction that acknowledges that reforms need to be made. Provided that they are properly resourced and supported, local authorities, working with the NHS, now have the opportunity to demonstrate their considerable experience of delivering social care in a financially sustainable manner. Funding preventative social care in the manner that the report recommends represents a win-win situation for the Government. I look forward to the Minister confirming the new way of working, by recognising that budgets between the NHS and local government, as announced in the recent spending review, will be used, not only for the elderly, but for working-age disabled people. Thank you, Ms Clark.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Clark. I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) on promoting this afternoon’s debate. Protocol would not allow me to join them in sponsoring the debate, but I am delighted to be able to participate by making a short contribution.
For the record, I also want to identify colleagues from both Houses of Parliament who took part in what was a groundbreaking inquiry in terms of our Parliament. It was cross-party and cross-House, so I want to recognise the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), Baroness Eaton of Cottingley, the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), Baron Low of Dalston, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), Baron Tope of Sutton, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and the hon. Member for Bradford East, who gave up their time to participate. I also want to thank the all-party parliamentary local government group, under the admirable chairmanship of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, for joining with the all-party parliamentary disability group in promoting the inquiry.
It is also worth nothing that a distinguished group of people presented evidence to us, both as individuals—people who came from a variety of backgrounds—and as organisations, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Sense, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the NHS Confederation, Inclusion London, Mencap, Mind, the National Autistic Society, and the president of the Association of Directors of Social Work. I hope that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the Opposition spokesperson, will recognise that the evidence brought together a significant spectrum of expertise from organisations, but more importantly, that it brought to the inquiry the particular experiences of disabled people themselves. It was not only about talking to the organisations that are out there, either representing or delivering services for disabled people; it was also about listening to disabled people. To echo the comments made by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, I would like to thank Scope most sincerely, not only for servicing the inquiry, but for going beyond the bounds of what was expected to ensure that it happened—and happened professionally—and that our publication is both professional and challenging. I want to place that on record.
Disability can happen to anyone at any time. We could have an undiagnosed condition, a car accident, or we could develop a progressive illness. Last week, I attended a reception in the House of Lords for the management of bowel problems. I met a young man who became disabled in his early 20s when a rugby scrum collapsed on him. He never thought, in his wildest dreams, that he would be disabled in his 20s. He loved and played rugby, and one day, an accident happened. I hope that that would be the context in which we can discuss some of the issues that both my colleagues have identified today, because my benchmark for social care is what we would want to happen if it were us. If we start from that premise, we can build a picture of what we think should be the exemplar in terms of social care.
I want to identify why the inquiry took place, and why now. There is a momentum with the Care Bill, with both political parties—perhaps, in this company, I should say three political parties—coming together to recognise the importance of social care. As the hon. Members for Bradford East and for South Derbyshire highlighted, a third of those who rely on social care are, in fact, working-age adults. Sometimes, there is a great frustration among the disability community that working-age adults are not mentioned. We talk about care of older people—indeed, sometimes we use care of “the elderly”, which I think is somewhat disparaging, as we are talking about “older people”. That is only my particular pedantry, I suppose. However, working-age adults sometimes get forgotten, and I certainly welcome the focus that we are giving those younger people today.
As both my colleagues have identified, care cannot only be about basic survival. There is more to life than getting up, eating and drinking, getting into your pyjamas and then going to bed. Frankly, although the Minister mentioned Torbay, that, sadly, is exactly what social care means for many people around the country. For disabled people who want to live fulfilling lives, care is a facilitator for independent living, fairness and respect. It is an enabler to a social and family life and, thankfully, for an increasing number of disabled people, to participating in their own way in the wider life of their community through employment.
Frankly, social care for working-age adults cannot only be about fitting them into a pre-ordained system, nor can it be about a template that is pulled down, and then someone’s name is slotted into it. It is about ensuring that the individual disabled person has real independence, choice and control. Sometimes we talk glibly about independence, choice and control, without thinking about exactly what they mean; they can be different things for different people. There is no point in having someone come in to help a person dress at 11 o’ clock, when they need to get to their work at 10 o’clock. What is the point of that? That does not allow them to live a fulfilling life, and there is little dignity and respect in getting that person into their pyjamas at 6 o’clock when they might want to go out to the cinema, to visit their friends, or, indeed, to have their friends round to visit. Let us just imagine what that must be like. Their family, friends or neighbours are there, and the person is sitting there in their jimjams. That is not what we should mean by social care, but sadly it is what is happening in many parts of the country.
In addition, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire highlighted, social care should not just be another arm of the emergency services. It should not be a response to a crisis. That is where some of the difficulties in terms of preventive measures come in, but I want to make two or three points to echo some of the recommendations in the report.
First, I think that the current Government, like previous Governments, believe in principle in the right to independent living. We believe, I hope, as a Parliament, in breaking down barriers for disabled people and breaking down some of the Government silos that create those barriers. Disabled people do not live their lives according to the Department for Transport, the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions—we can add on whichever number of Departments we want. That is not how people live their lives and it certainly is not how disabled people live their lives, so it is important that we do not just talk about independent living, but look at how it can be delivered.
Both my colleagues identified the important issue of the portability of care, and I cannot emphasise enough how important that is to disabled adults of working age. I ask the Minister to think about this issue. Let us consider the case of a disabled person in the borough of Lambeth who has to move to Westminster but finds that they cannot take their care package—their support—with them. That is echoed across the country. If it is difficult within one city, just think how much more difficult it is if someone happens to live in Carlisle and wants to go and live in Bradford. Let us just think of the challenges that that poses for an individual disabled adult.
However, it is not just individual disabled adults who are affected. Let us consider the case of people who are the parents of a disabled child. The mum or dad gets a new job and moves from Bradford down to Birmingham. The disabled child has some sort of support mechanism. This starts in childhood and can develop into adulthood. I appreciate that we are talking specifically about working-age adults, but I think that we must recognise that the picture is even bigger than the focus that we have today. In many cases, this is an issue from the cradle to the grave.
Norman Lamb
I agree with the case that the right hon. Lady is making, but I want to ask her this. Presumably she is pleased that the Care Bill introduces the capacity to move from one part of the country to another without the care package collapsing and that it stays in place until the person has been reassessed in their new area. It may be that someone’s needs change if they are closer to a loved one, their home is different or whatever, but the care package stays in place until the reassessment happens.
Mrs McGuire
Of course I welcome that. I think that the big challenge for the Minister, the Government and, indeed, any future Government that I hope will be there within 18 months or so is how that is delivered—how we break down those barriers. Although I can obviously speak about the silos within the UK Government, at Whitehall level, we must be realistic and recognise that there are tensions even between one local authority and another. The issue is how that policy is delivered, but of course I give the Minister due recognition for that comment.
I want to emphasise the issue of the eligibility threshold. I heard what the Minister said about that, but if the threshold is at the “substantial” level, many people will not qualify. I accept what he said—no one will lose out on what they have now, so if someone gets it at the “moderate” level, which I understand is the situation in Bradford, they will not lose out. But in the event that the provision is limited to those whose needs are at the “substantial” level, many people will still require that additional element of support, which would allow them to live independent lives.
Mr Ward
The point was made by the Minister that no one will lose out. As I pointed out in my speech, 90,000 people have already lost out. They may be being told that they will not lose any more, but they have nothing more to lose, because they have already lost it. That is the big concern. We already have this level in 84% of authorities, which means that people have lost the provision; it has gone from them for ever.
Mrs McGuire
I hope that the Minister has heard his hon. Friend’s comments.
The report clearly identifies the issue of preventive care. That issue has bedevilled the health service, probably ever since it was established. People think of the health service and the social care service as providing solutions at the point at which they need them, as opposed to being innovative and looking at how some of those situations can be prevented from arising. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, there is a saving in the long term if we get that right.
It is perfectly true that many disabled people who fall out of the system have to re-enter it and probably at a higher level of support and therefore expense. Of course, the crucial element in all this is that closer integration of budgets is needed to ensure that “health and social care” actually means health and social care. I do not think that any of us can run away from the issue of financial austerity. It is about getting the best value for money and recognising the funding gap, but I hope that we can reach agreement across the political spectrum about how we deliver this. I would hope that hon. Members in this Chamber would share many of the frustrations that certainly we had in the last Parliament about the fact that we could not reach cross-party consensus on funding.
I want to address a couple of remarks to the Minister. One has to do with a gap in the Care Bill. There is no mention of the role of the DWP in any of this, yet the DWP holds the purse strings, in some respects, for many individual disabled people. Some of us were quite surprised in the debate yesterday in the main Chamber when we discovered that the Minister leading the debate on behalf of the Government, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), said that he had not read the Care Bill. That was quite a shock. We do not know whether his officials had read it, but there is a strong element that I think must be taken into account. I am referring to the role that the DWP can play in this. I would be interested if this Minister had any comments on what he believes will be the impact of the closure of the independent living fund in terms of the wider area of health and social care.
I want to finish my speech by offering very special thanks to Baroness Campbell—Jane Campbell. One of the idiosyncrasies of this place is that although we can share agendas with our colleagues in the House of Lords, we cannot share with them, even in the slightly less formal environment of Westminster Hall, some of the discussion and debates. Baroness Campbell was a pioneer of independent living and a driving force behind this agenda for many years. She has her own piece of legislation, a private Member’s Bill, and I understand that much of what was in that private Member’s Bill has probably been taken on board by the Government. Individuals such as Baroness Campbell, who depended themselves on the health and social care system, were not prepared to let that system drive them down. She has been a powerful advocate for this agenda over many years. I wanted to pay a particular and special tribute to her this afternoon as we have the opportunity to discuss the report.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time to debate this very important issue, and I congratulate the hon. Members for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) for sponsoring the debate. It is a great pleasure—this is the first time that it has happened to me—to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who made a very powerful speech.
This subject is hugely important. One in five adults in Britain has a disability of some kind, and that figure is rising due to medical advances and better survival rates. As my right hon. Friend says, it could happen to any of us, so this is not a side topic but an essential issue. Britain will not be a fair country if disabled people are denied the opportunities that many of us take for granted, and we will not be a successful country if we miss out on the talents and contribution of disabled people, not only in economic terms, but in our communities and wider cultural and social life.
Good social care is essential to enable disabled people to be full citizens and live full and fulfilling lives. As hon. Members have said, that is about not only the basics of life—help getting up and getting washed, dressed and fed. It is about what I call the very stuff of life—ensuring that disabled people can spend time with their family and friends; learn and get new skills; find a job; contribute to their local community; take part in sport, art, culture and music; and have fun. In other words, it enables disabled people to have the same aspirations as every other citizen. That is why today’s debate, the joint report from the all-party groups on local government and on disability and “The other care crisis” report are important.
This is not about a particular public service, but about what kind of society and country Britain should be in the 21st century. Despite all the economic challenges, we are one of the richest countries in the world. What kind of country and society do we want, to ensure that we have genuine fairness and opportunity for people of all kinds? The debate is therefore about not only social care, but wider life, which is why it is so important.
As hon. Members have said, there is a growing crisis in social care for working-age adults with disabilities, and services have now reached breaking point. That is eloquently spelled out in the joint report of the all-party groups and “The other care crisis”, the report by Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability, Sense and the National Autistic Society. It rightly says that social care does not only affect older people: one in three people who use social care are working-age people with disabilities. It also says that local authority budgets for adult social care have been under pressure for many years, but have now reached breaking point, as councils have lost a staggering 28% of their budgets so far under this Government, with even greater reductions announced in the latest spending review. As a result, councils are reducing the number of disabled people eligible for free care and support.
The report says that 40% of disabled people are failing to have their basic needs met. They are unable get the help that they need to eat, wash, dress or get out of the house, and their mental health suffers. There are some terrible, upsetting and distressing quotes from people with disabilities. Disabled people’s families also suffer huge stress and strains.
Norman Lamb
I agree with the points the shadow Minister makes, but she mentions cuts to local government budgets and I hope that we can all be realistic and honest about the situation that we face. Is she saying that a future Labour Government would substantially increase funding for local government? Alternatively, does she recognise that, collectively, we must all think about different ways to make the money go further?
Liz Kendall
I believe that we must fundamentally rethink how our care and support system works. The Minister knows that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and I have called for a far bigger and bolder response, by fully integrating the NHS and social care. I shall come to the Government’s proposals for the £3.8 billion of pooled resources. With the greatest respect, I think that the Government should be bigger and bolder in their response, with full and true integration that goes beyond the NHS and social care. If we really join up local services and support and bring together support from the Department for Work and Pensions, there is huge potential to do much more to give better care, better outcomes and better value for money. I will say more on that in a moment.
In “The other care crisis”, organisations raised concerns about the number of people—105,000 in total—who will lose out if the Care Bill goes ahead as it stands, given where the eligibility criteria will be set. The report warns that the huge strides made over recent years in promoting independence and personalising care and support will go backwards, as councils and other providers revert to more traditional service models—salami slicing services separately—thus restricting peoples’ independence. That specific crisis in social care for adults with disabilities will lead to a far bigger crisis: a crisis in opportunities for disabled people to live the life they want, which other citizens have; a crisis for taxpayers, because failing to invest in up-front preventive social care services will lead to more expensive NHS and social security bills; and a crisis for our country as whole, as Britain misses out on the talents and contribution of disabled people and we all end up paying more as the price of failure.
What should happen instead? The Care Bill could and should be a profound opportunity to establish a framework for social care that could be truly transformational for disabled people. The Bill is the result of the Law Commission review of adult social care legislation, initiated by the previous Government.
Liz Kendall
I give much credit to the Minister, but the Bill is the continuation of a process that Labour established when we were in government—I want that on the record. [Interruption.] I fully and readily acknowledge that local council budgets have been under pressure for many years. He knows better than anyone that towards the end of Labour’s time in Government we tried to reach an agreement on a social care funding system, which I will come back to in a moment. [Interruption.]
Katy Clark (in the Chair)
Order. I ask the Minister to intervene formally if he wishes to say anything, for no other reason than it would assist the Hansard writer.
Liz Kendall
I never mind interventions in debates; I warmly welcome them.
I shall make five specific suggestions to the Minister about how the Care Bill could be developed. First, the definition of well-being in the Bill is important. I welcome how broad it is. It covers mental, physical, social and economic well-being; personal relationships; and a person’s ability to contribute to society. The definition also includes ensuring that individuals have control over their day-to-day living, but I question whether the definition is as strong as it could be. The joint report from the all-party groups asks why it could not specifically include promoting independence, to strengthen the definition further.
An issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling relates to my point about definitions. The duty to co-operate in the Bill says that local councils will need to work with a range of partners. I understand that Ministers usually do not want to specify lots of organisation types, but I am concerned that although local councils would, we hope, know that they had to co-operate with the NHS, there is a real issue about the DWP. There is not that link-up locally, and if people’s ability to get training and to participate in the work force is so important, will the Minister consider whether, either in the Bill or in guidance, there needs to be more detail about who local councils should co-operate with? I am concerned that that local relationship might not be there.
Secondly, the eligibility criteria are, as the hon. Member for Bradford East said, the most crucial aspect of the social care system because they determine who is and is not eligible for social care support. We absolutely welcome the commitment to clear national eligibility thresholds, but the Minister knows that disabled people, organisations that represent older people and many of the groups involved are hugely disappointed that the draft regulations have set the thresholds at substantial rather than moderate. I am fully aware of the cost pressures on the system, but has the Department done a true cost-benefit analysis, to consider the potential saving? The hon. Member for South Derbyshire made a point about how investing up front can save money further down the line. Has the Minister discussed with his Treasury colleagues whether, if a longer time frame were used for assessing the costs, we would end up saving money for taxpayers if the moderate level was set?
My third point relates to the so-called capped care costs model—aka Dilnot. The Minister knows that I am concerned that the so-called cap on care costs is not really a cap. I am concerned not only because it does not cover hotel accommodation, but because it covers only what someone’s local authority would pay rather than the amount they might actually pay in residential care and because no one will benefit from the cap until 2020.
Norman Lamb
Does the hon. Lady accept that if the cap were to cover all someone’s care costs, however much they chose to pay, wealthy people who chose to live in much more expensive care homes would be at a substantial advantage?
Liz Kendall
The Minister will know that my point is that I warn Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, that going around the country strongly saying that it is a cap on care costs will create confusion—that is the best word I can use.
I do not want to focus on older people; I want to come to the point that the APPGs raised. The joint report states that the majority of working-age people with disabilities will not benefit from the so-called capped social care costs model, because they will not have had the chance to acquire assets. How many disabled people will benefit from the model? Why does the Minister believe that it is more important to put in excess of £1 billion into implementing the Dilnot model rather than into the current system, which is being increasingly squeezed?
My fourth point is about personalisation. I am a huge champion of personal budgets. I have seen them transform many of my constituents’ lives, not just because they promote genuine independence by giving people a say in how they live their lives rather than the system telling them how they should, but because they are essential to integration. The people themselves know best about how to join up their needs and support, because they do not see the two things as separate. However, I have heard the concern expressed in many different places across the country that personal budgets are getting a bad name. People feel that they are increasingly not based on their needs and that less money is being given than is needed, because of how the resource allocation system works.
Another important recommendation in the joint APPG report is about considering whether the resource allocation system should go on to a statutory footing, supported by new duties on councils to be transparent about decisions. I do not want personal budgets to get a bad name, with people feeling that they are a cover for cuts, rather than being based on what people need.
My final point is on the absolutely essential issue of prevention and integration. The Government announced in the spending review that there will be pooled budgets across health and social care totalling £3.8 billion, including £2 billion transferred from the NHS. The joint APPG report states that much of the previous transfer of money from the NHS to social care never reached the front line, and there is a concern that just continually transferring money in that way is not sustainable. How will the Minister ensure that the money gets to the front line? Will it be available, as I think the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, for working-age adults with disabilities, rather than just for older people? Finally, will the Minister acknowledge that if this keeps happening year after year, it would be far better to have much fuller integration, such as the whole-person care approach proposed by Opposition Members?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
I join others in saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark, and I apologise again for my rudeness earlier. I noted that the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said that it was a “genuine pleasure” to serve under you. I am not sure what it means when on other occasions she leaves out “genuine”; none the less, it was clearly a tribute to you, Ms Clark.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) on securing the debate. This is the second time this week that the two of us have discussed and debated care issues, and I know that he cares passionately—and genuinely—about the subject.
I want to make a number of points at the start. I very much welcomed the fact that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) highlighted the absolutely central importance of the principle of well-being in the Care Bill. The Bill has the potential to be transformational in how it challenges culture—how the system works and how it treats people. In part, it is about a big shift from a paternalistic system in which people get done to, to a personal one in which their needs and priorities come first.
The right hon. Member for Stirling made the point, absolutely correctly, that there is more to life than getting up, being washed, eating and going back to bed. I am not sure who focused on the important issue of social isolation, but the truth is that many people in this day and age live miserable lives. If someone lives on their own and has substantial care needs, and the extent of their life is getting out of bed, getting washed, sitting in a chair and going back to bed, with no one to see during the day, that is a miserable life.
One point I want to make today is that this is not just about care services. If we are talking about a good society and about giving people a good life, there must be collaboration between statutory services and communities, families and the streets on which we live. I have floated the idea of neighbourhood watch groups applying to provide care. We have a national movement that looks out for whether our houses are being burgled, so should we not be thinking—all of us stepping up to the plate—about whether there are people on our streets who have care needs, or who might just be very lonely and could do with a bit of companionship?
If we are to have a civilised society, the focus has to be not just on statutory services but on collaboration within the community. That is all the more important given the extraordinary strains which the public finances are under now and will be under in future. All political sides in the debate must face up to the extraordinary financial challenge and how best to meet it.
Reference was made to setting the eligibility criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East argued cogently for the level to be set at moderate, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), asked whether there had been a cost-benefit analysis. The problem faced by any Government is that the up-front cost for both working-age and older people is £2.7 billion. I absolutely buy into the case for preventing ill health and the deterioration of health and into making another fundamental shift from repair to prevention—the whole system must reflect that—but Governments should be very careful about committing themselves to that level of up-front cost. That would be exactly the same if Labour were in power.
The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire asked whether the £3.8 billion pooled sum applied to working-age disabled people as well as older people. Absolutely, yes. My passion for integrated care and for preventing ill health and deterioration in health applies to people of whatever age. We have a particular challenge with frail elderly people, but we also have an understated challenge with people of working age who have disabilities, because often the focus is not enough on them.
Mr Ward
In relation to the impact on people, “The other care crisis” report states that we must look at not only what may happen but what has already happened over the past two years up and down the country, and the impact there has already been and no doubt will continue to be on people. I understand that the legislation is due to go through in 2015, and there is talk of having a working group over three to four years. That seems an awfully long period before we will have an assessment of what has happened and what may occur as a result of the legislation.
Norman Lamb
I will come on to the work that we intend to do on a more sophisticated way of assessing eligibility and responding to assessments. I absolutely accept the current danger that the system in effect says, “Go away, become more ill or more disabled, and when there is a real crisis, we might help you.” I want us to be more sophisticated and to intervene in ways that will help to build capacity and resilience and to stop the deterioration of health. I genuinely believe that the Care Bill will give us the foundations for a much more rational approach.
Liz Kendall
May I take the Minister back to the £3.8 billion pooled budget? He said that it was absolutely available for care and support for working-age people with disabilities. Will he explain, when the money goes down to clinical commissioning groups and local councils, first, where it will go to, and secondly, how he will ensure that it actually goes to working-age people with disabilities? I know how the NHS works, and all the focus is on the frail elderly because they are in hospital. The NHS wants to get them out of hospital—that is its prime focus—so unless there is something specific in what the Minister sets up, the money will not go to working-age people with disabilities.
Norman Lamb
We will publish further details about how the system will work. To deal with the hon. Lady’s challenge to our approach, we could go for another massive re-organisation, which in a sense is what she is advocating—
Norman Lamb
Well, it is. To bring health care and social care together structurally would be a massive re-organisation, and there is no way of avoiding that. The smart way is to focus on the care that an individual receives. The issue is not just about bringing health and social care together and integrating those two systems but about the health service itself and the fact that, institutionally, we have separated mental health from physical health and primary care from secondary care, which is crazy. The whole thing is fragmented, but we should shape services around the needs of patients. The Government’s approach, based on the duties to integrate in the Health and Social Care Act, is the smart, fast way of achieving much more joined-up care for the patient, whether individuals are elderly or of working age. I want to make some progress with my speech.
The Government are committed to improving the lives of disabled people and to supporting them in their independent lives. In very difficult financial circumstances, we have done much to achieve that through the disability strategy, welfare reform—it is incredibly controversial, but any Government would have to pay attention to the extraordinary growth in welfare spending—and a whole raft of condition-specific initiatives.
One outstanding issue still needs to be addressed—social care reform. The importance of care and support for disabled adults cannot be understated: it is the enabler of independent living. We hear much about the ageing population as the driver for care reform, but a third of all health and care users are working-age disabled people, so it is vital that the social care reforms address their needs. The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East and his colleagues have secured this debate is valuable because it ensures that we focus on the needs of working-age disabled people. I repeat that there is a risk of their being forgotten, which must not happen.
Earlier this year, I read with interest the “Promoting Independence, Preventing Crisis” report into making social care reform work for disabled adults. It was a joint inquiry by the all-party groups on local government and on disability. I congratulate them on an important piece of work, and I will attempt to address some of the points raised in a moment. I first want to talk about some of the things we have done.
We know that disabled people face a number of challenges. They are far less likely to be in employment than non-disabled people. In fact, shockingly, only 46% of disabled people are in employment compared with 76% of their non-disabled counterparts. Some 19% of individuals living in a family with a disabled member are in income poverty, although I am pleased to say that that has been falling over time. Progress is being made, but much more needs to be done.
The first thing to say about all the Government’s reforms is that we are committed to the UN convention on the rights of disabled people, which includes the right of disabled people to independent living. The Department of Health has been working closely with the Office for Disability Issues on the new cross-Government disability strategy, “Fulfilling Potential”, which was published last September. It is about making the UN convention a living reality for disabled people in Britain. It describes the rights that disabled people—just like anyone else—have in all areas of life, and the duty on Government to ensure that those rights are met.
The shadow Minister made a point about co-ordination with the DWP. There is scope for much more joined-up working at a local level to bring disparate public services together and to achieve far more bang for our buck than we presently manage.
Mrs McGuire
I do not wish to embarrass them, but I suggest that both the Minister and his officials look at the disability strategy report based on the “Fulfilling Potential” report that he mentioned. That update was published last week. I think the jury is out on what it says, but in the interests of joined-up government, he should have the most up-to-date picture.
Norman Lamb
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that intervention. What remarkable timing she shows. On 2 July, the follow-up document, “Fulfilling potential: making it happen” was published, which sets out the indicators that will show where we are making progress and where more work needs to be done.
In my Department, we have been working to ensure that we can hold the new health system to account for the quality of services and outcomes that they provide to disabled people. The NHS outcomes framework includes a number of measures that relate specifically to disability, including, critically from my point of view, mental health, which is an area that is sometimes forgotten. Talking about an outcomes framework sounds like horrible jargon, but it is actually about focusing on results for people—the impact on people of what we spend. If we can measure that and then measure the changes that happen over time, we can focus the whole system’s attention on the need to achieve outcomes for people rather than on process. Essentially, we will expect to see a reduction in premature death among people with a learning disability and people with serious mental illness. It is a scandal in this day and age that such people die so much younger than others. We will also expect to see an enhanced quality of life for people with mental illness and an improvement in their experience of health care.
This matter is not just about the NHS. We will also be holding to account the adult care and support system through the adult social care outcomes framework for ensuring that
“people are able to find employment when they want, maintain a family and social life and contribute to community life, and avoid loneliness or isolation”.
We will be measuring that through the proportion of adults with a learning disability who are in contact with secondary mental health services, who are in paid employment and who live in their own home or with their family.
We have responded robustly to the challenges posed by the really dreadful events at Winterbourne View hospital and to the way in which people with learning disabilities, autism and behaviours described as challenging are viewed and treated. All too often, society has treated them as second-class citizens. I take a simple view that people with learning disabilities have exactly the same rights as anyone else, and we have to ensure that the whole system respects that basic position. By April 2014, every area will have a joint plan to ensure high-quality care and support services for this group of people in line with best practice. By June next year, everyone inappropriately in hospital will have moved to community-based support.
We are reviewing the national autism strategy to assess how it is addressing the barriers that people with autism face, and how care and support services are responding to their needs. However, that is not something that the care and support system can do on its own. As a Government, we are also aiming to make the benefit system fairer, more responsive and more affordable to help reduce poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency, and to reduce levels of fraud and error. For many, that will include support to work, which is the best route out of poverty and is very often beneficial for those with long-term health conditions. It is worth reiterating that severely disabled people who need support will always get it, and we will provide unequivocal support for those who cannot work.
I mentioned care reform. Many people have told us that today’s care and support system often fails to live up to the expectations of those who rely on it. Although many have good experiences, the system can be confusing, massively disempowering, paternalistic and not flexible enough to fit around their lives.
Our White Paper, “Caring for our future”, which was published last year set out a vision for a reformed care and support system. Yes, it was based on the Law Commission report, but it was implemented, I am proud to say, by this coalition Government. We need a modern system that promotes people’s well-being by enabling them to prevent and postpone the need for care and support, and puts them in control of their lives to pursue opportunities, including education and employment, to realise their potential.
The Care Bill, which we introduced in Parliament in May, is a crucial step in delivering that vision. It represents the most comprehensive reform of social care legislation in more than 60 years, creating for the first time a single, modern statute for adult care and support. The existing law that underpins care and support is outdated and confusing. It is rooted in the post-war period and must be overhauled, as the Law Commission concluded after its three-year review. Our new statute will be clearer, fairer, and will empower people to take control over their care and support. It has been done in the most collaborative way, with pre-legislative scrutiny and widespread consultation with the sector and the wider community.
The current legal framework is narrow and paternalistic; it is built around the idea of providing state-defined services, rather than of meeting and responding to the needs and goals of individuals. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East talked very movingly about the brilliant community work on dementia care that is under way in Bradford. That is where we see this collaboration between ordinary people who are good citizens and who care for one another and the supportive role that the state always has to play to back that up. The Care Bill will help to shift the focus of care and support from paternalism to a much more personal approach. It will place personal budgets on a legislative footing for the first time. I agree with the shadow Minister about the importance of personal budgets being real; they must empower people and not mask a cut in support or provision.
We want to extend the greater roll-out of personal budgets to give people who are assessed as needing care and support more choice and control over how their care is provided. Where personalisation has taken root it works—people get better results and it is popular with users and carers. That is particularly true for working-age adults; take-up is relatively high compared with that among older people. This great reform came about through working-age disabled people demanding that they have more control over their lives, and local government responding to them.
The current law fails to reflect the importance of supporting people in caring roles. The Bill, for the first time, puts carers on the same legal footing as those for whom they care, with expanded rights to assessment and new rights to support.
The Care Bill also implements historic reforms to the way in which the care system is funded, by introducing a cap on the care costs that people incur. Of course, as I said in an intervention on the shadow Minister, people can choose to spend more than that if they wish, but if we were to do what I think she was implying it would mean giving enormous financial support to wealthier people, which cannot be justified in times of real financial constraints.
The current care and support system offers little financial protection for the cost of care. As the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support said, because care needs are unpredictable, individuals and families are unable to know what care costs they might face in the future. We recognise that some working-age adults may face having to pay for care earlier than most elderly people do, so we have therefore said in our funding reform proposals that people who need care before they reach retirement age will pay less. In addition, the changes we are proposing will mean that people who are assessed as having care needs before they turn 18 will have their cap set at zero. We will be consulting on those changes very shortly.
We have made it clear from the consultation and publication of the White Paper through to the publication of the Care Bill that the same principles apply to all who need care and support. That applies equally to an adult with a physical disability, someone with a learning disability, an adult with mental health issues or an elderly person needing care. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East is particularly concerned about eligibility criteria. We have published draft regulations setting out national eligibility criteria for discussion. They are set at a level that will allow local authorities to maintain the same level of services for service users when they move from the current framework.
Let me end by saying that I would prefer to have a more sophisticated system. Work is under way on developing that. I invite Scope to participate in that and work with the Government to achieve a much more rational system in which we can intervene earlier, provide some support and help to build capacity and resilience so that people get help when they need it rather than when they reach a crisis.
Solar Arrays
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
I will start by making it clear that I am not here to deny the pressing need for alternative energy sources, and I am in no doubt about the threats that we face from the twin hazards of peak oil prices and rising greenhouse gas emissions. I also want to acknowledge the work of Rob Hopkins and Transition Town Totnes in my constituency. They have inspired not only a national movement but an international movement that is leading the way in taking practical steps towards more sustainable and resilient communities.
There is widespread support, in my constituency and nationally, for roof-mounted solar photovoltaic systems. Projects such as Transition Streets in Totnes, which the Minister very kindly visited in April, bring communities together, and they look at energy saving as well as microgeneration. I hope that the Minister can set out in his response to this debate how he plans to support community energy projects such as this, which have the potential to be rolled out at scale. However, I will not dwell on that issue in detail, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) will elaborate further on community energy when she speaks.
I thank the Minister for his response this morning in oral questions, because it went to the nub of this issue. We do not want to resist solar PV as such; we want to resist inappropriate solar PV. I was immensely relieved, as all my constituents will be, to hear that he is working so closely with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to bring forward a change to planning regulations, in order to make it very clear to planners and local councillors that local opinion, the need to protect our heritage and our rural landscape, and all the other factors that matter so much to local communities, cannot automatically be overridden because of the need to go forward on renewable energy.
Perhaps I can just set out the scale of where we are and say why communities are so worried. At the moment, we have 1.6 GW of solar capacity within the UK, and almost all of that is in microgeneration. The average scale is 4/1,000th of a megawatt and only 71 of the current 369,912 sites that are listed on the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff database are more than 500 kW in size. To put that in context, that would be a site of more than 2.5 acres. These sites contribute just 203 MW of that total 1.6 GW of installed capacity. However, if we look at the Department of Energy and Climate Change planning database, we see that 1.7 GW is in the planning pipeline or under construction, which is even greater than the solar capacity that we currently have installed. The point is that most of that 1.7 GW is completely different; it is not microgeneration but large-scale generation. In fact, more than half of it is very large-scale; we are talking about projects that are more than 5 MW. To put that in context, 1 MW requires around five acres of land, so more than half of that 1.7 GW that is in the pipeline will be of a scale greater than 25 acres. That is the nub of this issue.
I will put that figure in context again by looking at the impact on Totnes. My constituency covers an area from Holne on Dartmoor down to the sea; it takes in an area of outstanding natural beauty, several sites of special scientific interest and several special areas of conservation. South Hams district council has received 28 applications for large-scale solar projects: 25 have been approved and they are either in construction or awaiting construction; one is at appeal; and just two have been withdrawn. It is hard to convey the scale of these projects, or how much they cause devastation to the landscape; people have to see them to understand why communities are so worried about them. Anyone who travels north from Diptford, which is a tiny community in a beautiful rural setting, will come over the brow of a hill and see the development at a place called Blue Post, and they will be in no doubt whatever about what the future holds if we do not do something about this issue. There are more than 20 acres of densely packed, ground-mounted panels. Anyone who wants to see this site can look on my Twitter feed and there is a photograph of what these things look like close at hand. Effectively, the site is an industrialised desert, and it is a world away from the misleading and I have to say—frankly—fraudulent impression given in some of the glossy advertising that is being targeted directly at farmers.
However, I must say that farmers are the one group that I do not blame for any of this development. If farmers’ cattle are suffering from the devastating effects of bovine TB and the farmers repeatedly see their beautiful herds of South Devon cows being culled, while they are also under pressure from falling milk prices and face losing their family farms, and through their letterbox they receive a deluge of advertising that promises them up to £1,000 an acre per year for having solar panels installed on their land, together with a maintenance contract, who on earth would not decide to do that?
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are a tremendous number of farmers in the south-west at the moment, particularly in her constituency and my constituency of South East Cornwall, who may be land-rich but cash-poor, and that that is possibly one of the problems?
Dr Wollaston
I agree with my hon. Friend. The collapse in farming incomes is extraordinary and both of us know that, having worked closely with farming communities. There used to be a dairy farm on every hillside in the South Hams area, but I am afraid that we are losing that vital part of our heritage.
Far from the rural idyll of grazing sheep and wild flowers that we see in all the glossy literature about these sites, the reality is that where the panels are closely packed and close to the ground there is very little grazing land. There may be a margin around the edge of these sites, which of course is where the photographs are taken, but those photographs give a very misleading impression. We are often told that these projects will be sensitively screened. Well, anyone who has driven past Blue Post will see very high and very ugly wire fencing, often with security cameras and humming transformers. That is a very different world from the one that is portrayed in the literature. The industry guidelines talk about sensitive siting, consultation with communities and sensitive screening, but I am afraid that this process does not appear to be about renewables and saving the planet; instead, it appears to be about big money.
Diptford, the small community I referred to earlier, has already felt the impact of the arrays at Marley and Blue Post, and there are already two further large sites along the power line corridors nearby. Now, AAE Renewables is in the pre-planning stage for a further 83 acres directly bordering the AONB. There is a visceral sense that something is very wrong. I know that the community in Diptford will be immensely reassured that the planning guidelines will be updated by the Minister in the next few weeks.
However, I will just sound a note of caution, because we often hear the term “prime farmland” being used. Agricultural land is graded between one and five, but the grade is determined by a number of factors, such as gradient, flood risk, versatility, the yield and so forth. If the Minister looks at the map of agricultural land grading in my constituency, he will see that almost the entire area is grade 3 or 4. If we restrict the protections to prime farmland, and that is interpreted as being grade 1 or 2, that will be no protection whatever to the South Hams. I was relieved to hear this morning that landscape and rural views are also issues, because it is important that we focus not only on land type.
There is a wider point about food security, which has been made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who would have liked to contribute to the debate. The projects in Suffolk Coastal are taking over not only areas of outstanding natural beauty, but valuable agricultural land. In summing up, therefore, will the Minister tell us whether any assessment has been made of the impact on food security, because we, as a country, are already unable to feed ourselves? There is also an issue about the impact on local food webs. The disruption to local food webs will be important in areas such as south Devon. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Another real grievance relates to subsidies. We see from the correspondence between AEE and the planning department that it is not necessary for an 80-acre area of desecration—that is what it is, I am afraid—to have an environmental impact assessment. Small-scale, sustainable, self-build projects from the Land Society are held up, sometimes for years, by the need to have environmental impact assessments, but the real environmental impact is from inappropriate large-scale solar developments. In summing up, will the Minister refer to the need to have environmental impact assessments? Often, the image we are given is of projects that will be high off the ground and widely spaced—we all recognise that that has less of an environmental impact—but if Members go to look at the project at Blue Post, they will see that there is a major environmental impact when these things are densely packed and ground mounted.
Another issue is, how temporary is temporary? The planning officer referred in her correspondence to “temporary structures”. In 25 years’ time, I will be 76—
Dr Wollaston
Yes, it is hard to believe, colleagues.
By that time, a whole generation of children will have grown up and left home in the community of Diptford, so 25 years does not sound very temporary. Furthermore, who will be responsible for decommissioning? What is to prevent these industrial wastelands from becoming tomorrow’s brownfield sites? That is another area I hope the Minister will address in summing up.
These developments have little to do with saving the planet; they are entirely about profit. The subsidies go to a tiny number of people. When I speak at public meetings, people who are in fuel poverty often ask why they are paying more to subsidise people who can afford the up-front costs of some of these developments. Indeed, these people might even have the entire cost—often including the entire planning cost—paid for them. As a result, literally nothing needs to be paid for by the person who will then have all the profit from the project.
As the Minister will know, there are many community-owned projects, and he will be aware of TRESOC—the Totnes Renewable Energy Society—in my constituency. I was proud to open its first community-owned array, which is on the roof of the local general practitioners. That is the kind of place these projects need to be. TRESOC has 502 members, who share the dividends. The point, however, is that people have to be able to afford the shares in the first place, so that automatically excludes those in fuel poverty. Will the Minister put some flesh on the bones as regards subsidies, because there are probably a lot of misunderstandings about how they operate and who benefits from them?
Will the Minister also review the system for distributing profits, so that those who suffer loss of amenity—particularly those in fuel poverty—can directly benefit from a reduction in their fuel bills? When I met AEE, it told me that Diptford residents could all benefit from the project because they could have a discount from the supplier, but only from a more expensive supplier, so it was no discount at all. That is what is fuelling a lot of the resentment about these projects.
In a recent speech, the Minister stated his ambition to have 20 GW of solar, but given the impact the 1.7 GW I mentioned will have, I hope that he will tell us, in summing up, how he will make sure that future solar, which we all feel enthusiastic about, is rolled out through community projects and brought up to scale, and that community-owned projects are supported.
Will the Minister also touch on how the national grid will cope? Another problem is that solar arrays function best at times such as this—in the middle of hot, sunny days in the middle of summer. However, peak demand will be on winter evenings, when these arrays have little, if any, input into the grid. I know they still function on cloudy days, but at times of peak demand—on dark winter evenings—they will be of no benefit at all. Another issue is that when they are functioning best—when demand is at its lowest—we also have background forms of energy generation, such as nuclear, which cannot be turned off. At the moment, our grid does not have the capacity to do that.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I will respond to most of her points when I sum up. However, on the issue of demand on sunny days, if she goes to any of the buildings in the centre of London on a hot day such as this, she will find a great deal of air conditioning belting out chilled air produced almost exclusively using electricity. Increasingly, office buildings, commercial buildings, public buildings and even homes need cooling on hot days such as this in the summer.
Dr Wollaston
I thank the Minister for his response, and I quite agree, but if we look at the statistics from National Grid, we will undoubtedly see that demand is at its lowest when solar produces its maximum output. At the moment, we do not have the capacity to store or export that energy, and nor do we have the kind of smart grid that can easily turn systems off. It would be helpful to understand a bit more about the investment that is going into the grid, so that our constituents can have the confidence that we will not be subsidising large-scale solar arrays and then turning off the electricity supply to the national grid. We want to make sure that the grid has the capacity to deal with these things.
The south-west understands that it has a responsibility to contribute to energy generation from renewables. It is encouraging that Regen SW’s figures show there has been a 50% growth in that contribution in the past year. Capacity in the south-west is now 1 GW, and 7.3% of that electricity generation comes from renewables. Devon is the major contributor, closely followed by Cornwall. Between them, Devon and Cornwall are responsible for the lion’s share of renewable energy generation in the south-west.
The real enthusiasm in the south-west, however, is for marine renewables. Those are a fabulous resource, and we have the potential to become world leaders in marine renewables. Will the Minister update us on his support for them? Other countries have taken the lead on technologies such as solar and wind, and they tend to hoover up the profits from those technologies, but Britain has the potential to be the world leader in marine renewables. I really hope, therefore, that he will be able to update us on how he plans to support marine renewables. Perhaps he could even look at a project in my constituency. Searaser was invented by Alvin Smith, and it is supported by Ecotricity. The university of Plymouth is standing ready and could carry out the tank testing of the technology, which looks very encouraging, if it had assistance to help it do so. Will the Minister look at that?
My constituents understand the need to keep the lights on, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on imported fossil fuels, but they maintain that the greatest gains are in powering down and reducing energy use. We are about to spend £42 billion on High Speed 2, and I wonder what a fraction of that investment could do to transform cycling, for example, throughout the UK; to transform and electrify the entire railway system; and to invest in our vital future in marine renewables. I hope that our legacy will be in such developments. I am confident that with the Minister’s support, working closely with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, it will not be industrialisation and a wasteland across rural Britain.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who has made the case strongly. I want to reiterate what she said, but I will stick mainly to discussing my constituents’ views.
A thermal map of the UK shows that Cornwall is the best place here for solar arrays, but it is therefore also the best place for tourism. The tourism industry plays an important role in the duchy’s economy. Many of my constituents, from the beautiful Luxulyan valley in the west to the towns of the Tamar valley in the east, have contacted me about their growing concern that their beautiful landscapes and productive farm land are being covered in solar panels. The landscape is a prime visitor attraction, and they are concerned that the duchy’s economy will suffer.
Local councillors, who know the area best, refuse many of the planning applications, only to find that the planning inspector, based in an obscure location, with no knowledge of the locality or its topography or landscape, overturns the decision. Such interference in local decisions is a disgrace. Some constituents have expressed concern that local planning officers are now informing councillors that it would cost the local authority millions of pounds if they refused an application and lost an appeal. That cannot continue.
Many of my constituents are also concerned that the council’s planning portfolio is held by a member of the largest group on the council. They have expressed concern that the Liberal Democrat green agenda has the potential to cover our beautiful countryside and productive farm land in massive solar fields. We must not allow that.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I just want to volunteer a thought about some of the alternatives; Hinkley Point power station is not exactly the most beautiful building to adorn the south-west coast. There are probably some much more unattractive alternatives to solar panels.
Sheryll Murray
I was going to come to the alternatives, but I thank the hon. Lady for making that point.
I am not against solar panels—in the right place, with local approval. I pay tribute to a business in South East Cornwall, Trago Mills, whose managing director, Mr Bruce Robertson, has massively invested in a solar array on the roof of his building. I understand that his other, very large facility, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), also has solar panels fitted. I discussed that with my hon. Friend and he, too, pays tribute to that gentleman. The arrays produce a third of the electricity consumed in those popular out-of-town shopping centres, where, of course, the main energy consumption takes place during daylight hours. The benefit to one of South East Cornwall’s largest employers and to its economy is maximised. Using a company from the south-west to do the installation was a further benefit.
I applaud the recent written statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in conjunction with the Minister, about the national planning policy guidance on wind turbines. I think that I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes confirm today that we can look forward to further planning policy guidance to local authorities on other sources of renewable energy. I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
Sheryll Murray
Before the suspension, I was just about to conclude my contribution.
We must ensure that local authority planning officers and planning inspectors are immediately made aware of any new planning policy guidance on solar arrays and other renewable energy sources to ensure that local councillors who make decisions locally have the best opportunity to adhere to the new guidance.
I fully support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, and I know that if the Minister is able to confirm a change in the national planning policy guidance, it will reassure many of my constituents who have great concerns.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for initiating this debate.
I think that we can all agree that solar power is a real option for producing energy in the very near future, not only to meet our renewable energy needs and targets, but to keep the lights on. Solar arrays are swiftly installed and can balance the supply from more intermittent sources of generation, such as wind.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I was intrigued by the hon. Lady’s comments earlier, when she said that she would prefer to have solar panels than Hinkley Point, which will fulfil 8% of the country’s total energy needs. We would have to plaster the whole of the south-west and probably most of the farm land of the south-east to get anywhere near that amount of power. I am absolutely intrigued if that is actually Liberal Democrat policy.
Tessa Munt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but of course my comment was on the beauty or otherwise of Hinkley Point, as the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) discussed. My point was that I do not believe that Hinkley Point is in any way beautiful, nor could it be considered attractive from any point of view. I accept that it produces power, and I certainly was not speaking for my party. I accept that there has to be a mix and that I cannot possibly stop Hinkley Point on my own, much as I possibly would like to do so. It is a valuable part of the mix, but I do not think that it is a very attractive blot on our landscape.
I am a keen environmentalist, and I believe that we have to make huge strides on energy saving, as well as on renewable energy generation, to ensure that we meet the targets that we set ourselves in the Climate Change Act 2008.
Using solar PV on domestic roofs is not the whole answer, and there are compromises to be made between orientation and the difficulty sometimes fitting in with architectural constraints. None the less, there is an opportunity to use commercial roofs for solar PV, too. I cite the cow shed roof of Michael Eavis, the founder of Glastonbury festival, who hosted 200,000 people the weekend before last at a highly successful and very sunny festival. I understand that he is the biggest private solar power and electricity provider in the UK. He has 1,116 panels on his cow shed roof at Worthy farm, and he produces 200 kW of power and saves 100 tonnes of carbon per annum. He uses that power to charge the generators used for long periods during the festival.
Sheryll Murray
The hon. Lady is obviously unaware that there are two facilities—one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) and the other in my constituency—that I am absolutely certain are much larger solar arrays than the one she mentions. Perhaps she would be well advised to check whether her information is a bit out of date, because those two facilities are recent installations.
Tessa Munt
My understanding is that Michael Eavis is the largest private provider, but if I am incorrect, I stand that comment aside. None the less, he is a significant provider of solar energy, and it is to his credit that he has taken that step. Looking from the top of the Mendip hills or across the Somerset countryside, it is not unattractive to see the solar panels on those cow shed roofs. From a distance, most of the solar panels actually look like lakes, bits of water and, in some cases, the reflection off the polytunnels where strawberries are grown at Cheddar and where various other vegetables and produce are grown in the area. The visual impact can sometimes be quite attractive.
Of course, the good that is done is comparable and sometimes preferable, when we look at the money that goes into subsidies. Using subsidies for solar panels compares favourably with using subsidies for nuclear energy—that technology is certainly not new and should stand on its own in the market, but that debate is for another day.
In my part of Somerset, we are no stranger to solar arrays being planned and built. Up to 10 are planned or are in the planning process in my constituency alone. Locally based generation clearly reduces the use of the fossil fuels that often fuel the national grid at carbon-intensive fossil fuel power stations.
Electricity generation is moving to a model in which we can use a wide mix of technologies to provide power, and solar power is undoubtedly a significant contributor. Ground-mounted solar can come in a range of scales and sizes. In my part of Somerset, some proposed plans are suitable to the area, although some may be too big and intrusive. On the impact of solar arrays, I agree that wherever possible, they should be placed on brownfield land. In my area, though, it is equally feasible for agricultural land to be used for two purposes: farming and energy production.
The issue should be considered in respect of the wide benefits that solar arrays can bring to communities. I wish to place the themes of community and community energy at the heart of this debate. There are models for large-scale solar schemes that are appropriate and in scale. For example, in my patch is the Wedmore community power co-operative—a 1 MW scheme of 4,000 panels on about five acres of land, edged with hedges and a tree-lined road. The site, a little way outside the centre of the village of Wedmore, will power 300 of the 550 homes at the centre of that community. It is on a smaller scale than most of the larger arrays, but that is all the better, as it is a model for other villages in rural areas.
The Wedmore community power co-operative is encouraging as many local people as possible to invest in the scheme. As it is a community-led co-op set up by local people, every penny of the profit will flow back into the community. The scheme has a 27-year life, and the co-operative estimates that £605,000 will pour into the local area for all manner of projects to help the rural fuel-poor and help people with energy efficiency and insulation, particularly in hard-to-heat homes, which are common in my part of Somerset.
Dr Wollaston
How does the project overcome the common difficulty that people must buy shares to benefit from it? How do those who are fuel-poor and unable to buy into the scheme benefit directly from it? Does the rest of the community directly make their fuel bills cheaper?
Tessa Munt
As I understand it—I hope to become a member of the co-operative—the threshold is £250, a moderate investment for those of us who might be able to afford it. I cannot remember what the maximum investment is, but I think that it might be something like £10,000 or £20,000, which is certainly out of my aim. For those who commit to the scheme, the co-op will use the profits created by the feed-in tariff to assist those who are identified as fuel-poor within the community. It might look at houses that are particularly hard to heat; there are a number of properties with very thick stone walls where people have particularly high bills.
For my part, I have been working with a charity organisation examining the amount of money spent in the community of Wedmore on electricity bills, gas bills and domestic heating fuel. They can see exactly how much is spent within a parish. Then the co-operative will move to reduce bills in the properties that are most expensive to heat for those who have the least funds to do so. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I hope that that answers some of her questions.
To return to the details of the scheme, sheep will graze in the solar paddocks, as they have been called. The energy will not be intensively farmed; there will be space, and sheep will be able to graze. At the end of the 27 years, the panels will be removed and the land returned to its original use. I understand that the investors can expect a pretty healthy 7.2% average rate of return on their investment.
I hope that the Minister will consider speaking to his counterparts in the Department for Communities and Local Government, because there is an opportunity to take localism to the next degree by ensuring that communities start to aim for self-sufficiency in their energy needs. Communities should be able to consider their energy needs and how they might help reduce them by ensuring that buildings are built in a more energy-efficient way and by using all sorts of investment to ensure that people have lower bills.
It would be a good solution if communities could consider how they will take responsibility for the power that they use. My sense is that there has been enormous resistance to wind turbines in two or three parts of my constituency. The answer that I would always like to give to people is that they should be able to approach their district council and say, “Look, if you don’t want wind turbines, what are you going to offer instead?” We have to deal with the question of energy and energy production. We cannot just throw our hands in the air and say, “We don’t want that, that or that,” while carrying on using energy at the same intensity as before. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) making a formal intervention?
Tessa Munt
No, that is throwing one’s hands in the air. There is an opportunity for people to consider how they might take responsibility for their communities. As a second example, the isolated village of Priddy sits on top of the Mendip hills. When the weather is bad, the village is pretty much cut off. The children of Priddy have requested on a number of occasions that their parish council install photovoltaic panels. Originally, they wanted to put them on the school roof, but it turned out that the school roof was angled the wrong way. Happily, the village hall, just across the road, was absolutely suitable, and it was fitted with solar panels in 2010. Those cells generate 4,400 kWh of electricity and prevent the production of nearly 2,400 kg of CO2 each year.
To generalise, Regen South West’s latest progress report for 2013 shows that the south-west region now supplies about 7.3% of its energy through renewable means, but at current rates of installation, we will not meet the target of 15% by 2020, which is worrying. I would love to see more projects like the Wedmore scheme that work with and for communities. Community schemes benefit not an individual but the whole community, and there are ways to spread the wealth around. There will always be room for corporate players in the market, especially in industrial areas and on brownfield sites, but in rural areas, the community and co-op model is far preferable. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes on bringing this debate to the fore.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I echo my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on securing this opportune debate. It is not anti-solar panels, but it is about ensuring that solar panels are installed on barn roofs, industrial buildings and individual residences, not in huge arrays.
The hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) mentioned solar paddocks of four or five acres. The problem in my constituency is that we virtually have whole farms—I am not exaggerating—of 70, 80 or 90 acres in individual applications. I assure Members that anyone who has bought their house or lived there for years and who looks out on a beautiful hillside does not want 90 acres of solar panels in front of them. There is nothing pretty about them. They have huge industrial fences around them. They are not part of the countryside. People do not come to Devon and Cornwall—or even Somerset, dare I say—to see solar panels; they come to see beautiful countryside and wonderful farming. They do not want to see solar panels; they want to see sheep and cattle. As for the number of sheep that will graze under the panels, I assure the Chamber that it will not be very many. If the light is being taken to produce electricity, how much grass will grow, given that it needs to photosynthesise? A lot of what is being discussed is complete and utter myth.
We have 7 billion people and want to feed the world, and our nation, but all we are doing is taking out acres and acres of good farmland. Solar panels are being proposed for grade 1 and 2 farmland in my constituency; we have proposals for Bampton, Morebath, around Tiverton and around Cullompton. Mid Devon appears to be the solar panel farm capital of the world, and the council is inundated with the number of applications.
Dr Wollaston
I have shown my hon. Friend an advert from Farmers Weekly. Does he agree that it verges on being fraudulent? It appears to show lush green grass growing directly underneath ground-mounted, large-scale solar panels.
Neil Parish
I suggest that the grass and the wonderful flowers in the picture my hon. Friend has shown me were there before the panels were put up—the panels can only just have been put up for the advertisers to get such a picture. The whole thing is—but perhaps I had better not say what I was going to say.
I echo the words of my hon. Friends: do not blame the farmers for what is going on; blame the companies. Basically, the companies are using a scattergun approach. If they apply as many times and for as many sites as possible, they will not get many applications through, but they will get one or two of them, so they keep going. All they do is terrorise the population of those areas, who see planning application after planning application, costing Mid Devon a fortune to process. The council is now asking for environmental impact assessments, but everything still has to be processed.
The Minister wants the money that we are using to subsidise solar panels—we should not forget that panels can only get into place with vast amounts of subsidy—to go on community projects and individual households, so that people get real benefits. The problem is, however, that the money seems to have landed up in the vast numbers of field projects, because the price of panels has halved. A year or so ago, the Minister got lambasted for reducing the tariff on solar panel production, but in the meantime the cost of the panels has dropped and they have become lucrative. In the end, it is all about producing money, and the panels are too profitable. That is the problem.
I urge the Minister, therefore, to reduce the tariff further, especially for the field panels, although I am sure he is not keen to do so after his previous experience of reducing it. That will ensure that the money goes where he intends it to go. The planning process is good, and I welcome what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), and his Department have done, in that local authorities will now have a great deal more say. My argument, however, is simple: if the panels are not profitable, we will not get them. We will not get 90-acre farms covered in solar panels if they are not profitable; if such undertakings are profitable, the companies will try to get them up and running.
Just over the border from me, I have industrial buildings that are covered in solar panels, which is a great place to put panels, and as other hon. Members have said, there are some large farm buildings around the area. That is absolutely right, because farm buildings on the whole are not things of great beauty, and putting solar panels on them might even increase their beauty, and they certainly would not detract from it. Do not take the panels out into acres and acres of land. Where would it stop? If we take all that grade 1 and 2 land out of food production, we will be short of food, and we do not actually need the solar panels.
I take huge issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. The Hinkley power station is already there; I am the first to admit that Hinkley A and B are not things of great beauty, but they are already in place. If we add two new reactors that will produce 8% of the country’s total electricity needs in the same place, no one will notice. In fact, the new power stations will be marginally better looking than the previous ones. They will certainly produce electricity for the whole country—some 8%—and we would have to cover virtually half the country with solar panels in order to produce a similar amount of electricity. Furthermore, during dark times of year when little solar energy is produced, we would not get that electricity, whereas a nuclear power station is a base load, which is there and producing electricity all the time.
People are getting cross, because they feel that they are being sold green energy as a total solution, but I am sure that the Minister will admit that we need all types of green energy in order to balance. We have got the balance wrong. I do not blame him for that, because he has done his best to ensure that the money goes to community schemes and individuals, but we have to do much more. My local council in Mid Devon was successful in putting solar panels all over council and social housing, which has been a benefit of about £3 a week to many of the tenants, who are hard-pressed for cash—that is a great way of using the subsidy.
Finally, I ask the Minister to look at the issue again. All through the valleys of east and mid-Devon we have large power lines in many places. The companies follow the power lines all the way through the valleys, which are right out in the open. Even quite large farms can be accepted in places—if they have trees around them and are reasonably well hidden, that is fine. The companies will carry on following the power lines all through the south-west, because the region—Devon and Cornwall in particular—is especially good for panels, on account of the light and the amount of production possible, making them lucrative. I wish the Minister well, but I want him to do much more than make the DCLG changes to the planning system; we need to alter the tariffs to ensure that those huge solar farms are no longer profitable.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on securing what has been an interesting debate. Hon. Members have made many important points, and I hope to touch on a number of them.
May I begin my remarks with something a little different? I want to talk about the American inventor, Thomas Edison, who will need little introduction to hon. Members. He was one of the great pioneers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His achievements include the patented system for electricity distribution and the practical electric light bulb. The crux of the debate is that over the next decade a quarter of our power supply will be shut down or switched off for good. We are talking about how to keep the lights on. It is therefore appropriate to look at something Edison said about the future of energy more than 80 years ago. Shortly before his death in 1931, he told a friend:
“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
Ever the visionary, Edison understood the value of planning ahead, making the most of our natural resources and investing in a low-carbon future, and that was before scientists had discovered that our climate was changing.
The solar opportunity is not a new one, therefore, but it is one that we desperately need to seize with both hands. Fifteen per cent. of our energy is targeted to come from renewable sources by 2020, but there are some big question marks about whether that target will be achieved. If we are to have any hope of meeting it, solar needs to be a vital part of our energy mix in the years and decades ahead, and many Members have acknowledged that in their contributions. I also welcome the question that the hon. Member for Totnes asked about the role that marine and tidal might play in the future energy mix.
Sheryll Murray
Does the hon. Lady agree that the most appropriate siting of solar energy panels is on the roofs of industrial or other buildings and out of sight, or does she promote covering vast areas of our valuable productive farmland with solar panels?
Luciana Berger
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I will go through all her points in my contribution. If she has further questions, perhaps she will wait for my response, and I will be more than happy to come back to her.
Solar has numerous benefits to offer, and some have been picked up in the contributions that we have heard. It can complement other, less predictable renewable technologies. We do not always know how windy it will be, but we know to the minute what time the sun rises each morning and sets in the evening, so we can work out exactly what the minimum output will be.
Research shows that solar produces electricity at times of year when wind and hydro power generate less. Solar parks can help energy suppliers to balance supply from other forms of generation. Crucially, that helps to reduce the cost of supply to the bill payer because suppliers are less reliant on the short-term energy market, where power is more expensive. The time when electricity is generated from solar technology is a good match for demand, especially in daytime factory production, office and retail spaces. It would be misguided to put all our renewable eggs in one basket. This debate is a reminder about why it was folly for the Government not to commit to setting a decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill to clean up our power sector.
Looking at what is happening globally, the rest of the world is moving fast with solar. For example, the United States has today become the fourth country in the world to break through the 10 GW barrier for solar PV capacity, and it is not only large countries such as China that have broken through that barrier but Germany and Italy. In comparison, the UK currently deploys around 2.5 GW of solar PV capacity.
The Minister said recently that he wants to make the UK the destination of choice for any solar company looking to invest in Europe. I recognise and acknowledge that solar is a core technology in the revised debt renewables road map. He has also said that it is his ambition to deploy up to 20 GW of capacity by 2020. That is a fantastic ambition, which I would like to see realised urgently. Does he believe that it can be met solely on brownfield and roof top sites?
I understand that around one in 70 homes currently has a solar panel on its roof, and I hope that that number will increase. I acknowledge the contributions about community energy projects. I visited an energy co-operative in Brixton recently. It is using the roofs of social housing and reinvesting money raised from that project into the local community. However, we must acknowledge that roof-mounted solar projects often have to compromise their output to fit the architectural constraints of the building, and many people do not have the choice of having a solar panel. I would love one on my roof, but unfortunately it faces north so I cannot.
Ground-mounted projects can be orientated for maximum output, and many hon. Members have raised the planning and environmental issues associated with them. First and foremost, it is absolutely right that we take care to protect our rural landscape and our natural environment, in the same way as with all energy generation. Consent for generating stations of 50 MW or smaller is a matter for local planning authorities. Some applications will be for appropriately sited installations and will receive planning permission; others will not be appropriate and will not go ahead, as with any development.
Dr Wollaston
We all accept that that is the ideal, but I am afraid the reality is that local planners often feel obliged to approve applications because they are unsure and fear the costs of appeal.
Luciana Berger
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will respond to that point in a moment.
Hon. Members have views about individual developments and applications that are being considered in their own constituencies. It would not be correct for me to comment on them. However, national policy guidance is that local planning authorities should avoid prime agricultural land for large-scale solar projects.
Sheryll Murray
I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard my speech, but I have asked the Minister to confirm that national planning policy guidance will be amended in the same way as that for wind turbines. The guidance in place at the moment is not stopping the increasing use of good, productive farmland for solar arrays. The hon. Lady may not be aware of that because I believe that she does not represent a rural constituency. It might be good if she went back and tried to find out exactly what was happening in the countryside.
Luciana Berger
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I do not represent a rural constituency, but I have spent a lot of time in rural constituencies throughout the country when visiting different projects. I understand the concerns that she raises, and having spoken extensively to the industry, I know that the Department is developing, and has been for a while, a charter on how some of the issues can be overcome. I hope that the Minister will refer to it. I will not speak for him, because I am not the Minister, but I expect that we will hear more about that and what the sector has been working on extensively with the Government to overcome some of the challenges that have rightly been raised by hon. Members.
I also know from speaking to the industry that many, but not all, solar companies voluntarily focus on lower-grade agricultural land where crop cultivation is unlikely, but I take on board the comments and representations from hon. Members. As they have said, many farmers are facing the challenge of tough times. It is not their fault, and we must do everything we can to support them. They are being offered opportunities to diversify their income and to keep farming.
On some projects, sheep can graze beneath the panels, and it is possible for solar parks to play a role in encouraging greater biodiversity in our natural environment. I understand that land can be resown in a way that provides food and habitat for pollinating insects, and that just last week a scheme was launched by the Bumblebee Conservation Trust to establish wild flower meadows across Solarcentury’s solar park sites.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions, and I will conclude with this final thought. Just a fortnight ago, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change reported that the UK had fallen behind in meeting our carbon reduction targets. If we are to get back on track we need an approach that makes the most of all our renewable energy sources, and that must include solar.
I began by with some old words of Edison about the untapped potential that solar technology presents. This has been a fine debate, but it is not one that I would want our successors to quote in 80 years. Clearly, there are issues to be aware of and we must tread carefully when necessary, but we must look at the opportunities for solar and I hope that we can make the most of it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, although I was slightly surprised at the interesting segue into the debate taken by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) with her little eulogy for Thomas Edison. It was enlightening, but I remind her that he also invented the electric chair. I suppose one must take the rough with the smooth.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). This debate is not only important, it is extremely timely, and she has put her finger on the spot of a growing concern. I hope that this debate and the comments that I will make will nip in the bud what could be a very big problem and avert the loss of public support. I was fortunate to visit my hon. Friend’s beautiful constituency in the spring as part of a visit to Cornwall and Devon, and Transition Town Totnes is a genuinely inspiring community. What they have done and are planning to do there is a model that I hope will be rolled out in many communities across the country. Not only are they doing great things in their area, but they plan to share that with other people around the country.
I also know the hon. Lady shares my absolute conviction about the need to act against dangerous man-made climate change and about the imperative of growing the stock of renewable energy as part of our energy mix, but we have to do that in a balanced and careful way, and the two are not incompatible. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss what we might term the menace of inappropriate large-scale arrays, and hopefully, to allay some of the concerns that have been raised during the course of today’s debate.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree suggested, I am a great supporter of solar. I like to think of myself as a champion of the technology. Certainly, while I have been Minister, over the past three years, we have deployed an unprecedented level of solar; almost 2.5 GW has been deployed during that time, which is quite a record. Solar PV is a genuinely exciting technology of the future. It is flexible, intuitive, and it can be deployed in a wide range of applications and locations as part of a mixed energy economy. Whether in domestic installations, on commercial roofs, or even, on a large scale, generating for the grid, it has a strong role to play in our energy mix of the future. However, make no mistake: I am keen to see more deployment and for the UK economy to maximise the benefits that a vibrant solar PV sector will bring.
Neil Parish
I do not know whether the Minister will come to my point about looking again at the amount of subsidy for large-scale solar farms, so as to ensure that they are not as highly profitable and lucrative as they are at the moment.
Gregory Barker
I will, but I am afraid I will have to disappoint my hon. Friend.
I am on record as stating my ambition, which has also been mentioned in the debate, of seeing up to 20 GW of solar deployed in Britain, building on the terrific 2.5 GW we have deployed since the coalition came to power. Let me put that in context: if we converted only 16% of suitable commercial and industrial rooftops, or only 8% of suitable roofs on our homes, or a mix of the two, that would be sufficient to meet my big 20 GW ambition.
Tessa Munt
I had the pleasure of an invitation from the all-party parliamentary group for the roofing industry but a couple of days ago. I wonder whether the Minister might consider ensuring that the green deal includes all sorts of solar roof tiling, and building that in, so that every time anyone’s roof is repaired or buildings are re-roofed, they use shaped pantiles or whatever. All sorts of products are out there that can create power as well as stop the rain coming in.
Gregory Barker
I have thought of my hon. Friend in many ways, but I have never really thought of her as a roofer. However, I take her point: there are some interesting technologies. Building-mounted solar, and particularly, building-integrated solar—roof tiles fall under that category—is interesting. Encouragingly, the cost of the products is continuing to fall. Building-integrated solar is still relatively expensive, so it is unlikely to meet the golden rule of the green deal, but of course, green deal assessments will prompt people to consider such measures for their homes. Building regulations will also prompt developers to think about including them in homes of the future. I think there is huge potential for home-grown products, and my vision of the future is for everyone’s home to become, at least in part, a power station, and for a much more decentralised, distributed energy economy.
However, although I have big ambitions for the solar sector, let me be equally clear: deployment will not—and must not—come at any cost, nor in any place, and certainly not if it rides roughshod over the opinions of local communities. Solar has huge potential, and unlike some renewable technologies, it still enjoys huge popular support in many places. We must not allow a few badly sited or inappropriately scaled solar farms to undermine broader public support and effectively ruin it for the whole industry. I am determined to stop that happening.
Deployment of solar PV, like any other major renewable energy source, must be thoughtful, sensitive to public opinion, and mindful of the wider environmental and visual impacts. That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray)made in her excellent speech, really speaking up for the beautiful countryside in her constituency, and that point was also made by my other hon. Friends. I fully appreciate people’s worries. As my hon. Friends have described, the deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a very real, negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in very undulating landscapes. However, it is also important to say that the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm can be properly accommodated within the landscape if done sensitively. Projects such as Powis castle and other National Trust sites are great examples of that. I was hugely impressed by the vision for a large-scale local energy park when I visited Kettering this week. It was a well-thought-out mix of onshore wind, biomass and solar, done with the consent and sympathy of the local community.
I also understand concerns about changes in land use away from agricultural use at a time when so many of us are increasingly concerned about food security and food production. We simply must not—and will not—allow prime agricultural land to be taken out of active food production. I am sensitive to people’s worries and have taken note of the specific cases highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for South East Cornwall, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I will come back to that in greater detail, because fundamentally, I think we are on the same page.
Where are we now? What are we doing about this issue now? The fact is that my views are by no means exceptional. In fact, they are part of a broad consensus. The importance of getting the balance right and the imperative of retaining popular public support for solar is recognised by the vast majority of responsible solar companies as well. That is why the Solar Trade Association is well advanced in producing its own code of conduct for its members. I greatly welcome that initiative, which is likely to address head on the need for sensitivity to local concerns and visual amenity—so important in my hon. Friends’ constituencies; the importance of community engagement; the encouragement of dual land use; community benefits, including education and employment; and importantly, the need, at the end of its life, to return the land to its former use.
In addition, the National Solar Centre, which I was very pleased to open earlier this year, has produced detailed guidance for developers and planners, giving strict parameters to ensure that large-scale developments are sustainable. The National Solar Centre will be promoting the use of those guidelines to local planners and developers through a series of roadshows around the regions.
As welcome as those voluntary initiatives are, they are not enough. The Government have a role to play, too, so we are taking action. I have created a Government and industry taskforce to look at land use and the sustainable deployment of large-scale solar PV. The first meeting of the taskforce was just yesterday, but I have taken on board the points that my hon. Friends have made about food security, and I will ask the taskforce, which is chaired by the National Farmers Union, specifically to look into the issue and report back. The taskforce will look at how to ensure responsible and sustainable deployment and make sure that it works with communities and local planners to a localism agenda.
This complex issue requires an effective and well-considered solution. For example, we could just demand that large-scale development occur only on brownfield sites, but the simple statement “Brownfield good, greenfield bad” does not stand up to scrutiny. A brownfield site could contain a site of special scientific interest or be contained within an area of outstanding national beauty. It could be in a part of the landscape—on a hill or the side of a hill—where it can be seen for miles around. Likewise, even plots of the highest-grade agricultural land could have areas that are lower grade and could be legitimately used for solar PV deployment.
That is why—this is most important—I want to see these decisions taken locally, within the framework of sensible, robust planning guidance from the Government and strong sustainability criteria. However, as I said in a speech to the solar sector earlier this year, in general, we do have a strong preference for commercial, industrial and brownfield development. The Wheal Jane solar farm at an old tin mine in Cornwall is a very good example of where brownfield land has been used to create a solar farm.
I have set up a second taskforce, using the industry and other sectors, with the aim of maximising the quantity of solar deployed on rooftops across the country—not just for domestic households, as it will consider how to maximise deployment on industrial buildings, supermarkets, Government buildings and car parks and in other sectors. This is a huge potential resource, and we must ensure that it is exploited. As I said, just 16% of these non-domestic roofs could yield my big ambition of 20 GW.
I understand the argument, however, that some solar farms currently being deployed can scar our beautiful countryside. We need to ensure that all developers are sensitive to countryside and community. It is a fallacy to say that the deployment of ground-mounted solar PV must necessarily come with a negative visual impact, even in potentially sensitive and designated areas. The solar array at Powis castle, which I mentioned, is effectively shielded from the main visitor approach and the wider view not by industrial fencing, but by hedging. I have seen other larger arrays that sit comfortably in the landscape, and many others that do not.
We rarely hear mention of the spin-off benefits of sustainable solar PV deployment. Developers should always be encouraged to install natural visual screening such as hedges, which in themselves encourage biodiversity, by providing habitats for bird and insect life. The fallow land under solar PV panels can also encourage bird, insect and reptile life back to the fields. However, I certainly take on board my hon. Friends’ comments about the ridiculous notion that so many sites can be compatible with high-quality grazing land and the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes makes about some of the pictures that are displayed in the advertising materials. That needs looking into.
I am mindful of the other side of the coin. Indeed, one responsible major PV developer, Solarcentury, has just entered into a partnership with the British Beekeepers Association to enhance the prospects for the great British bumble bee, which, I think, the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) alluded to.
Dr Wollaston
Does the Minister accept that spacing is also an issue? Where panels are very densely packed together, there will be very little opportunity for wildlife development. Those areas will just become wastelands and deserts.
Gregory Barker
Absolutely spot-on. This goes to the heart of the problem and is why we need, and will bring forward in the autumn, sustainability criteria. As my hon. Friend says, there is a very big difference between well spaced panels that are high off the ground and panels that are low to the ground and densely packed. It is almost like chalk and cheese. We must be clear what the reality on the ground is, not what it looks like in the brochure.
Sheryll Murray
My right hon. Friend says that he will bring forward proposals in the autumn. May I reinforce to him the fact that we cannot wait until the autumn for something to be done about the planning situation? There is already a race to get a planning application in and through now. We will see our countryside destroyed unless something is done immediately.
Gregory Barker
I do take on board that sense of urgency. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the DCLG—we have been working very closely with colleagues in that Department—will bring forward, in a matter of weeks, the revised planning guidance. I believe that flexibility is already there for local authorities to exercise discretion, but we need to make that crystal clear, because as hon. Members have pointed out, there is some concern, and too often local authorities, out of fear of being challenged in the High Court, just roll over, rather than looking at the balance of community interest and visual impact, which they are quite properly able to do. We need to spell that out in a crystal-clear way that ensures that localism—local opinion—is reflected in the planning guidance.
I realise that some people treat agriculture and solar as going hand in hand with some scepticism, so I have asked my officials specifically to look into this issue directly, to look at the photographs and the materials that have been provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and not to rely on the word of developers alone. That brings me to the localism agenda.
Localism remains a fundamental keystone on which the coalition has built its policies. It runs through the coalition like the words in a stick of Blackpool rock. We remain completely committed to ensuring that the voice of local communities is strongly heard in matters that directly affect them. The deployment of renewable energy is a perfect case in point.
Tessa Munt
I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a subject that he knows is one of my favourites. Many communities would feel slightly sceptical about this, particularly with regard to energy. As he knows, there is a desire on the part of communities to have power lines undergrounded through areas of particular beauty in this country. Despite the fact that 8,000 constituents of mine and other hon. Members whose constituencies neighbour mine have submitted their objections, National Grid has taken no interest whatever and there is no way to prop up that very strong community view.
Gregory Barker
The hon. Lady makes a very valid point. Let me reassure her: Ofgem does provide additional funding for the undergrounding of overhead cables in sensitive areas. I think that it was a great shame that the previous Conservative Government did not adopt the proposal that was lying around to underground so many pylon lines as a legacy for the millennium and instead opted to build the millennium dome. It is not that I do not like a concert—I certainly do—but I cannot help thinking that, as a gift to future generations, undergrounding the complete pylon network might have been something that we could all cheer for long after Beyoncé has departed.
Tessa Munt
The difficulty is that all of us here are experiencing problems in areas that are not areas of outstanding natural beauty; they are just naturally beautiful landscapes. If an area is not designated, there is no protection. Nothing is written that is strong enough to stop such ignorance of the local view.
Gregory Barker
I do not want to be drawn too far down that road, but there are clearly planning issues. Planning must go through due process. We are mindful of the impacts. There is a balance to be struck. Undergrounding obviously comes at a cost. In the Department, we constantly have to wrestle with the desirability of our policies versus the impact on consumer bills. When so many families are struggling with the cost of living and rising electricity and energy bills, we have been mindful of delivering cheaper bills, as well as cleaner energy and an energy infrastructure that respects our landscape.
I reiterate that I strongly believe that a local planning process, backed up by strong community engagement and robust best-practice guidance, is the most appropriate vehicle for decisions on the siting of large-scale solar PV. The national planning policy framework is clear: an application for renewable energy development should be approved only if the impact is, or can be made, acceptable. However, the framework needs to be reformed and what is and is not acceptable needs to be made far clearer. I am pleased to say that, after excellent cross-Government working, the DCLG will shortly issue new guidance setting out that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections or the planning concerns of local communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes voiced concerns that the way the planning process treats applications could cause parts of her constituency, which are lower-grade agricultural land—pasture and land for other non-food uses—to be unduly targeted for development without considering their wider place in the local environment. That is precisely why our policies do not rely on a simple, coarse definition but require proper consideration of all the factors surrounding the siting of renewables infrastructure. The revised planning guidance for renewables, which the coalition Government will issue in the next few weeks, will state:
“The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities”
and
“Care should be taken to preserve heritage assets, including the impact of planning proposals on views important to their setting”.
All the actions that I have mentioned that we are taking are important, but we accept that concerns remain and that we can do more to address concerns over the sustainability of large-scale solar arrays. I want the solar PV strategy, which we will publish in the autumn, to be informed by my solar taskforces. I also want it to be enriched by the evidence that is being provided for our forthcoming community energy strategy. I encourage all hon. Members to encourage their constituents in turn and the stakeholders to whom they are close to feed their views in to that call for evidence, to get the widest possible evidence base.
In conclusion, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for raising this timely and important issue. I reiterate that I am committed to solar PV taking its rightful place in a 21st century renewable energy mix and the UK reaping the carbon savings and economic benefits that that will bring. I remain committed to my big 20 GW vision for the UK, but not at any cost. It will come only if we continue to drive down the cost of solar towards grid parity, work with the grain of public opinion and develop solar in a way that works with local communities and does not detract unduly from our beautiful countryside.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
That concludes our debate today. Have a safe journey home and a good weekend.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Higher Education Regulatory Reforms
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
Today I am announcing reforms to how higher education in England is regulated.
The White Paper “Students at the Heart of the System”, published in 2011, set out a plan to transform higher education, to ensure it was placed on a sustainable footing, to deliver a better student experience, to promote social mobility and widen participation, and to create a more responsive higher education sector in which funding follows the decisions of learners and where successful institutions will thrive. The funding reforms, which rebalanced funding from grants to tuition fees, came into effect in the 2012-13 academic year. The regulation of higher education needs to be adjusted to reflect these reforms.
The reformed regulatory system for higher education I am announcing today has been developed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Student Loans Company through the Regulatory Partnership Group, working with the Government. The reformed regulatory system ensures accountability for public funding, protects the collective student interest, gives priority to quality improvement, safeguards institutional autonomy, and sustains the reputation of English higher education.
The higher education sector has a long tradition of successful independent regulation and also regulation shared between Government and the sector. The funding council’s statutory independence is a key feature of this system. The funding council’s independence has helped to sustain academic freedom and institutional autonomy, features that are critical to the continued success and international standing of English higher education. In adjusting the regulatory framework this successful independent regulation has been protected as a vital national asset.
The funding council and the loan company do not work alone and have developed effective relationships with other bodies including the Quality Assurance Agency, the Office for Fair Access, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, the Higher Education Statistics Agency, and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.
As part of the reforms, the working of the regulatory system will be set out in an operating framework which the funding council will be publishing shortly. The framework will be instantly recognisable to many in the sector as much remains largely unchanged. It affirms the value of institutional autonomy and sets out transparently the accountability and regulatory requirements that protect the student interest and public investment.
HEFCE will consult the sector on a new financial memorandum that will support the operating framework incorporating necessary changes that the reforms and new priorities demand. The framework incorporates changes which have been a result of separate consultations by Government, the funding council, and the Quality Assurance Agency.
Flowing from the White Paper “Students at the Heart of the System” and the funding reforms, there are a number of new or reformed elements. These reforms are:
Placing the funding council in an oversight and co-ordination role;
Establishing a register of higher education provision;
Introducing a statement of higher education institutions (HEI) designation conditions;
Updating the financial memorandum;
Reforming student number controls;
A new designation system for alternative providers;
A student number control system for alternative providers; and,
A designation resolution process.
The first reform is placing the funding council in an oversight and co-ordination role. This is a complex, but highly necessary function that will ensure proportionate regulation across all higher education providers and co-ordinate the regulatory activity of a number of bodies that are variously constituted as Government agencies and independent bodies. It will involve the funding council:
Acting as registrar;
Working with higher education providers, agencies, representative bodies and the NUS, to monitor systematically observance of the conditions associated with operating in the system, with a focus on protecting the collective student interest;
Taking a lead in working with partners to identify and address issues within higher education providers and take appropriate remedial action; and,
Monitoring the ongoing appropriateness of the regulatory system, changes in the broader context, and new risks as they emerge.
Next, I have asked the funding council to establish a register of higher education provision. Good, high-quality, timely, and reliable information is key to enabling students to make the right decisions on their education. It is also important that those institutions that fulfil requirements that provide confidence to students and the public are appropriately recognised.
The register of higher education provision will therefore act as a consumer safeguard. The register will give information on:
The constitutional/organisational status of each higher education provider;
How the higher education provider is funded; and,
What the provider is committed to do—this might include, but not be limited to, provision of information, quality requirements, financial management, governance, complaints handling, and fair access.
The third reform is introducing a statement of HEI designation conditions. Regulatory requirements on higher education institutions are currently primarily applied through the funding council’s financial memorandum which applies conditions to grant funding and establishes clear accountability for such funding. This arrangement will continue. From academic year 2014-15 onwards it is my intention that similar conditions will also apply to HEI automatic course designation for student support. This ensures that the rebalancing of funding from grants to tuition fees does not diminish the effectiveness of the current regulatory regime and the confidence this provides to students and the public. It also means the regulatory burden is minimised as no further requirements are placed on institutions than currently exist.
To make this change I will be updating the education (student support) regulations. BIS will discuss the details of the amendment and its implementation in practice with representatives of the higher education sector. Importantly, once the regulations have been made, BIS intends to delegate to the funding council the function of designation of courses at higher education institutions for student support purposes. This continues the existing protections that institutions enjoy through the funding council being at arm’s length from Government.
Over the next academic year the funding council will be consulting on an updated version of the financial memorandum, informed by extensive discussions the council has already held with higher education representatives and other interested bodies. I understand that the proposed changes are limited, with the most significant issue for consultation being new arrangements to manage the risks around financial commitments. These arrangements are important for sustaining confidence in universities in the capital markets.
The funding council is already consulting on reforming the student number control system for HEI. While continuing to exercise prudent control of the overall higher education budget, student choice is being increased through our tariff policy and the consultation on a flexibility margin for 2014-15. The tariff threshold has been reduced to ABB or equivalent from 2013-14 which frees around one third of places from number controls. These policies will allow more students to study at their first choice institution.
Alternative providers are an important part of increasing choice for students. The sixth reform is to the designation system for alternative providers. Specific course designation at alternative providers allows eligible English-domiciled students on designated courses to access loans and grants from the Student Loans Company—with the maximum fee loan being £6,000 per annum. This widens student choice and strengthens the forces that drive innovation.
At the same time the Government are committed to ensuring that there are robust processes in place to protect the interest of students, the reputation of UK higher education, and the public investment. Following a Government consultation, existing and new alternative providers will now have to meet stronger requirements on quality assurance, financial sustainability, and good governance. We will also expect that the collective student interest is served through this process.
To accompany the strengthening of specific course designation for alternative providers we are also planning to introduce a system of student number controls for alternative providers. This will be introduced from academic year 2014-15.
Finally in the highly unlikely event that a higher education institution or alternative provider does not meet the conditions of course designation in respect of student support funding there is a risk that the course will no longer remain designated. To protect the students at an institution where this occurs I have asked the funding council working with Government and the wider sector to look at options for developing a designation resolution process. This should place the interests of students at the centre of the process.
Taken as a whole these eight higher education regulatory reforms constitute a package of measures, alongside the previous rebalancing of funding, to ensure higher education is placed on a sustainable footing, that students have a better experience, to promote social mobility and widen participation, and to create a more responsive higher education sector in which funding follows the decisions of learners and where successful institutions will thrive.
I am today placing copies of my letter to the funding council in the Libraries of both Houses. I am also placing copies of the operating framework in the Libraries of both Houses.
Professional and Business Services Industrial Strategy
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The Government have today published “Growth is Our Business: A Strategy for Professional and Business Services”.
Last September I set out our new industrial strategy, and how we would work with business to stimulate economic growth and create jobs. Today’s strategy for tradable, knowledge-intensive professional and business services (PBS) is the latest in a series which focuses on key parts of our economy. It has been produced by Government in partnership with the Professional and Business Services Council and with others from across the sector.
The UK’s PBS sector comprises a range of high-skilled services, such as accountancy, legal, marketing/corporate communications, management and engineering consultancy services, it is significant in scale. It generated 11% of UK gross value added in 2011 and provided nearly 12% of UK employment1. It supports change and innovation right across our economy. The sector is also a global success story. Its exports represented £47 billion in 20112, with a trade surplus of £19 billion—a third of the UK’s total services sector surplus3.
This strategy identifies several areas for action, including two that are key to ensuring the future success of the sector. These are, first, increasing access to the high-level skills demanded by client-focused professional firms and, secondly, increasing PBS exports to emerging markets. The strategy sets out plans for both these priorities:
The industry will partner with Government to work towards trebling within five years the numbers of high apprenticeships across PBS. We aim to create new non-graduate routes into the sector. PBS firms will also work with schools to highlight the opportunities available.
Government and industry will also partner on a new trade and investment strategy. A new network of senior PBS business representatives will be set up to champion UK capabilities overseas.
I will be placing copies of the strategy document in the Libraries of both Houses.
1 ONS national accounts data and BIS calculations
2 ONS Pink Book
3 OECD trade in services data
Regional Growth Fund
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
Today my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce that 102 projects and programmes have been awarded a total of £506 million in round 4 of the regional growth fund (RGF). This additional support for the private sector in England will help ensure that RGF money is now helping an increasing number of companies to invest in long-term job creation schemes in communities that need private investment. I am publishing a list of all 102 projects and programmes that have been selected for support in round 4, at annex A.
In autumn statement 2012 the Government announced that £350 million would be made available for round 4 of the RGF, including £140 million of recycled funds from previous rounds. Such was the high quality of the bids received that Ministers have decided to use an additional £156 million of recycled funds in order to bring the total amount of RGF awarded in round 4 up to £506 million.
In round 4, £314 million will go directly to the private sector, comprising 60 awards to companies and 12 private sector-run RGF programmes. A total of £192 million has been awarded to 30 other programme beneficiaries such as local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to support local growth priorities in their areas.
This means that since the start of the RGF over £1 billion has been made available to SMEs in England through RGF-supported programmes. Further details on how the RGF helps support SMEs can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/regional-growth-fund-a-guide-for-small-and-medium-enterprises-smes.
The £2.6 billion of support awarded across the first four rounds of the RGF will help to lever an additional £14.7 billion of private sector money, ensuring a sizeable combined investment by the Government and companies in communities throughout England between 2011 and 2024. This investment will create and safeguard 550,000 jobs across England. The announcement on 26 June 2013 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a further £600 million for the RGF is testament that the RGF will continue to help secure private sector investment and job creation plans for many years to come.
RGF Annual Monitoring Report 2013
In addition, today the Government will publish the first RGF annual monitoring report. The report details the progress made by the 239 projects and programmes selected in RGF rounds 1 and 2 from the day they were chosen for support through to 31 March 2013.
The report shows that progress on directly monitored job delivery in rounds 1 and 2 to date is on target, with 32,000 directly monitored jobs created and safeguarded up to 31 March 2013. The total employment impact, both directly monitored and advised jobs, is estimated at 58,600 jobs—20% of the overall job total committed to by the 197 round 1 and 2 beneficiaries that are progressing.
The combined RGF and private sector investment was £1.2 billion at 31 March 2013, including support to over 1,700 SMEs.
Copies of the RGF annual monitoring report 2013 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Annex A—List of Selected Bidders in Round 4
East Midlands
UK Stem Cell Provision (Anthony Nolan)
Bifrangi UK Ltd
Chinook Sciences Ltd
“Global Derbyshire” Small Business Support Programme (Derbyshire County Council—Programme)
Dynex Semiconductor Ltd
Fairline Boats Ltd
Frontier Agriculture Ltd (Programme)
Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership Accelerating Prosperity Programme (Leicester City Council—Programme)
Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership (Programme)
Oclaro Technology Ltd
Toyota Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd
The Lincoln Growth Fund (University of Lincoln—Programme)
VF Northern Europe Ltd
East of England, South East
Eastern England Agri-Tech Growth Initiative (Cambridgeshire County Council—Programme)
Coast to Capital City High Growth and Innovation Fund (Coast to Capital LEP—Programme)
Cummins Power Generation Ltd (CPG)
e2v Technologies (UK) Ltd
East Sussex Invest (East Sussex County Council—Programme)
Element Six Ltd
Fianium Ltd
GE Aviation Systems
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus GP
SUCCESS—Southeast Urban Coast Creative Enterprise Support Scheme (Hastings Borough Council—Programme)
Escalate—the Innovation and Growth Fund (Kent County Council—Programme)
Portsmouth/Southampton (Programme)
STRUCTeam Ltd
New Anglia Growing Business Fund (Suffolk County Council—Programme)
TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd
The Oxford Trust/Science Oxford
SPI Lasers UK Ltd
North East
Air Fuel Synthesis Ltd/Crane Services (UK) Ltd
JDR Cable Systems Ltd
JDR Enterprises Ltd
Molplex Ltd
NET Power Europe
Tees Valley Innovation and Skills Growth Hub (Stockton Borough Council—Programme)
Sunderland City Deal Infrastructure Development (Sunderland City Council—Programme)
Bringing Finance to Businesses in the North East (Sunderland City Council—Programme)
Thomas Swan and Co. Ltd
Tinsley Special Products Ltd
North West
Accelerating Business Growth PLUS (Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council—Programme)
Bright Future Software Ltd
Unleashing Cumbria’s Potential (Cumbria County Council—Programme)
Cygnet Group Ltd
EA Technology Ltd
Turning Discovery Science and Knowledge into Jobs and Growth (GM Local Enterprise Partnership—Programme)
Helical Technology Ltd
Liverpool City Region Small Business Support Fund (Liverpool City Region LEP—Programme)
N Brown Group Plc (Programme)
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Ltd
Patterson and Rothwell Ltd
Redx Pharma Ltd
Sidcot Investments Ltd
St Helens Jobs and Growth Fund (St Helens Chamber—Programme)
Tratos Ltd
Unilever UK Central Resources Ltd
Catalyst for Growth (University of Chester—Programme)
Vix Technology (UK) Ltd
South West
AgustaWestland Ltd
Atlantic Inertial Systems Ltd
Avanti Communications Group plc
Cooper Tire and Rubber Company Europe Ltd
Johnson Matthey Fuel Cells Ltd (JMFC)
Marine Current Turbines Ltd
GAIN Growth Fund Plus (Plymouth City Council—Programme)
Trackwise Designs Ltd
Innovation for Growth Programme (University of the West of England—Programme)
West Midlands
GBS Mezzanine Funding Programme (Birmingham City Council—Programme)
Coventry and Warwickshire Business Finance (Coventry and Warwickshire LEP—Programme)
The Marches and Worcestershire Redundant Building Grant Programme (Herefordshire Council—Programme)
Jaguar Land Rover Ltd
Jaguar Land Rover Ltd
Jaguar Land Rover Ltd
King Automotive Systems Ltd
Malvern Instruments Ltd
NVC Lighting Ltd
Robinson Brothers Ltd
Growing Priority Sectors in the Black Country (Sandwell MBC—Programme)
Innovative Growth in Stoke on Trent and Staffordshire (Stoke on Trent City Council—Programme)
Tata Steel UK Ltd
TRW Automotive—College Road
Wade Ceramics Ltd
Worcestershire Expansion Fund (Worcestershire County Council—Programme)
Yorkshire and the Humber
Beatson Clark Ltd
Paull Strategic Employment Site: Capturing Siemens Tier 1 Suppliers (East Riding of Yorkshire Council)
Harrison Spinks Beds Ltd
The enhanced Business Growth Programme (Leeds City Region LEP—Programme)
Developing the UK’s Leading Food Manufacturing Cluster in Greater Lincolnshire (North East Lincolnshire Council—Programme)
Optare Plc
Really Useful Products Ltd
Unlocking (more) Business Investment (Sheffield Council—Programme)
Silkstone Finance Ltd
Centre for Innovation in Rail (University of Huddersfield)
York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Business Grant Programme
Nationwide
Tooling Loan Fund (Birmingham)
Community Development Finance Association
Creative England
Deutsche Leasing UK Ltd
Five Arrows Leasing Group Ltd (FALG)
HSBC
Wave 2 City Deals Growth Hubs
RBS
Remembering Srebrenica
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
My noble Friend the Senior Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Minister for Faith and Communities at the Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Warsi) has made the following written ministerial statement:
I wish to inform the House that the Department for Communities and Local Government is funding “Remembering Srebrenica” (http://www.srebrenica.org.uk), an initiative dedicated to commemorating and honouring the victims of Srebrenica and teaching future generations about the consequences of hatred.
In July 1995, the Bosnian town of Srebrenica was overrun and captured by Bosnian Serb forces and Serbian paramilitaries commanded by General Ratko Mladic, despite having been declared a UN safe area. More than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were systematically murdered and buried in mass graves in actions that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Court of Justice have determined constitute genocide.
In recognition of this, the Government are providing £170,000 to the community-led “Remembering Srebrenica” initiative in its first year of operation. This will fund an online educational archive, a commemoration event on 11 July 2013 and a series of visits from local communities to Srebrenica.
I wish to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague), for the support and co-operation that his Department has provided.
Srebrenica represents a catastrophic collective international failure to protect civilians. Commemorating the event will teach future generations about the devastating consequences of hatred on our doorstep.
Recruitment
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
There has been a long tradition of Commonwealth citizens serving in the British armed forces and most recently on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We continue to value their service which provides an important contribution in defending the UK at home and abroad.
In order to deliver the future structure of the armed forces under the requirements of the strategic defence and security review, we are already reducing their size by adjusting our recruit intake and making some redundancies. The long-standing five-year UK residency requirement for Commonwealth citizens to join the armed forces was waived in 1998. We have reviewed the Commonwealth recruitment rules and, with effect from 11 July, we will reintroduce the five-years’ residency requirement in the UK for future new recruits from Commonwealth countries. In addition, non-British recruits to the reserves will be required to have indefinite leave to remain in the UK in order to fulfil their reservist commitment. This will also create consistency in the recruitment practices of all three services.
This will not affect personnel already serving, or on recruitment, from the Republic of Ireland or for the Brigade of Gurkhas. We are confident that we will still be able to meet our recruitment targets. We will honour our commitments to those Commonwealth recruits in the pipeline who have already been offered a job or a training place and we will also continue to process the applications for those who have already been offered a place at an assessment centre by the Army or a psychometric test by the Navy or the RAF.
Service Complaints Commissioner's Fifth Annual Report
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Ministry of Defence (MOD) response to the Service Complaints Commissioner’s (SCC) fifth annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
The response sets out how the MOD proposes to address the recommendations made in the commissioner’s report, against the background of the progress made by the services in 2012, and the further changes to the complaints system that were introduced in January 2013. The MOD remains committed to ensuring that the service complaints process is as fair, effective and efficient as it can be.
In that context, I am pleased to inform the House that discussions with the Service Complaints Commissioner, regarding reform of the service complaints system, are proceeding well. We hope to have more to say on this subject in the autumn.
Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The Government are today publishing their proposals for an energy savings opportunity scheme (ESOS) for public consultation.
The new scheme will enable companies to identify opportunities to save money on energy bills through improved energy efficiency and could benefit the UK by £1.9 billion.
Under the scheme, which is being developed as part of the UK’s implementation of the EU energy efficiency directive, large enterprises will be required to undertake ESOS assessments to identify cost-effective ways to invest in energy efficiency, helping reduce energy bills and increase competitiveness.
This scheme is intended to promote the uptake of cost-effective energy efficiency measures by requiring all large enterprises in the UK to undertake energy efficiency audits by December 2015 and every four years thereafter.
The scheme is the Government’s approach to meeting the requirements of article 8 of the EU energy efficiency directive (2012/27/EU).
In developing this consultation document, officials in my Department have worked closely with colleagues across Government and with industry experts. Our proposals aim to provide for a proportionate and better regulation approach, with the objective of yielding net benefits for the UK as a result of additional energy saving.
I will place copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/energy-savings-opportunity-scheme.
The consultation will close on 3 October 2013. The Government intend to bring forward secondary legislation in spring 2014 setting out the legal framework for the operation of the scheme, so that the UK can meet the 5 June 2014 EU deadline for transposition of the energy efficiency directive.
Alleged Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In 2012, a total of 12 serious offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by Diplomatic Protection Group of the Metropolitan Police. Ten of these were driving-related. This is one serious offence less than 2011. We define serious offences as those which could, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months imprisonment or more. Also included are drink-driving and driving without insurance.
Some 22,500 people are entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom and the majority of diplomats abide by UK law. The number of alleged serious crimes committed by members of the diplomatic community is proportionately low.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, those entitled to immunity are expected to obey the law. The FCO does not tolerate foreign diplomats breaking the law.
We take all allegations of illegal activity seriously. When instances of alleged criminal conduct are brought to our attention by the police, we ask the relevant foreign Government to waive diplomatic immunity where appropriate. For the most serious offences, we seek the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat.
Alleged offences reported to the FCO in 2012 are listed below.
Driving without insurance | |
Mongolia | 1 |
Panama | 1 |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Guatemala | 1 |
Driving under the influence of drink | |
Russia | 3 |
Sri Lanka | 1 |
Equatorial Guinea | 1 |
Uzbekistan | 1 |
Abuse of a domestic worker | |
Bangladesh | 1 |
Actual bodily harm | |
Tanzania | 1 |
Figures for previous years are available in my written statement to the House on 5 July 2012, Official Report, column 67WS.
Government Wine Cellar
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the annual statement on the Government wine cellar for the financial year 2012-13.
Following the outcome of the review of the Government hospitality wine cellar, this second annual statement meets our commitment that there would be annual statements to Parliament on the use of the wine cellar, covering consumption, stock purchases, costs, and value for money. The wine cellar is now self-funding through the sale of some high-value stock and payments made by other Government Departments to Government hospitality.
The report notes that:
Sales of stock at auction amounted to £63,300, an increase in revenue from sales of nearly 50% from 11-12;
Further funds from other Government Departments added £22,129 to the overall receipts (over 100% increase cf. 11-12);
Purchases amounted to £45,866 (cf. £48,955 in 11-12);
For the first time ever the highest consumption level by volume was of English wine, at 49% of the total.
Diplomatic Missions/International Organisations (Congestion Charge/Fines)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The value of unpaid congestion charge debt incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in London since its introduction in February 2003 until 31 December 2012 as advised by Transport for London was £67,597,055. The table below shows those diplomatic missions and international organisations with outstanding fines of £100,000 or more.
Country | Number of Fines | Total Outstanding |
|---|---|---|
Embassy of the United States of America | 63,349 | £7,277,400 |
Embassy of the Russian Federation | 42,310 | £4,899,900 |
Embassy of Japan | 42,206 | £4,856,280 |
High Commission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria | 33,552 | £3,816,990 |
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany | 32,848 | £3,782,170 |
Office of the High Commissioner for India | 23,636 | £2,777,440 |
Embassy of the Republic of Poland | 19,564 | £2,288,280 |
Office of the High Commissioner for Ghana | 18,247 | £2,131,520 |
Embassy of the Republic of Sudan | 18,135 | £2,017,980 |
Kenya High Commission | 14,226 | £1,603,120 |
Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan | 13,051 | £1,539,800 |
Embassy of Spain | 12,810 | £1,500,500 |
Embassy of France | 12,793 | £1,476,580 |
Embassy of Romania | 10,726 | £1,244,620 |
Embassy of Greece | 10,619 | £1,240,295 |
Embassy of Ukraine | 10,507 | £1,219,680 |
High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania | 10,819 | £1,205,380 |
Embassy of the Republic of Korea | 8,983 | £1,062,900 |
High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan | 8,611 | £1,023,170 |
South African High Commission | 8,852 | £999,340 |
People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria | 7,996 | £896,780 |
Embassy of the Republic of Cuba | 7,365 | £867,160 |
Sierra Leone High Commission | 7,811 | £863,980 |
Embassy of Hungary | 6,618 | £769,120 |
Embassy of the People’s Republic of China | 6,453 | £762,580 |
High Commission for the Republic of Cyprus | 6,326 | £741,880 |
Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria | 5,988 | £684,820 |
Embassy of the Republic of Yemen | 5,566 | £643,620 |
High Commission for the Republic of Zambia | 5,463 | £622,880 |
Embassy of the Slovak Republic | 5,015 | £580,620 |
Embassy of the Republic of Belarus | 5,015 | £580,020 |
High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon | 4,407 | £497,660 |
Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe | 3,951 | £428,660 |
Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia | 3,769 | £420,480 |
High Commission of the Republic of Malawi | 3,471 | £394,280 |
Botswana High Commission | 3,385 | £393,780 |
High Commission for the Republic of Namibia | 3,535 | £392,140 |
Kingdom of Swaziland High Commission | 3,526 | £390,200 |
Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea | 3,355 | £380,400 |
Embassy of the Czech Republic | 3,264 | £374,960 |
Embassy of Austria | 3,188 | £372,620 |
High Commission for the Republic of Mozambique | 3,278 | £370,260 |
Mauritius High Commission | 3,151 | £357,480 |
Embassy of Belgium | 2,718 | £316,580 |
High Commission of the Kingdom of Lesotho | 2,780 | £310,580 |
Malta High Commission | 2,661 | £308,280 |
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan | 2,560 | £302,140 |
Royal Danish Embassy | 2,474 | £291,080 |
Uganda High Commission | 2,505 | £287,360 |
Embassy of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire | 2,582 | £286,000 |
Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam | 2,475 | £283,100 |
Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania | 2,230 | £263,560 |
Embassy of the Republic of Liberia | 2,099 | £244,060 |
Embassy of the Republic of Guinea | 2,108 | £231,280 |
Jamaican High Commission | 1,910 | £218,000 |
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt | 1,976 | £201,260 |
Embassy of Portugal | 1,527 | £182,520 |
Embassy of Finland | 1,519 | £176,480 |
Embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea | 1,594 | £174,840 |
Embassy of Luxembourg | 1,453 | £169,880 |
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia | 1,583 | £169,610 |
Embassy of the Republic of Latvia | 1,323 | £152,600 |
High Commission for Antigua & Barbuda | 1,213 | £139,200 |
Embassy of the Republic of Turkey | 1,267 | £136,820 |
Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo | 1,125 | £132,740 |
Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia | 1,050 | £125,340 |
Embassy of the Republic of Estonia | 855 | £102,060 |
Embassy of the Dominican Republic | 874 | £101,560 |
Diplomatic Missions/International Organisations (Unpaid Parking Fines)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In 2012 there were 6,154 parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom which were brought to our attention by local councils. These totalled £584,772.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has held meetings with a number of missions about outstanding parking fine debt. In addition, in April this year we wrote to the diplomatic missions and international organisations concerned giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or to appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly.
Subsequent payments as advised by councils—including amounts waived by them—totalled £240,035. There remains a total of £344,737 in unpaid fines for 2012.
The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations which have outstanding fines of £1000 or more, as of 27 June 2013.
Diplomatic Mission/International Organisation | Amount of Outstanding Fines accrued in 2012 (excluding congestion charge) £ |
|---|---|
High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria | 84645 |
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia | 24005 |
Embassy of France | 14735 |
Embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea | 12975 |
Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan | 12400 |
Embassy of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire | 10030 |
Embassy of the Republic of Liberia | 7955 |
Embassy of the United Arab Emirates | 7535 |
Embassy of the Republic of Iraq | 7335 |
Embassy of the State of Qatar | 6745 |
Kenya High Commission | 6480 |
High Commission for the Republic of Zambia | 6385 |
Embassy of Romania | 6010 |
Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan | 5510 |
Embassy of Ukraine | 4865 |
Embassy of Tunisia | 4662 |
Embassy of the Republic of Angola | 3870 |
High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan | 3770 |
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt | 3580 |
Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan | 3565 |
Embassy of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria | 3560 |
Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan | 3520 |
Embassy of the Russian Federation | 3380 |
Embassy of the People’s Republic of China | 3280 |
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan | 3175 |
Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman | 3165 |
Office of the High Commissioner for Ghana | 3140 |
Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea | 3105 |
Malaysian High Commission | 3075 |
Embassy of the Republic of Turkey | 3025 |
Embassy of Georgia | 2500 |
Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria | 2455 |
Sierra Leone High Commission | 2425 |
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany | 2215 |
Embassy of the Republic of Guinea | 2185 |
Brunei Darussalam High Commission | 2170 |
High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania | 2040 |
High Commission of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh | 1910 |
Mauritius High Commission | 1905 |
Office of the High Commissioner for India | 1700 |
Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia | 1700 |
High Commission for the Republic of Mozambique | 1700 |
Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco | 1690 |
Embassy of the State of Kuwait | 1680 |
Embassy of the United States of America | 1555 |
Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela | 1510 |
Embassy of Japan | 1495 |
Embassy of the Gabonese Republic | 1490 |
Embassy of the Republic of Latvia | 1465 |
Embassy of the Republic of Moldova | 1425 |
High Commission of the Republic of Malawi | 1335 |
Botswana High Commission | 1275 |
Embassy of the Republic of Yemen | 1245 |
Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania | 1220 |
South African High Commission | 1160 |
Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan | 1145 |
Embassy of Spain | 1125 |
Embassy of the Republic of Tajikistan | 1115 |
Diplomatic Missions (National Non-domestic Rates)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates (NNDR) requested from them. Diplomatic missions are obliged to pay only 6% of the total NNDR value of their offices. This represents payment for specific services such as street cleaning and street lighting.
Representations by protocol directorate to missions in 2013 led to the settlement of outstanding debts by Kuwait, Namibia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Slovak Republic, Zambia and Zimbabwe—among others.
As at 14 June 2013, the total amount of outstanding NNDR payments as advised by the Valuation Office Agency is £674,110, an increase of almost 20% from the 2011 figure (£566,009). A total of £45,219 of this outstanding debt is owed by Iran and Syria which are not currently represented in the UK. We are therefore unable to pursue these debts. Six missions are responsible for almost two thirds of the remainder. We shall continue to urge those with NNDR debt to pay their dues.
Missions listed below owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR.
Embassy of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire | £97,987 |
Embassy of the People’s Republic of China | £97,377 |
High Commission for the People’s Republic of Bangladesh | £91,496 |
Sierra Leone High Commission | £55,060 |
High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon | £46,538 |
Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan | £36,566 |
Embassy of Ukraine | £22,941 |
Embassy of the Republic of Liberia | £20,433 |
Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania | £18,985 |
Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe | £14,314 |
International Organisation for Migration | £14,305 |
High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka | £13,189 |
Embassy of the Republic of Albania | £12,799 |
Embassy of Italy | £12,299 |
Independent Police Complaints Commission
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I am pleased to announce that today my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury are publishing the annual report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Copies of the report have been laid before the House and will be available in the Vote Office.
This is the ninth annual report from the IPCC. The report covers the work of the IPCC during 2012-13 and includes a section on the discharge of its responsibilities in respect of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Independent Safeguarding Authority
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
The 2012-13 annual report and accounts for the Independent Safeguarding Authority for the eight-month period up to 30 November 2012 is being laid before the House today and published on: www.gov.uk. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
Firearms (England and Wales)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today publishing the statistics on police use of firearms in England and Wales for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. These show that:
The number of police operations in which firearms were authorised was 12,550 - a decrease of 946 (7.5%) on the previous year.
The number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs) was 6,756—an increase of 103 (1.5%) officers overall on the previous year.
The number of operations involving armed response vehicles was 14,261—a decrease of 2,513 (17.6%) on the previous year.
The police discharged a conventional firearm in five incidents (up from four incidents in 2010-11).
Full details are set out in the following tables:
Table 1 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | |
AVON & SOMERSET | 262 | 311 | 333 | 247 | 285 | 328 | 339 | 267 | 250 | 193 |
BEDFORDSHIRE | 301 | 442 | 475 | 575 | 663 | 1,217 | 1,229 | 869 | 1,047 | 783 |
CAMBRIDGESHIRE | 57 | 104 | 241 | 201 | 207 | 316 | 460 | 490 | 402 | 347 |
CHESHIRE | 451 | 397 | 358 | 367 | 340 | 317 | 269 | 314 | 244 | 226 |
CLEVELAND | 170 | 453 | 530 | 657 | 293 | 577 | 667 | 430 | 581 | 489 |
CITY OF LONDON | 131 | 364 | 404 | 323 | 239 | 365 | 63 | 38 | 64 | 64 |
CUMBRIA | 77 | 72 | 152 | 112 | 92 | 92 | 86 | 80 | 109 | 67 |
DERBYSHIRE | 401 | 369 | 287 | 305 | 223 | 211 | 310 | 198 | 179 | 190 |
DEVON & CORNWALL | 96 | 112 | 71 | 84 | 80 | 143 | 170 | 185 | 189 | 163 |
DORSET | 193 | 231 | 223 | 263 | 354 | 258 | 369 | 351 | 242 | 194 |
DURHAM | 83 | 156 | 144 | 291 | 340 | 206 | 181 | 140 | 205 | 202 |
ESSEX | 312 | 275 | 296 | 432 | 245 | 529 | 529 | 444 | 384 | 402 |
GLOUCESTERSHIRE | 185 | 127 | 176 | 229 | 280 | 162 | 132 | 175 | 133 | 160 |
GTR MANCHESTER | 518 | 507 | 461 | 478 | 481 | 497 | 524 | 415 | 360 | 414 |
HAMPSHIRE | 162 | 208 | 237 | 289 | 352 | 382 | 362 | 292 | 360 | 487 |
HERTFORDSHIRE | 172 | 195 | 185 | 187 | 280 | 303 | 343 | 205 | 334 | 247 |
HUMBERSIDE | 187 | 183 | 206 | 362 | 235 | 209 | 123 | 133 | 166 | 99 |
KENT | 137 | 207 | 163 | 219 | 170 | 202 | 280 | 275 | 213 | 168 |
LANCASHIRE | 238 | 318 | 241 | 240 | 410 | 388 | 281 | 245 | 169 | 113 |
LEICESTERSHIRE | 268 | 295 | 260 | 363 | 334 | 318 | 347 | 280 | 196 | 217 |
LINCOLNSHIRE | 392 | 386 | 294 | 220 | 157 | 158 | 133 | 73 | 97 | 134 |
MERSEYSIDE | 628 | 751 | 733 | 669 | 727 | 829 | 556 | 701 | 663 | 708 |
METROPOLITAN1 | 3,199 | 3,563 | 2,964 | 4,711 | 3,878 | 4,948 | 2,029 | 1,971 | 1,661 | 1,303 |
NORFOLK | 200 | 178 | 195 | 175 | 153 | 174 | 274 | 192 | 252 | 219 |
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE | 138 | 148 | 158 | 137 | 156 | 159 | 120 | 109 | 129 | 182 |
NORTHUMBRIA | 1,275 | 1,140 | 977 | 611 | 332 | 229 | 154 | 156 | 167 | 150 |
NORTH YORKSHIRE | 100 | 147 | 185 | 183 | 282 | 329 | 289 | 272 | 228 | 280 |
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE | 452 | 459 | 408 | 394 | 289 | 270 | 245 | 194 | 279 | 303 |
SOUTH YORKSHIRE | 463 | 484 | 546 | 749 | 737 | 628 | 538 | 533 | 434 | 384 |
STAFFORDSHIRE | 281 | 255 | 216 | 171 | 250 | 244 | 209 | 183 | 231 | 201 |
SUFFOLK | 270 | 251 | 153 | 202 | 256 | 193 | 237 | 225 | 227 | 280 |
SURREY | 247 | 203 | 151 | 222 | 222 | 375 | 479 | 188 | 162 | 141 |
SUSSEX | 204 | 280 | 187 | 190 | 201 | 331 | 331 | 227 | 205 | 247 |
THAMES VALLEY | 167 | 195 | 289 | 427 | 264 | 293 | 344 | 319 | 257 | 326 |
WARWICKSHIRE | 149 | 164 | 124 | 180 | 162 | 150 | 145 | 129 | 93 | 101 |
WEST MERCIA | 91 | 197 | 162 | 122 | 155 | 202 | 171 | 122 | 98 | 114 |
WEST MIDLANDS | 902 | 1,377 | 1,264 | 1,044 | 1,557 | 1,063 | 1,109 | 933 | 750 | 641 |
WEST YORKSHIRE2 | 604 | 575 | 853 | 1,335 | 1,245 | 831 | 887 | 737 | 641 | 450 |
WILTSHIRE | 58 | 63 | 88 | 139 | 226 | 128 | 158 | 152 | 86 | 87 |
DYFED POWYS | 29 | 28 | 51 | 63 | 72 | 155 | 92 | 71 | 91 | 292 |
GWENT | 37 | 40 | 81 | 94 | 133 | 334 | 152 | 151 | 139 | 197 |
NORTH WALES | 259 | 197 | 223 | 350 | 340 | 259 | 185 | 126 | 182 | 186 |
SOUTH WALES3 | 281 | 250 | 236 | 279 | 308 | 293 | 555 | 628 | 597 | 399 |
TOTAL | 14,827 | 16,657 | 15,981 | 18,891 | 18,005 | 19,595 | 16,456 | 14,218 | 13,496 | 12,550 |
Table 2 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | |
AVON & SOMERSET | 84 | 122 | 118 | 117 | 103 | 123 | 127 | 124 | 129 | 120 |
BEDFORDSHIRE | 53 | 58 | 56 | 59 | 57 | 53 | 50 | 54 | 55 | 55 |
CAMBRIDGESHIRE | 71 | 60 | 60 | 50 | 46 | 49 | 51 | 45 | 46 | 49 |
CHESHIRE | 89 | 75 | 76 | 73 | 80 | 72 | 88 | 95 | 87 | 80 |
CLEVELAND | 80 | 95 | 100 | 100 | 105 | 97 | 83 | 72 | 74 | 64 |
CITY OF LONDON | 72 | 86 | 89 | 86 | 45 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 53 | 52 |
CUMBRIA | 87 | 89 | 90 | 89 | 90 | 97 | 86 | 91 | 92 | 91 |
DERBYSHIRE | 69 | 70 | 74 | 75 | 69 | 61 | 61 | 71 | 65 | 60 |
DEVON & CORNWALL | 115 | 132 | 123 | 122 | 132 | 142 | 146 | 157 | 146 | 147 |
DORSET | 59 | 60 | 64 | 62 | 67 | 71 | 79 | 65 | 62 | 58 |
DURHAM | 102 | 97 | 103 | 100 | 102 | 89 | 82 | 81 | 70 | 67 |
ESSEX | 184 | 186 | 202 | 205 | 220 | 225 | 223 | 223 | 207 | 202 |
GLOUCESTERSHIRE | 80 | 82 | 93 | 92 | 94 | 95 | 97 | 108 | 102 | 97 |
GTR MANCHESTER | 202 | 205 | 187 | 245 | 217 | 250 | 296 | 237 | 227 | 236 |
HAMPSHIRE | 94 | 94 | 92 | 97 | 83 | 85 | 93 | 96 | 87 | 92 |
HERTFORDSHIRE | 47 | 50 | 53 | 52 | 49 | 53 | 50 | 46 | 47 | 45 |
HUMBERSIDE | 96 | 96 | 101 | 92 | 83 | 87 | 80 | 77 | 72 | 77 |
KENT | 93 | 90 | 94 | 94 | 98 | 87 | 110 | 103 | 97 | 101 |
LANCASHIRE | 129 | 122 | 115 | 123 | 103 | 143 | 105 | 94 | 92 | 95 |
LEICESTERSHIRE | 68 | 51 | 53 | 59 | 67 | 64 | 73 | 76 | 71 | 78 |
LINCOLNSHIRE | 87 | 78 | 86 | 87 | 75 | 77 | 69 | 60 | 71 | 62 |
MERSEYSIDE | 84 | 94 | 93 | 129 | 139 | 153 | 154 | 141 | 127 | 122 |
METROPOLITAN | 1,823 | 2,060 | 2,134 | 2,331 | 2,584 | 2,530 | 2,740 | 2,856 | 2,665 | 2,731 |
NORFOLK | 109 | 114 | 125 | 119 | 127 | 114 | 106 | 111 | 112 | 125 |
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE | 56 | 52 | 50 | 56 | 59 | 53 | 50 | 55 | 50 | 55 |
NORTHUMBRIA | 99 | 90 | 93 | 98 | 92 | 96 | 95 | 102 | 96 | 95 |
NORTH YORKSHIRE | 64 | 60 | 56 | 78 | 67 | 67 | 63 | 64 | 72 | 77 |
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE | 131 | 138 | 138 | 149 | 146 | 137 | 133 | 91 | 98 | 92 |
SOUTH YORKSHIRE | 100 | 98 | 122 | 116 | 118 | 106 | 99 | 102 | 86 | 98 |
STAFFORDSHIRE | 63 | 67 | 76 | 70 | 82 | 82 | 75 | 85 | 81 | 88 |
SUFFOLK | 80 | 96 | 88 | 84 | 78 | 74 | 67 | 68 | 79 | 67 |
SURREY | 48 | 53 | 49 | 51 | 45 | 54 | 54 | 60 | 56 | 54 |
SUSSEX | 141 | 134 | 130 | 129 | 129 | 123 | 123 | 114 | 129 | 129 |
THAMES VALLEY | 180 | 172 | 176 | 180 | 186 | 180 | 180 | 193 | 194 | 199 |
WARWICKSHIRE | 51 | 46 | 53 | 55 | 59 | 63 | 66 | 76 | 60 | 62 |
WEST MERCIA | 131 | 139 | 141 | 152 | 133 | 163 | 137 | 115 | 132 | 134 |
WEST MIDLANDS | 110 | 124 | 134 | 145 | 175 | 177 | 165 | 180 | 167 | 156 |
WEST YORKSHIRE | 132 | 140 | 130 | 150 | 148 | 147 | 135 | 156 | 140 | 156 |
WILTSHIRE | 78 | 80 | 74 | 72 | 69 | 67 | 74 | 69 | 65 | 70 |
DYFED POWYS | 62 | 58 | 79 | 68 | 72 | 67 | 63 | 64 | 72 | 79 |
GWENT | 60 | 71 | 74 | 86 | 64 | 63 | 54 | 61 | 59 | 59 |
NORTH WALES | 75 | 73 | 65 | 57 | 56 | 57 | 53 | 76 | 57 | 80 |
SOUTH WALES | 125 | 139 | 134 | 130 | 115 | 138 | 121 | 114 | 104 | 100 |
TOTAL | 5,763 | 6,096 | 6,243 | 6,584 | 6,728 | 6,780 | 6,906 | 6,979 | 6,653 | 6,756 |
Table 3 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | |
AVON & SOMERSET | 215 | 249 | 312 | 167 | 192 | 292 | 231 | 137 | 135 | 146 |
BEDFORDSHIRE | 269 | 414 | 419 | 534 | 639 | 1,171 | 1,188 | 819 | 991 | 739 |
CAMBRIDGESHIRE | 45 | 155 | 172 | 160 | 172 | 221 | 366 | 393 | 307 | 256 |
CHESHIRE4 | 337 | 356 | 773 | 807 | 793 | 642 | 221 | 244 | 226 | |
CLEVELAND5 | 63 | 86 | 154 | 285 | 290 | 554 | 661 | 426 | 481 | |
CITY OF LONDON | 131 | 364 | 275 | 234 | 183 | 200 | 63 | 32 | 63 | 64 |
CUMBRIA | 45 | 65 | 134 | 90 | 72 | 74 | 56 | 51 | 75 | 50 |
DERBYSHIRE | 363 | 312 | 254 | 257 | 183 | 187 | 252 | 169 | 141 | 152 |
DEVON & CORNWALL | 32 | 94 | 54 | 54 | 76 | 120 | 138 | 168 | 174 | 154 |
DORSET | 180 | 215 | 195 | 246 | 322 | 238 | 347 | 349 | 200 | 148 |
DURHAM | 66 | 96 | 91 | 256 | 204 | 192 | 164 | 140 | 204 | 193 |
ESSEX | 176 | 138 | 138 | 155 | 224 | 226 | 391 | 273 | 187 | 277 |
GLOUCESTERSHIRE | 166 | 109 | 121 | 145 | 213 | 147 | 120 | 100 | 78 | 104 |
GTR MANCHESTER | 406 | 440 | 364 | 306 | 214 | 196 | 460 | 292 | 288 | 290 |
HAMPSHIRE | 108 | 128 | 167 | 178 | 270 | 271 | 247 | 194 | 312 | 427 |
HERTFORDSHIRE | 129 | 157 | 155 | 160 | 226 | 262 | 311 | 182 | 286 | 206 |
HUMBERSIDE | 170 | 158 | 184 | 335 | 232 | 183 | 94 | 111 | 115 | 85 |
KENT | 132 | 193 | 124 | 183 | 373 | 364 | 325 | 227 | 203 | 134 |
LANCASHIRE | 185 | 273 | 228 | 232 | 383 | 313 | 279 | 239 | 166 | 109 |
LEICESTERSHIRE | 232 | 269 | 232 | 328 | 313 | 268 | 332 | 263 | 180 | 209 |
LINCOLNSHIRE | 367 | 355 | 276 | 210 | 147 | 153 | 128 | 63 | 89 | 124 |
MERSEYSIDE | 547 | 687 | 677 | 611 | 644 | 734 | 445 | 631 | 491 | 584 |
METROPOLITAN6 | 2,447 | 2,423 | 2,322 | 2,572 | 2,770 | 2,303 | 7,374 | 7,295 | 6,009 | 4,696 |
NORFOLK | 186 | 169 | 163 | 149 | 133 | 165 | 252 | 176 | 217 | 183 |
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE | 90 | 99 | 89 | 101 | 119 | 127 | 117 | 88 | 104 | 159 |
NORTHUMBRIA | 1,204 | 1,063 | 893 | 585 | 299 | 199 | 129 | 134 | 112 | 103 |
NORTH YORKSHIRE | 67 | 110 | 144 | 208 | 268 | 318 | 287 | 267 | 210 | 265 |
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE | 397 | 404 | 336 | 342 | 256 | 246 | 197 | 175 | 220 | 239 |
SOUTH YORKSHIRE | 280 | 322 | 438 | 632 | 522 | 493 | 387 | 325 | 307 | 259 |
STAFFORDSHIRE | 241 | 212 | 183 | 154 | 222 | 231 | 192 | 155 | 224 | 153 |
SUFFOLK | 160 | 194 | 119 | 149 | 204 | 148 | 206 | 189 | 166 | 207 |
SURREY | 240 | 190 | 140 | 204 | 209 | 380 | 469 | 174 | 155 | 137 |
SUSSEX | 171 | 250 | 163 | 162 | 165 | 311 | 248 | 177 | 175 | 108 |
THAMES VALLEY | 167 | 179 | 265 | 355 | 227 | 254 | 292 | 272 | 225 | 291 |
WARWICKSHIRE | 31 | 138 | 102 | 144 | 121 | 113 | 100 | 92 | 73 | 71 |
WEST MERCIA | 111 | 241 | 152 | 94 | 120 | 121 | 128 | 148 | 93 | 108 |
WEST MIDLANDS | 592 | 975 | 952 | 745 | 518 | 716 | 739 | 689 | 597 | 451 |
WEST YORKSHIRE7 | 565 | 543 | 656 | 1,040 | 1,060 | 645 | 634 | 450 | 412 | 347 |
WILTSHIRE | 39 | 28 | 54 | 124 | 190 | 359 | 499 | 120 | 49 | 61 |
DYFED POWYS | 29 | 28 | 48 | 55 | 72 | 135 | 80 | 59 | 71 | 199 |
GWENT | 16 | 23 | 74 | 85 | 109 | 257 | 138 | 147 | 131 | 101 |
NORTH WALES | 198 | 153 | 180 | 299 | 295 | 221 | 156 | 107 | 165 | 166 |
SOUTH WALES8 | 253 | 161 | 165 | 223 | 283 | 222 | 485 | 570 | 1,649 | 1,280 |
TOTAL | 11,848 | 13,218 | 13,137 | 14,355 | 14,527 | 14,972 | 19,928 | 17,068 | 16,774 | 14,261 |
Year | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/119 | 2011/12 | |
INCIDENTS | 10 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
% OF INCIDENTS COMPARED WITH NUMBER OF AUTHORISED OPERATIONS | 0.067 | 0.024 | 0.031 | 0.048 | 0.017 | 0.036 | 0.030 | 0.042 | 0.030 | 0.040 |
Source: Association of Chief Police Officers
(Does not include discharges for animal destruction or during police training)
Notes for tables:
1Revised figures supplied for 2008/09 to 2011/12 by Metropolitan Police Service.
2Revised figures supplied for 2006/7 to 2011/12 by West Yorkshire Police.
3Revised figures supplied for 2010/11 by South Wales Police.
4Cheshire did not record ARV operations for 2009/10.
5Cleveland did not record ARV operations for 2011/12.
6Revised figures supplied for 2011/12 by Metropolitan Police Service.
7Revised figures supplied for 2006/7 to 2011/12 by West Yorkshire Police.
8Revised figures supplied for 2010/11 to 2011/12 by South Wales Police.
9Revised firearms discharge figure for 2010/11.
Source: Home Office Public Order Unit, based on information aggregated from figures provided by individual police forces as part of the Home Office Annual Data Requirement. This was followed by a further quality assurance process involving the Home Office asking individual forces to verify and sign off their figures.
The information provided is a regular annual update of figures previously published and available on the Home Office website here:
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100419081706/http:/www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/firearms/index.html.
Home Office guidance to forces for providing these figures is contained within the booklet “Annual Data Requirement, Police Personnel and Performance Data, Notes for Guidance”. For the purpose of this statistical return AFOs are deemed to be deployed when
“they are required to conduct a specific task during which their possession of a firearm (with appropriate authorisation) is a required element” [Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1 A.CPO Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms].
In addition to the total number of operations, a further sub-category is required regarding those operations where the initial or sole response is by Armed Response Vehicle (ARV).
Each incident will be classed as only one operation regardless of the number of personnel/deployments or tactics employed to deal with the incident.
Deployments also include those incidents where AFOs “self-authorise”.
The number of officers authorised to use firearms is at 31 March 2012.
Determinate and Indeterminate Sentences and Recalled Prisoners
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I have written to Sir David Calvert-Smith, chairman of the Parole Board for England and Wales, advising him that it is our intention to withdraw the Secretary of State’s directions to the Parole Board in respect of the release of determinate sentence, indeterminate sentence and recalled prisoners. The directions in respect of Parole Board recommendations on the transfer of indeterminate sentence prisoners to open conditions will remain in force.
The Parole Board has the important responsibility of determining whether some of the most dangerous prisoners in the criminal justice system can be safely released back into the community. We have recently enacted legislation in the form of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 which contains a clear and consistent statutory release test that the board must apply in making those decisions—that is, the board must not direct a prisoner’s release unless their detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. The LASPO Act applies this “public protection” test to all cases which come before the board and also provides a power for the Secretary of State to amend the test by order. In view of this, I consider that it is no longer necessary or appropriate for the directions to remain in place.
In its original incarnation, the board was an advisory body which made recommendations to the Secretary of State who was responsible for the final decisions on release. It was in this context that the power for the Secretary of State to issue directions to the board was established. Since then, however, the board has evolved into an independent decision-making body. I believe that it is more appropriate, therefore, for the board to set its own guidance in relation to the application of the statutory release test that Parliament has put in place.
We are, therefore, withdrawing the existing directions in favour of the Parole Board applying its own guidance. The board issued guidance for its members in November 2012 which sets out how the statutory release test in the LASPO Act is to be applied. In addition, the board has produced guidance which lists the factors to be taken into account by panels when considering whether to release different categories of prisoner. This list largely reflects the same factors set out in the Secretary of State’s directions, so in practical terms the withdrawal of the directions will not materially change how the board approaches its release decisions. I should like to emphasise that the protection of the public will remain at the heart of every release decision made by the board.
Copies of the Parole Board’s guidance have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Dartford/Thurrock River Crossing (Fees)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
On 5 November 2012 the Highways Agency published detailed proposals to introduce post-payment and enforcement measures that would support the introduction of “free-flow” charging at the crossing. To support this change simultaneously the Department published detailed proposals to provide fair and effective enforcement of free-flow road user charging in accordance with the Transport Act 2000. Both consultations ran for a period of 12 weeks, and closed on 28 January 2013.
The Dartford crossing is vital to the local and national economy and introducing a free-flow charging arrangement will reduce congestion and improve journeys for the thousands of motorists and businesses who use the crossing every day. Following careful consideration of all the points made during both consultations I am today announcing the Department’s and Highways Agency’s conclusions and the intended actions.
The majority of respondents were supportive of the proposals to enable enforcement against drivers who do not pay a road-user charge. We are now able to take forward the legislation to make sure charges will be able to be effectively enforced when free-flow charging is introduced at the crossing next year.
Subject to the completion of the necessary parliamentary processes, the Department intends to implement the road-user charging scheme regulations and the agency will implement the new Dartford/Thurrock river crossing charging scheme order.
The full response to the agency’s charging scheme order consultation can be found on the Highways Agency’s website, and the Department’s response to the enforcement regulations consultation can be found on the Department for Transport’s pages of the Gov.uk website. Both these documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Motoring Services Strategy
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I am pleased to announce today the next phase of the project to explore establishing a new commercial model for the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).
Departments have been challenged to think about how they commission and deliver services with a view to looking at innovative options. We have looked at the VCA business model and have tested a range of options that would enable the business to grow and contribute to the wider UK economy while continuing to deliver its statutory functions, providing high-quality and valued services to its customers. We set out this proposition for consultation in the motoring services strategy late last year. The new commercial model should also seek to offer new opportunities to VCA staff, who will be essential to the continued success of the business going forward.
The Department for Transport is now going to start a market engagement exercise to further test the preferred option of a joint venture with a private sector partner. We expect to make a decision in the autumn on whether to proceed with a formal procurement.
Rail Franchising
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I am today laying before the House the Government’s response to the Brown review of the rail franchising programme.
Richard Brown’s review was one of two independent reviews I commissioned following my decision in October last year to cancel the inter-city west coast (ICWC) franchise competition and put the wider franchising programme on hold. His review considered the wider implications for the rail franchising programme of the position reached on the ICWC competition, taking into account the findings and recommendations of the Laidlaw inquiry which had focused on establishing what had gone wrong with the ICWC procurement. The report of the Brown review was laid before the House on 10 January this year.
The review was a thorough examination of the issues led by a highly respected industry figure. I welcomed its publication and its conclusion that franchising is a fundamentally sound approach to securing the provision of passenger rail services on which so many people rely.
The review made a number of important detailed recommendations for improving the way franchises are specified, competed for and managed. The Government’s response broadly accepts those recommendations. It records the significant progress we have made over the last six months in implementing them—including restarting the franchise programme, publishing a full revised franchising programme and prior information notice on 26 March and a franchise competition guide on 25 June, and strengthening the capability and governance of the Department’s franchising organisation. We have set out a high-level response to each of the many specific recommendations made—indicating where relevant when and where more detailed information will be provided.
I am confident that this response and the actions we have already taken provide the industry with the clarity and confidence it needs about the way forward for rail franchising, which remains an integral part of our plans to deliver a better and more efficient railway for passengers and the taxpayer.
Grand Committee
Energy Bill
Baroness Verma
“Fuel poverty
(1) The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1 insert—
“1A Objective for addressing fuel poverty: England
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out an objective for addressing the situation of persons in England who live in fuel poverty.
(2) The regulations must specify a target date for achieving the objective.
(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing such regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a draft of the instrument before each House of Parliament within 6 months of the day on which section (Fuel Poverty) of the Energy Act 2013 comes into force.
“1B Strategy relating to fuel poverty: England
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy setting out the Secretary of State’s policies for achieving the objective set out in regulations under section 1A by the target date specified in the regulations.
(2) The strategy must be published within 6 months of the day on which the first regulations under section 1A come into force.
(3) The strategy must—
(a) describe the households to which it applies,(b) specify a comprehensive package of measures for achieving the objective by the target date, and(c) specify interim objectives to be achieved and target dates for achieving them.(4) The Secretary of State must take such steps as are in the Secretary of State’s opinion necessary to implement the strategy.
(5) The Secretary of State must—
(a) from time to time assess the impact of steps taken under subsection (4) and the progress made in achieving the objectives and meeting the target dates,(b) make any revision of the strategy which the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in consequence of the assessment,(c) from time to time publish reports on such assessments.(6) If—
(a) further regulations under section 1A are made revising an objective or the target date for achieving it, and(b) the Secretary of State considers that changes to the strategy are necessary or desirable as a result of those regulations, the Secretary of State must revise the strategy within 6 months of the day on which those regulations come into force.(7) If the Secretary of State revises the strategy, the Secretary of State must publish the strategy as revised.
(8) In preparing the strategy or any revision of the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local authorities or associations of local authorities,(b) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of persons living in fuel poverty,(c) the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”(3) In section 2—
(a) in the title, after “” insert “”;poverty: Wales(b) in subsection (1), after “strategy” insert “as respects Wales”;(c) in subsection (2)(d), omit “England or”;(d) in subsection (8)—(i) in the definition of “the appropriate authority”, omit paragraph (a), and(ii) in the definition of “the relevant commencement”, omit paragraph (a).”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)
My Lords, these government amendments propose a change to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act in order to put in place a new, rigorous and flexible framework for measuring the Government’s progress in tackling fuel poverty in England. As we move forward with ensuring a safe, low-carbon future we must ensure that everybody is able to benefit from our policies.
Last year, Professor Hills completed his independent review of fuel poverty and concluded that we had been measuring the problem in the wrong way. Our concern about how we measure fuel poverty has been driven by wanting to address the problem more effectively.
High levels of fuel poverty a decade or so ago were masked by official figures that suggested the problem had been solved. The sensitivity to energy prices of the definition, creating an ever changing picture of the households who are fuel poor, makes designing and implementing effective policies extremely difficult. We want to learn the lessons of this.
We will therefore be adopting the new definition of fuel poverty proposed by Professor Hills. This finds a household to be fuel poor if it is below the official poverty line and if it has higher than typical energy costs. It is a more accurate measure of the problem. It brings the major advantage of telling us not only how many fuel-poor households there are but how badly affected each household is. This will help us target policies much more effectively, as our recently published Fuel Poverty: A Framework for Future Action attests. Although this new definition is rightly at the centre of our proposals, it is clear that a single indicator is not sufficient to give us an understanding of this complex problem. We therefore intend to monitor fuel poverty through a number of key indicators.
One of the important conclusions of the Hills review was that fuel poverty is a long-term structural problem, requiring an ongoing effort to mitigate it. The current framework does not reflect this, focused as it is on ensuring that no person lives in fuel poverty, as far as reasonably practicable. We want to address this problem with the current framework by adopting a new target focused on improving the energy efficiency of the homes of the fuel poor. In this way we can ensure that our efforts are directed towards a key cause of high energy bills and make a real difference to people who are struggling to keep warm.
Amendment 50J therefore sets a duty for the Secretary of State to have an objective to address fuel poverty and for the details of this new target to be specified in regulations, rather than in primary legislation as it is currently. The regulations must set out the form of that target, the level that will be achieved and the date by which this will be done. The secondary legislation must be brought forward within six months of the provisions entering into force. The amendment also maintains the duty on the Secretary of State to have in place a fuel poverty strategy but makes this duty consistent with the new objective.
Amendments 56A and 58 are minor provisions to be clear on the territorial extent of the amendments, where our proposals would apply to England only, and the commencement date for the provisions, which will be two months after the Act receives Royal Assent.
While we want to give the new target statutory backing, it would not be wise to set it in primary legislation. We need to be flexible in our approach to fuel poverty as we reform the electricity market, seek to drive the uptake of renewable heat in our homes, and bring about major improvements in energy efficiency standards through the Green Deal and ECO. We therefore think it appropriate for the details of the target to be set in secondary legislation, subject to parliamentary debate and the affirmative resolution of both Houses.
As part of this change, we need to be realistic about how quickly we can make progress. The current target is 2016. The interventions necessary to address the problem as we understand it cannot be undertaken within that timeframe. The needs of the fuel poor must continue to be championed after that date. A sensible approach for the future is to align our efforts on fuel poverty with the action we are taking more widely in tackling climate change. As my noble friend Lord Deben knows, the Committee on Climate Change already has a responsibility to monitor the Government’s approach to fuel poverty. The two issues go hand in hand.
Our amendments will allow us to bring forward proposals for a new target, including its precise form and level, and a date for its accomplishment. We will ensure that the determination and insights of those on the front line, working day in and day out to help alleviate fuel poverty, are reflected in our approach.
We want to make sure that the target bites. Our amendments therefore retain the key primary duty to have a fuel poverty strategy that sets out how we will meet our future target. Our amendments require us to set interim targets that will ensure that we stay on track along the way. Our recently published Fuel Poverty: a Framework for Future Action already sets out a direction of travel and underlines our commitment to tackling fuel poverty in a meaningful way.
I welcome the support that our announcements and proposed amendments received from the chair of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group and the chief executive of National Energy Action, given their expertise on the issue. I understand that there may be some who are concerned by a significant change to the long-standing fuel poverty framework set out in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act. By fixing a framework for the long term, the amendments ensure that, far from ceasing to be of concern in 2016, fuel poverty will remain high on the Government’s agenda throughout the delivery of our ambitious programme for energy efficiency and the energy sector in the UK.
Our amendments provide for an ongoing focus on helping low-income, vulnerable households keep warm, and will help them stay ahead in the energy efficiency market rather than fall behind. I trust that noble Lords will recognise the seriousness of our intentions to make real progress in tackling this long-term problem and will support the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I will make a few comments on what my noble friend said. The first is that we are extremely grateful to her and to the officials working with her for the briefing that some of us had fairly late last evening. All this was sprung on us at fairly short notice. The White Paper, Fuel Poverty: a Framework for Future Action, which is an immensely worthwhile document, contains a wealth of material. It is not always easy in a debate of this kind to do justice to it. It has been backed up by a paper produced in response to the consultation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in our debate on Tuesday when we discussed the problem of bills, not all of this is new. We have been aware of the Hills report, to which my noble friend referred, and the consultation paper. There were a good many responses to the consultation, which were referred to in the Government’s response. There is a wealth of material from which we can make an assessment of what the measures are likely to produce.
The first thing I will say on this is that the Government have been wise to recognise that the methodology of the previous fuel poverty target—how it was measured and what the appropriate responses were—has now really been shown to be wanting. That has inevitably meant that, in the light of Professor Hills’s report, that target and the methodology that accompanied it must be changed. I welcome very much what the Government now propose as the approach to this. It is not just a question of energy prices and relative incomes. There is far more to it than that. Without going into all the details, because I am sure noble Lords will have made their own studies of this, it is clear that there is much more to be done. Indeed, it is only if you measure the problem in an appropriate way that you can really devise and decide on the necessary measures to deal with it. That is an approach which I warmly welcome. If it continues to be measured in the wrong way, of course the authorities and the industry would be tempted to continue to use what have turned out to be often very ineffective policies to deal with this, and would give a false view of the size and severity of the problem.
This is a welcome new approach. I have read some of the documents which have been issued in the past day or two by the interest groups which represent the fuel poor. Although some of them wisely recognise the merits of the new approach, there has been an almost instinctive reaction of, “Well, you are abandoning the targets and not putting anything in their place”. My noble friend has indicated that her amendment will in fact lead to new targets. The other complaint is that it is not now going to be in statute, it will be in regulations. The fact is that you are going to advance this policy properly, it will have to be dealt with over time. That can only be done by regulations. My noble friend’s amendment would introduce the power to do so. I have never read an amendment which includes the phrase “The Secretary of State must” so many times. This will be a considerable reassurance to those who have been anxious that the Government are in some way weakening in their policy on this. They are not. It is a very real social policy leading to considerable hardship. Anyone who has represented constituents recently or in the past will be aware of the problem. Of course, it has got so much more difficult with rising prices.
Some of the methodology which stems from the Hills report is distinctly complicated. I found myself on Tuesday night trying to understand some of the charts in the White Paper. A particular chart on page 18 required having a fair number of towels around one’s head to try to understand it; I think that I fell asleep over it. The Minister’s officials were able to describe the meaning of some of this in our meeting yesterday. It illustrates the complexity of the problem that has been dealt with. There are all sorts of reasons why some households suffer from acute fuel poverty. They need to be examined in all their detail. This is what the department has tried to do with the help of Professor Hills’s report. We shall have to see how successful that is. I had not realised what a difference it makes whether you are connected to the gas grid or not. Yet the figures in the chart show clearly that that is a major factor. If you do not have access to mains gas, you are far more likely to be in serious fuel poverty.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I will be brief. I welcome the proposed new clause. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to attend the briefing yesterday evening but wish to make a couple of points. I have had a lifetime’s involvement in fuel poverty, having come from an area where the fuel poor are always with us. Sometimes one of the key things you need when dealing with fuel poverty is not fancy targets or models but a soupçon of common sense. This is one of the areas that troubles me about the Green Deal. If you are expecting the fuel poor to front-end facilitations to their house, for example, they are not going to be able to do it because they cannot afford to do so. It is great having a wonderful model that says, “If you up-front the amendments to your accommodation, you will benefit in the longer-term”. However, if you cannot afford to turn your heating on, you are hardly going to be able to afford cavity wall insulation.
I make a plea for some basic common sense when dealing with this matter. I heard the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for the fact that the amendment repeatedly says:
“The Secretary of State must”.
Frankly, the Secretary of State needs some enforcement powers to encourage the industry to get involved actively in the campaign to move people out of fuel poverty, unless he is going to go down to B&Q and get a hammer, nails and some insulating material. We need to have enforcement. With this Bill, as always, a lot of the detail will be in secondary legislation. Until we see the nuts and bolts of the secondary legislation, we will not see whether my common-sense points will be met. I welcome the proposed new clause and will read the secondary legislation with interest when it comes along. However, I repeat that common sense matters even more than targets in relation to this. I urge officials to bear that common sense in mind when they craft the secondary legislation.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I am very happy to follow my noble friend. The fight against fuel poverty in the past 10 to 15 years has been bedevilled by loose definitions and arbitrary targets. The amendment goes some way to mitigate concerns that have arisen about that. It sticks in my craw to say this but the Government must be praised for obtaining support for the measure from Derek Licorice, the chair of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, and Jenny Saunders of the NEA. The fact that people are giving understandably cautious support, but none the less a blessing, for the measure is an indication that Ministers have sought to build bridges on this issue. Known targets and definitions have been taken away and a rather more complex Hills approach has been adopted. That approach has its drawbacks but does take account of the complexity of the situation. Therefore, it is desirable to move forward not using the bludgeon of statutory change but rather a regulatory approach, as that will enable subsequent Ministers of whatever political complexion to adjust and calibrate the policies.
It is also fair to say that for us in Opposition to try putting forward amendments at this stage would be somewhat premature—although, from what one can gather of the parliamentary timetable ahead of us, we will have time, probably over the Recess, to look at some of these issues. Obviously, the statutory instrument and regulatory approach will be the subject of consultation and discussion. One would hope that that need not take an unduly long period. None the less, it will give us some opportunity to look at the fine print of this.
Some of us would be happier about this if we were to see the colour of the Government’s money, or indeed money at all from the Government. Their approach to fuel poverty has been to withdraw state funding from this and make it a tax on the consumer rather than on the country as a whole. That is a flawed policy. It would not be difficult for the Green Deal to become more successful than it is at present, but if it does not become substantially better we will have to look again at the Government providing funds for some of the major programmes that will be required to address areas of fuel poverty. We are not talking about individual households but street after street after street. If approached on that basis, we could deal with an awful lot of the most deep-seated areas which Hills recognises are the core of the problem.
As I said, I do not wish to be grudging in my support for this approach. There will obviously be difficulties and flaws but this is not the time to identify them. The opportunity for that will come on Report and beyond, when we have had time to digest some of the indigestible graphs to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred. If we can do that, we can perhaps make something of this. At the end of the day, somebody has to pay for it. At the moment, that will fall in the main on the shoulders of the consumer of gas and electricity. That is not a satisfactory approach to social injustice on this scale. Even with the Hills modification, the scale is intolerable for a society such as ours to leave to some kind of slipshod market mechanism, the like of which we have seen in the Green Deal. The Green Deal might work. It is the only show in town but it will have to start working very quickly or some of us will not be confident that the great ideas and reasoned approach in this White Paper, these documents and expressed in this amendment will be enough, without proper financial support, to tackle the major social problem we have here.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I again declare my interest as chairman of the climate change committee, which has a specific responsibility to consider and concern itself with fuel poverty. It would be suitable for me to say a few words about this. I am very pleased that the Government have brought forward this amendment, not least because one of the difficulties of advising on fuel poverty has been the very peculiar mechanisms that we have used to measure it. To be able to measure it more effectively, to have a proper and accepted basis, will help us very much in giving advice. As noble Lords know, if you are a scientifically based committee, it is quite hard to move from making decisions on science, which is of course what we do, to making decisions on measurements that would not stand up to any kind of consideration from outside. This is a very good first step. All of us acknowledge the fact that there is widespread support for the principle but there is a lot to be worked through. I think most of us would agree with what the noble Lord who just spoke said.
It is worth realising, too, that it has much wider implications. As usual, we have been very much helped by the intervention of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I am always amazed that he gets his head so easily around the most complex of issues and then lightly dismisses that by saying that he is not quite there yet. If when I get to the same stage of life, I am “there”—if I may put it so—as well as he is, I shall be very proud indeed. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding so quickly to our pleas last week about fuel poverty. I welcome what we have before us today. I think it is quite clear, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, that unless we understand the problem properly we cannot design effective solutions for it. I am particularly grateful to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Ed Davey, for pushing this within the coalition, and I am grateful that he has managed to move it forward. My noble friend Lord Deben talked about “may” and “must”: I think the answer is that my right honourable friend managed to persuade them on one issue, but not on the other.
Baroness Maddock
So we must help him to persuade others on the other issue, the decarbonisation target.
I will try not to be repetitive, because I agree with many of the things already said. I particularly welcome the fact that we are going to be monitoring things as they go along, that there will not just be an end target but targets in between, and we will see what is going on. The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, and the Home Energy Conservation Act before it, were both Private Members’ Bills. One of the problems with Private Members’ Bills is that they are not actually owned by the Government, and so they were not part of a big department getting together and putting legislation forward. Both those Bills suffered from that, because in many ways they were allowed to just drift along. That is a slight exaggeration, but the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, my own Act, drifted so much so that at the end the previous Government wanted to get rid of it completely. When the coalition Government came in—it was one in, one out—they thought it was ripe for the picking. We pointed out that you need that Bill if you are really into localism and are going to use local authorities—another thing I welcome in this regard. Maybe we will do a little better this time, because this has been an important piece of work done by a government department.
I commend to noble Lords the White Paper, Fuel Poverty: a Framework for Future Action. It will help people who have already contacted us because they were worried about one or two items that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, pointed out. It will answer some of their questions. This is not the final document and strategy. A more detailed strategy will come after the Bill has passed into law, so that we can co-ordinate it properly.
I will highlight one or two things. Everybody has talked about properties that are difficult to deal with for various technical reasons, but something that has always bothered me is that a large number of the fuel poor live in the private rented sector. Many things that we are trying to do are much harder to do in the private rented sector. I hope that, when the final strategy comes out, we can do something about that.
Some concerns that people have raised include the fact that we are changing the definition, and that it will be in secondary legislation. However, my experience of definitions being in primary legislation, in particular in the two Private Members’ Bills that became Acts that I talked about, was that it did not make any difference. Even though the target was in primary legislation, it seems that we are not going to hit it, so we have had to do something else. Therefore, history shows that that is not the total answer.
Many people who contacted us were worried about what the priorities and target dates will be. I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, we will be able to look into that before Report. Clearly, a lot of detail will be in the final strategy, and we will be able to make our suggestions.
Another area that has been mentioned is how we will pay for this and how we can stop putting extra burdens on the fuel poor when we are trying to deal with climate change and decarbonisation. The document indicates that the Government are acutely aware of the issue, and that we need to look at how to deal with it. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to indicate some of the forward thinking on the issues that I have raised.
The other area that I particularly welcome is the commitment to much more cross-departmental working. That may be something we will touch on when we debate the next amendment about something else. We hear this phrase time and time again, but it does not always happen. Somewhere in the document it says that the Government will set up a body to work across departments. That has been tried in the past and has not been terribly successful.
I will touch on one issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, who talked about dealing with streets. One thing that has been discovered by those looking at who is fuel poor is that quite often they are peppered around streets. If you are trying to target your money at the fuel poor, sometimes you do not succeed if you take whole streets. This is not a worry with decarbonising, but trying to make money go around for the fuel poor is complicated. This is slightly disappointing, because it was talked about in the context of the Home Energy Conservation Act.
I will touch briefly on rural areas, to which my noble friend Lord Deben referred. As noble Lords know, I live in north Northumberland, which I think is even more rural than where my noble friend lives.
Baroness Maddock
Perhaps through e-mails.
Our problem is that a lot of properties are farm cottages. I go back to my worry about the private rented sector. My husband is an MP there and sees a lot of tenants. The farm cottages are often in the private rented sector because there are not as many farm workers. Trying to tailor all the programmes to do something to these properties, and in particular to get the landlords to do something, is very difficult. I have gone full circle and come round to the private rented sector, which I hope we will deal with.
I am pleased that the Committee has, within days, got something in response to our pleas last week. I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment.
Lord Whitty
I, too, thank the Minister for getting fuel poverty into the Bill. Throughout the Commons proceedings, and the earlier stages of the proceedings in this House, there was considerable criticism that one of the major areas of concern in energy policy—fuel poverty—was not reflected in the Bill. We now have a clear indication of the way the Government are going on this. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others in thanking the Minister and her officials for trying to explain this somewhat complex position to us last night. The penny may have dropped but I am not sure the shillings have yet on all of it.
Indeed, some of it is not clear and cannot be clear until the Government, in six or eight months’ time, come up with a strategy and the secondary regulations. I understand that. On the other hand, there are some problems with the approach as so-far revealed. The Minister said she wants to display a rigorous and flexible strategy under these provisions. There is a slight danger of being too rigorous and complex on definition and target issues and too flexible and unclear on what the actual strategy will deliver. I will come back to some of those points.
I thank the Government for getting us here. However, we should not ignore the fact that this is, for those of us who have been engaged in fuel poverty and those who suffer from it, quite a sad point. Although most of us have recognised that this has been the situation for some considerable time, we have now explicitly recognised that the statutory ambitions set, with all-party support, in the legislation originated by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the follow-through of that, have failed. That has implications for other targets that we set in this area. There is a necessity to be rigorous in not only setting targets but also checking, enforcing, reporting and adapting to any failure to meet those targets, however difficult that might seem.
This is also the point where we have accepted that achieving those statutory targets is not easy. Previous statutory targets talked about the eradication of fuel poverty. We have now abandoned that ambition and substituted reduction, and a reduction that will be made in order of priority. I understand why that is the Government’s position, but in terms of the campaign on fuel poverty it is quite a serious retreat. It might be inevitable. From now, we need to treat it as inevitable and ensure that the new policy, strategy and less ambitious targets are achieved but we should not let this pass without recognising that it is a quite a profound change in our approach.
It is also more of a technologically significant change in the measurement. We debated this and others have commented on it. Some of us had the suspicion when the Treasury, when obliging DECC to look at this area, hoped that the redefinition would define the problem away. Whatever else one may say about Professor Hills, he has definitely reinforced and underlined that fuel poverty is an important and distinct area of policy, one that requires rigorous and effective measures to tackle it. Even with his measurement, which excluded a number of things, we have 2.5 million households in England alone suffering from it. We owe Professor Hills a debt for his report. We are now trying to turn that into some measure of reality.
The first complication it presents is that we now have an English target which measured differently from that in Scotland, Northern Ireland and, probably, Wales. That makes a UK approach to it difficult. Indeed, there was some advance on the basis of the old measurement, which was relatively easily understood, even though it was itself quite complex. It was relatively well established and we were about to adopt it on a pan-European basis. Europe will also have to think again about any co-ordinated approach on this.
Let us accept that the Hills definition will be one of the main measurements. I cannot remember the exact reference, but quite near the beginning of the report that I received yesterday, it says that from now on the Government will establish the figures only on the basis of one of the Hills measurements—namely, the low-income/high-cost measurement. At least for a few years, we need not only to take in the other Hills amendment, relating to the depth of fuel poverty—which in some ways is a useful and more understandable measurement—but to continue to measure it on the old scale. That is the normal approach in a lot of statistical series. Eventually, we may not need that, but for the next five years the credibility of this strategy requires us to look at what we previously defined as fuel poverty, and what our colleagues in devolved Administrations are probably going to go on using as the definition, in order to see how well we are doing. On a purely statistical basis, we ought to retain that.
It is of course also true that many points in Professor Hills’s strategy are not yet fully reflected in the Government’s actions. We will come back to that as we go on over the next few months. As expressed in the documentation now before us, there is clearly a triangle of effects on fuel poverty: household income, the energy efficiency of the home and the appliances within it, and the price of energy. All three are open to government intervention. The strategy shown by the Government so far focuses very much on intervention on the energy efficiency of homes. I am strongly in favour of such intervention but there is a danger of ignoring the other two sides of the triangle and the forces that define whether fuel poverty is going up or down.
It is important that we find a way of conveying the narrative on all three fronts to the population. Fuel poverty itself, the measurements involved and the nomenclature of the various intervention schemes are complicated enough, and we must find a clear narrative to explain what we are doing on all those fronts. At the moment, as the Commons Select Committee said only a few weeks ago, the Government are unable to convey what they are trying to do and why they are trying to do it when it comes to fuel poverty and energy efficiency interventions.
The new definition, as I say, has some advantages. It probably excludes a number of Members of the House of Lords who are on a reasonable income but live in rather draughty castles. I commend it from that point of view. However, although the Minister may contest this, it does not obviously take us hugely further forward in terms of operationally identifying precisely who those people are. It is pretty sound statistically but, operationally, we have no further clue as to whether such and such a house in such and such a town or village is actually suffering from fuel poverty or not. At one point, as mentioned last night at the briefing, the document refers to assessing the condition of housing at a local level. However, we do not actually have a register of the condition of every house—we only have a broad idea of what the SAP rating of certain kinds of housing is—nor do we have the identification of the household structure and the household income within it. I am not sure that we ever can have that. However, to make this provision work most cost-effectively, we need to see whether local authorities, or other local bodies taking the lead on this, can pin down the priority areas more precisely in terms of streets, houses or type of persons.
Baroness Maddock
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. When I introduced the Home Energy Conservation Act, that was one of the things we were trying to get local authorities to do. In the early days, they were quite innovative. For example, Sutton had infra red photographs in its local library which showed where the relevant houses were. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that we need to be able to do that but there are other things that we can do and there is legislation to enable people to do them.
Lord Whitty
Yes, but this has not been a priority for local authorities and in the present period of austerity is unlikely to become so unless the strategy that the Minister comes up with in a few months’ time places that obligation on them and provides resources to enable them to carry it out. At the other end, the income end, the data-sharing arrangements which were introduced in legislation—two Energy Bills ago, I think—have not fully worked in enabling suppliers to identify which of their customers are likely to be on benefits, which, itself, is only a very rough proxy of the fuel poor.
The document and the Minister have indicated that we need to be more targeted in our approach. Indeed, there is a significant element of prioritisation, so if we need to identify, first, those who are in deepest fuel poverty and take action with them initially, we need to have more detailed information, at least in broad terms. If we are to have an area approach, there is a bit of a conflict between that and a prioritisation on grounds of deepest fuel poverty or, indeed, the other priority identified in the document of serious health problems, which poses even more difficulties and is subject to data protection problems.
Given the Government’s emphasis on intervention in regard to energy efficiency, it is important to obtain clarity about the resources being put in by the Government or being diverted from consumers’ bills to deal with this. I asked the Minister whether the Government could indicate the total amount to be spent on fuel poverty determined energy efficiency interventions over, say, the next five years. The figures that NEA has come up with, comparing 2010-11 to this year, show a significant drop in intervention because not only did Warm Front, which was taxpayer-funded, end completely at the end of last year, although some schemes are still being completed, SERT and CESP were dropped and we all moved onto the ECO. We have another group of amendments dealing with the ECO and I do not want to go into those in detail now, but even assuming that the ECO works, in aggregate more than £200 million less is being diverted via taxpayers’ money or cross-subsidy from the consumer into fuel poverty and energy efficiency schemes. I will discuss later whether, even within that, the ECO is working most efficiently.
It is important to move forward on this issue and the government amendments are a significant step in that direction. Some of the documentation is still not adequate and we are unlikely to see any more before the Bill completes its passage. It could be another six to eight months before the secondary legislation appears, which takes us well into the second half of next year. By that time, according to most prognostications, energy prices will have risen, low-income households will not have seen an increase in their income and the tariffs that are likely to be offered under Ofgem’s new arrangements will not have been geared to attacking the problem of fuel poverty. That is the other area that is not covered in the Government’s policy statement, which I spoke of at probably excessive length in our previous Committee session—namely, that you can use the tariff structure as well as energy-efficiency interventions in order to improve.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their warm welcome—even though from the Benches opposite it was perhaps slightly lukewarm. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I genuinely share a concern about fuel poverty and I am extremely grateful that he recognises that the target that was put in by the previous Administration has not worked to alleviate fuel poverty. Something needed to be done and we have an approach that has been reviewed and put forward independently.
I will start by responding to the wide range of interventions. I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for his extremely warm welcome for the amendments, and all noble Lords who took the time to attend yesterday evening’s briefing. My noble friend is absolutely right, as are other noble Lords, that we really need to address issues around fuel poverty, and about how important it is that we retain a flexible approach and respond to the change in dynamics across England. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for laying out eloquently and with great precision what the Government are trying to deliver. I, like him, when I first came across some of the statistics at which we have to look, was quite puzzled. I have been extremely grateful to my officials for explaining to me, perhaps for longer periods of time than to noble Lords, exactly how they work.
My noble friend also mentioned the gas grid, and the policy of gas grid extensions. Through the fuel-poor network extension scheme, which is part of the new price control arrangements known as RIIO, the gas distribution networks will be required to connect 80,000 fuel-poor households to the grid over the period of 2021. I can confirm that this is not adversely affected by the new definition. We can of course work with the sector on this, including the fuel poverty advisory group, to ensure that those who would benefit from being off-grid can access and benefit from our proposals.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
My understanding of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was that there was an implication that the figures to be connected to the gas grid were going to be far greater. Therefore, that would have a difficult impact upon the existing investment programme for the national grid. Are we being told that they are getting exactly the same number of households connected but possibly in different places?
Baroness Verma
The information I am being given is that there will be no change.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill. The point that has been put to me on behalf of the national grid is that it does not yet see what the change in the target would mean for their investment programme. I endorse very much my noble friend Lord Deben’s point that there is now an element of uncertainty. It is that which needs now to be resolved as quickly as possible. I am sure that they will respond firmly to the invitation which has been issued for discussions to take place. Certainly, I do not know and have not been told whether this means investment in different places for different communities. They do not yet know enough about it to be able to make that sort of decision.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, to continue with my responses, the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, asked about ECO and what was contained within it. Within ECO, energy suppliers will provide fully subsidised measures under the affordable warmth obligation to low-income, vulnerable households. We estimate that around 230,000 low-income households can be supported each year through ECO, so there will be no up-front cost through the affordable warmth obligation to low-income households.
Again, I am extremely grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, although I would say that, rather than sticking in his throat, it was a gentle hiccup. Through the Green Deal and ECO we are endeavouring to reach out and get to those households that would benefit the most. Again, I point the noble Lord to the £540 million that is being made available though the affordable warmth obligation and the carbon-saving communities obligation. We also have the warm home discount, with the overall effect that all consumer bills will be lower than they otherwise would have been had these measures not come into place.
The noble Lord also asked about the reduction in government funding for fuel poverty. Funding for fuel poverty has not been reduced over the spending review. Total spending on fuel poverty is being increased and by 2014-15 we expect to see spending on the warm home discount at £310 million and spending on ECO will be at least the £540 million that I said—up around 10% on 2009-10.
My noble friend Lord Deben rightly recognised fuel poverty in poor rural parts of the country. I completely agree with him that we need to make sure that the measurements we take help us to respond to those in rural households facing fuel poverty so that they are also able to benefit from our measures. The average fuel poverty gap in poor rural areas is £558 compared with £361 in other areas. In underpinning the new target, we need to reflect in other strategy how we will approach the fuel poor in rural areas. When it comes to consultation, I hope my noble friend will be able to assist us in that.
My noble friend Lady Maddock asked about the private rented sector and fuel poverty. Again, I recognise as she does the importance of ensuring that we work closely on regulations so that the private landlord sector is not omitted. From April 2018, landlords will not be able to rent out any property that does not meet the minimum efficiency ratings, subject to the provisions already present in the Energy Act 2011.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that while he sort of welcomed the measures instead of shillings pennies were being dropped. I will try to convince him that rather than shillings we need to talk about pounds being dropped. We recognise that we have to eradicate any kind of poverty but current methods—targets—are not working. Realistically, we need to see how we can reduce it to get to the point of seeing poverty eradicated. I need to make it clear that we are not abandoning fuel poverty targets. We are improving them and enhancing our delivery of meeting them. Our amendments increase certainty that successive Governments will keep this issue at the top of their agendas. This is a cross-party issue. I think all those sat in the Committee today recognise that successive Governments have failed. We need to make progress.
On publishing fuel poverty statistics, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we intend to use the Hills fuel poverty gap and publish the relevant statistics. We will also use our annual fuel poverty statistics publication to record figures using the old 10% indicator.
The noble Lord also asked about the operational aspect of our definition. Targeting is always difficult but we hope that the new definition will open up new improvements. We currently use a number of proxies for fuel poverty, such as receipt of certain means-tested benefits. That will need to continue for some time but we know, on the ground, that local authorities and others are using a range of technologies and techniques to identify fuel-poor households. We are currently evaluating the outcome of the £31 million fuel poverty fund that we made available to English local authorities last year, with a view to seeing what works best in terms of targeting.
The noble Lord also asked about devolved Administrations. The measurement of fuel poverty is a devolved issue. The devolved Administrations are able to measure the problem in their own ways. We continue to work very closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations and have explained our proposals to them.
To finish on the noble Lord’s question on the total expenditure on fuel poverty, we have recently made available information on our spending on fuel poverty, which is going up. That was in an Answer to a Question in another place, which I will share with the Committee in writing as soon as possible. With that, I hope noble Lords will accept this amendment.
“Carbon monoxide detection
(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to provide that any person who undertakes work on a carbon burning appliance within a property shall ensure that—
(a) the premises is equipped with an appropriate carbon monoxide alarm, or(b) in the absence of such an alarm system, the occupier or a person acting on behalf of the occupier is advised of the requirement to install such a system.(2) The Secretary of State shall make regulations that any person replacing or installing energy efficiency measures which alter the air tightness of a building, where a fuel burning appliance is situated, shall ensure that—
(a) the premises is equipped with an appropriate carbon monoxide alarm, or(b) in the absence of such an alarm the occupier or a person acting on behalf of the occupier is advised of the requirement to install such a device.(3) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to provide that—
(a) no person shall replace or install a meter or a smart meter in any premises unless he is equipped with a personal alarm monitor for detecting carbon monoxide gas;(b) where a person replaces or installs a meter or a smart meter he shall ensure that—(i) the premises is equipped with an appropriate carbon monoxide alarm, or(ii) in the absence of such an alarm the occupier or a person acting on behalf of the occupier is advised of the requirement to install such a device.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1988, to ensure—
(a) the premises is fitted with an appropriate carbon monoxide alarm where any carbon burning appliance is in situ, (b) at intervals of not more than 12 months check that alarm system to ensure it is fully functional,(c) its power source is in good order for a further 12 months, and(d) proof of purchase of any alarm is retained for the period of that alarm’s lifetime, as specified in the manufacturer’s instructions.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, these amendments concern carbon monoxide detection. I want to explain why carbon monoxide needs to be detected, why the Energy Bill is the place that should have this amendment, and to explain the amendment briefly. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me yesterday and giving me so much of her time.
Carbon monoxide is a colourless, odourless gas emitted when carbon, however produced—whichever fuel it is in—is incompletely burned. Domestic sources are usually faulty or improperly installed cooking and heating devices. At concentrations of 12,800 parts per million, death occurs in one to three minutes. At lower levels, ongoing damage may persist for years. The problem is that because you cannot see or smell it people often have no idea that they are being killed by it. Hospital episode statistics for England and Wales show that at least 40 people a year die from carbon monoxide poisoning, and about 4,000 people attend A&E departments with carbon monoxide toxicity. The inquiry that I chaired on behalf of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Carbon Monoxide found that, based on the Government’s approximate figures, these incidents together are probably costing the nation well over £117 million a year.
However this is only the tip of the iceberg. The most authoritative estimates suggest that carbon monoxide poisoning is much more prevalent than previously thought. The majority of those who have discovered that they have been poisoned have never attended A&E and are thus excluded from official figures. Indeed the overwhelming majority of people poisoned by fossil fuel combustion are completely unaware that they are being or have been poisoned. They present with non-specific symptoms, which makes it difficult to diagnose; these include headache, chronic fatigue, mood disorders, poor memory, dizziness, poor or disturbed sleep, poor concentration, tummy ache, diarrhoea, pins and needles and recurrent infections. I should think every Member of your Lordships’ House has had some of those symptoms at one time or another. The effect on the brain is particularly marked: in chronic low level exposure the cognitive changes result in disordered chaotic thinking, which persists. The changes are irreversible and brain changes can be seen on MRI scans years later.
There have been studies into low level exposure. In 2011 Liverpool John Moores University, working with Mersey Fire and Rescue Department, visited 2,180 homes. Over 90% had a fire alarm but fewer than 10% had a carbon monoxide alarm. They left CO logging monitors in 109 homes for six months. These monitors scan to detect whether there is CO present every minute. The findings were horrifying: 24 homes—over 20% of the total—had CO levels at some time that were greater than 50 parts per million—the level at which symptoms develop. A further 53 homes—almost half—showed CO levels between 10 and 50 parts per million. So, half of the homes had chronic low level exposure, and the residents were completely unaware of it.
A study by University College London found that 2% of 597 homes visited had a “very high” risk of carbon monoxide exposure, and a further 4% were at “high” risk. Its study showed that the presence of an unsafe gas appliance was linked to neurological symptoms.
A joint study by Public Health England and Hackney Homes looked at all the homes managed by Hackney Homes which had a carbon monoxide alarm fitted, more than 22,000 homes. Between November 2011 and April last year, there were 106 alarm activations. In 0.4% of households the alarm had gone off: 29% were due to a defective cooker; 9.8% to a defective boiler; and 25% to a defective fire of some sort. In 10.6% of cases there was misuse of a cooker or cooking methods. Some families seemed to put tinfoil over the top of the heating area, which decreases the airflow and raises carbon monoxide levels. In 38.5% of cases the alarm had gone off because the battery was defective and needed to be replaced—so the battery detection was working.
Public Health England concluded that carbon monoxide exposure in local authority homes could be causing substantial ill health across the country and that the problem is seriously under-diagnosed. CO alarms are cheap. I will not ask for a show of hands of how many of your Lordships have got them in their homes, but an alarm with a seven-year battery life costs less than £20; in other words, protection for one year is cheaper than one cup of coffee on the high street. It is not expensive. Everyone in this House could afford several alarms in their home.
Why should we tackle carbon monoxide in the Energy Bill? We have already debated how people will struggle to pay their bills. Poverty puts energy safety at risk because servicing appliances is less likely to be a priority than paying the bill for running that appliance, whatever it is. Alternative fuels such as solid fuels and biomass are typically more dangerous in terms of carbon monoxide exposure than gas. It is classically thought that it is related to gas but actually the bigger problems now come from other fuel sources.
This amendment is concerned with detecting that carbon monoxide. Today in Derby there is a conference involving 113 organisations concerned about carbon monoxide detection and the effects of poisoning, and they all are supportive of this amendment. Industry and victims’ groups have been consulted and have had input into the wording of this amendment, specifically: the Energy Networks Association, Energy UK, HETAS, the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers, OFTEC, the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Gas Industry Safety Group, the Gas Safe Charity, the Gas Safety Trust, the Heating and Hotwater Industry Council, the Council of Gas Detection and Environmental Monitoring, UKLPG, the Carbon Monoxide Survivors, Activists and Victims Group—which has been very active in this area, understandably—and Skanska. This amendment has not come out of the blue.
The first part of the amendment will require an engineer undertaking any work on a carbon-burning appliance to check on the suitability of the CO alarm in the property and make recommendations. It is not burdensome on businesses and can cover all appliances in all situations.
The second part relates to energy-efficiency measures and indoor air pollution. Energy-efficiency measures such as the Green Deal aim to make properties better insulated. But an unintended consequence of this is that hermetically sealed houses increase the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning by decreasing the “advantageous air” ventilation that is required to safely operate many appliances. Of all the noxious gases causing indoor air pollution, carbon monoxide is the most dangerous.
The co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group, of which I am one, have been working closely with the right honourable Greg Barker, the Energy Minister, who fully recognises the concern and has worked to try to improve the Green Deal. But the Green Deal documents do not go far enough, focusing on existing rather than new alarms. This provision will clear up any confusion for installers of energy-efficiency measures and will meet the Minister’s commitment more comprehensively than the Green Deal.
The third part relates to smart metering. This will allow smart meter installers also to install a carbon monoxide alarm when they visit each property. It also protects the engineers themselves. Northern Gas Networks and Scotia Gas Networks have found unexpectedly high levels of carbon monoxide when their engineers have visited customers’ properties while wearing these personal alarms. Fortunately, most gas distribution networks have either provided or are piloting the provision of personal alarm and air monitors to protect their own staff on home visits. Industry has advised us that it would prefer that proposed new subsection (3)(b)(i) said,
“gas detection equipment capable of detecting carbon monoxide”.
I would suggest that the amendment as it is currently worded should not be accepted. The wording should change to allow for new detection devices as they are developed. Visits by smart meter installers to every home provides a specific window of opportunity to install a carbon monoxide alarm; that will be a fraction of the cost of the smart meter rollout and will save lives. Industry contacts have told us that they are keen to be involved in this because smart metering may provide an opportunity to save lives.
The fourth part focuses on landlords. We have heard already about landlords and how those renting property from private landlords are at higher risk—they have a fivefold higher risk of carbon monoxide incidents than members of the population in other dwellings. The Downstream Incident Data Report has provided data on this. Domestic carbon monoxide alarms are now required when a new or replacement appliance burning solid fuel is installed and, in Northern Ireland, this extends to all newly installed appliances, irrespective of the fossil fuel. This amendment gives specific protection to those people who are at risk because they rent where they live and are often in a poorer group of the population. It will require private landlords to have carbon monoxide detection in their properties. I hope that the Minister will accept these amendments, possibly with some modification of the wording, because they are extremely important. There is a typographical error, for which I apologise, in the proposed new subsection (4): it refers to the date of the regulations as 1988 but it should be 1998. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in her efforts in this area. I had better indicate that—I cannot remember—I may be a co-chair of the All-Party Group as well. I cannot remember what the job was last time. The noble Baroness has introduced the amendment so well and with all the facts that I do not need to say very much at all. I first became aware of this problem when I was a Member of Parliament in Christchurch and a family in the constituency was affected by it. One of the family members died because of a flue wrongly installed by a builder. I have been aware of this matter ever since and have campaigned a bit but, I have to say, the noble Baroness has taken this much farther forward and with much more energy than I have ever done and I am grateful to her.
One of the problems that we have come across over the years—and I have proposed amendments to other Bills about this—is that the Government always say, “It’s not us”, and, “It’s not appropriate in this Bill”. I have a feeling that this may be what the Minister will say today. Interestingly, I notice that there are some people who know about it, because the civil servants behind her changed between the first and second amendments that we are discussing. Somebody in her department clearly knows something about this. It is time that we took this seriously—we have that opportunity now, as we have so many programmes where people go into other people’s houses and install equipment that might have faults in it of the kind we are discussing, when they could easily fit something else or easily detect where carbon monoxide is. Not only should we be doing this, but we should keep much better records; as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, one of the problems is trying to get records of how many people there are. The worst thing is that sometimes even doctors do not recognise the symptoms. There have been cases where someone has turned up at a surgery but the symptoms have not been diagnosed and they have gone home and died. We need to take this more seriously and to stop making excuses about why we cannot do some of the things that are—as the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, said earlier—common sense.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I hope that she will help us get something that we can put down on Report that will deal with this once and for all. We can have the cross-departmental working that we are going to have on fuel poverty on this as well.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
My Lords, when we were discussing the previous energy Bill, I asked the Minister whether it included the word “ventilation”. Heating and energy involve insulation, heat and ventilation. The Minister asked the people behind him, who said that the Bill did not have that word in it. I was then assured that ventilation would be covered in secondary legislation or regulations. This matter is partly to do with ventilation. If it would be easier to accept the amendment by saying that it is an application of ventilation, which is part of energy, so be it.
Lord Deben
My Lords, we ought to help the Minister on this. I suspect that I know what advice she has been given, and it is important to warn her about it. I will express that warning very carefully.
In the 19th century there was a scandal when people bought wallpaper that had a colouring based on arsenic. Large numbers of people died. The Government consistently refused to outlaw arsenic in the manufacture of that wallpaper. In the end, it was the fact that people ceased to buy the wallpaper that stopped the damage. The Government did not change the law until 1974. Therefore, there is a history of Governments not doing what they ought to do at the time they ought to do it. I was fascinated to read some of the evidence that the Government gave about why they were not doing it. Noble Lords will not be surprised that the argument was, first, that there is no need for regulation in this area; secondly, that it will be expensive; thirdly, that there is no call for it; fourthly, that people ought to be able to make these decisions themselves; and, fifthly, that the science is not quite proven. Have we not heard those arguments before, and will we not hear them again?
I suggest to my noble friend that this is a genuinely serious issue that could be solved. Lives can be saved at a cost that is significantly lower than it used to be, because government is enabling people to go into these premises for all sorts of other reasons. If the Minister has been advised that it is inappropriate to have legislation in this area—of course, I do not know whether she has been—I would pick up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Anyone who has a gas fire installed is always forced to install further ventilation, even if it is utterly unnecessary. We already have legislation of a very detailed kind. If you wanted to put a gas fire in this Room, even though it may be very draughty, you would have to put a ventilating spot at the top there because that is what the law says.
I am not suggesting that we should be in any way as prescriptive as that. We should not say what kind of alarm there should be, except to say that it should be effective, and we should certainly be willing to allow alterations to the text of the amendment, because I am not expert enough to know whether it would do the job. I hope my noble friend will understand that this is one of those issues in which everybody involved has to say to themselves, “Am I prepared to allow people to die when I could stop it?”. That must be of great importance. We have to ask ourselves, individually, as Members of the House of Lords, officers of the department and Ministers, “Am I prepared not to act when action will save lives?”. That is not acting in some extreme way, or some awful health and safety nonsense. The very simple fact is that modern equipment needs this. It ought to be part of the deal. No deal should be done without it. In other circumstances, it is precisely like stopping people working in unsafe conditions in factories. We do that as a matter of course.
Lastly, it would be quite wrong not to use the opportunity of the Bill to do this on the basis that there might be another opportunity, another Bill or another place. We can use this Bill—the provision falls within the Long Title. There is no reason why we should not do it here; it is an appropriate place to put it. I very much hope that my noble friend will accept what is a really valuable contribution and play her part—and ours—in ensuring that next year a whole lot of people who would have been dead are alive.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. After the eloquent contributions we have heard, there is little more to be added. I simply say to the Minister that if, in spite of the eloquence of noble Lords, she does not feel able to legislate for this here, when will the Government do so? Will she give a firm undertaking that legislation will be introduced? For the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, gave, people are dying and we must do something about it.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, we follow other noble Lords in also using our words in support of questioning the Minister on when such necessary legislation might come forward, if not included in the Bill currently before us. We agree that it mirrors to a large extent regulations that require the fitting of smoke detectors in all residential new builds, yet would go further than that in making it mandatory to install these alarms in all homes with any gas appliance.
We entirely agree that greater public awareness about the dangers of gas and of carbon monoxide poisoning is extremely important. After rising incident rates, it is encouraging that last year the number of such incidents fell. I understand that last year there were 46 incidents with casualties and one death. That still highlights that the problem persists. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was correct to point out that there is severe underreporting going on and that incidents can affect health in many small, unnoticeable ways.
It is also striking that evidence suggests that those renting from private landlords are more at risk than those in other occupancy types. This deserves very careful consideration by the Government today. Like others, we understand that detectors cost only about £30, so this does not represent a huge cost to the household. The charge might also be absorbed by the plumber or fitter because it would seem to be him that would be liable under this clause. However, could the Minister clarify, as is it not entirely clear from the wording under subsections (2)(b) and (3)(b)(ii), if the occupier, although being made aware of the requirement, could refuse to pay the cost?
Baroness Verma
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for moving this amendment, and other noble Lords for participating in what has been a genuinely important debate on carbon monoxide poisoning. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, whom I regard as a friend, for meeting me yesterday. Let me say from the outset that the Government take this issue extremely seriously.
For example, in my own department, following debate during the passage of the previous Energy Bill, prompted by the noble Baroness, we have procedures for checking and recommending carbon monoxide monitors in DECC programmes, including the Green Deal. In particular, the Green Deal adviser is trained to check for the presence of carbon monoxide detectors, and the Green Deal provider includes CO monitors in the specification of works. We are also looking into the Green Deal quality monitoring processes to determine whether we are checking the effectiveness of our policies with respect to carbon monoxide monitors.
We are sympathetic to the aims of this amendment. However, we do not believe that the proposed new clause would deliver these aims. Existing building regulations allied to the licence conditions for gas suppliers and the codes of practice established for boiler installers, meter installers and Green Deal installers ensure that occupiers are advised of the need for a carbon monoxide alarm in situations where the risk of poisoning is highest. Building regulations already require carbon monoxide alarms for solid-fuel boilers. They have also been updated to take account of the risks associated with the increased air tightness that can come with improvements in energy efficiency.
We are also taking steps to ensure that operatives are sufficiently competent to complete smart meter installations safely. Meter installers, where appropriate, will already inform the customer about the dangers of carbon monoxide and the need to have gas appliances serviced and checked. All meter installers will be required to be accredited by the National Skills Academy for Power as having completed their training, which includes gas safety elements.
Those working on dual-fuel or gas-only meters will also be required to be gas-safe accredited. In addition, condition 29 of the gas suppliers’ licence conditions considers gas safety; in particular, it states that the licensee must take all reasonable steps to provide free-of-charge information about the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning and the benefits of fitting an audible carbon monoxide alarm.
We understand the scope of the gas safety regulations to be limited to gas safety, rather than any carbon burning device, as set out in the amendment. In the case of gas, as mentioned, the onus is already placed on the licensee to take all reasonable steps to provide free-of-charge information about the dangers of carbon monoxide and the benefits of an audible carbon monoxide alarm. It is not clear that a requirement on all landlords to install a carbon monoxide alarm is proportionate, but that is something I will take away and reflect on.
Across government, we are continually monitoring the effectiveness of our policies and processes regarding carbon monoxide. However, I have listened to the comments that have been made. This is an issue which my department in particular needs to understand better. I invite the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group to come and meet me and my officials to discuss these issues further. I have also noted that my department is currently not a member of the cross-government group on gas safety and carbon monoxide awareness. I will ensure that officials from my department join the group and contribute to its meetings in future.
I know that my responses would perhaps not have satisfied noble Lords to the extent that they would have wished. Having said that, and reiterating my opening remarks that I take this issue incredibly seriously, I hope that the noble Baroness has found my explanation reassuring and will, on that basis, withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I thank everybody in the Committee for their unconditional support. I recognise that the Minister realises the importance of this. I will warmly welcome officials from her department to our All-Party Parliamentary Group, as will my co-chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
This is the second Energy Bill that we have put this amendment down on. We have explained previously why this presents a unique opportunity. It would be a dereliction of our duty to the nation not to use this opportunity to widen the scope of protection from the pockets of protection that are there.
I do not know how any of us could accept not putting this in the Bill and then look the bereaved in the face. These are young people dying. I will tell the Committee about two boys: one went up to university; a year later his brother went to the same university so that his older brother would be there to look after him. They found a flat; the second night in that flat it was cold and they put the heating on. They did not wake up the next morning—two bright, much loved university students dead because their landlord had a faulty appliance there and there was no alarm. An audible alarm costing less than £20 would have saved both their lives. That is why this is so important.
I hope that the Minister will meet with us very soon. I would really welcome getting some wording, whatever it is, to signal that this is a major problem that needs to be addressed. The regulations can follow but we really should not let it drop. I accept that the wording here is not right. With that and with gratitude, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“Collective redress
Within twelve months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall bring forward regulations providing for forms of collective redress for consumers of gas and electricity.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, Amendment 51ZA is a probing amendment, although it is one that the Government could give some commitments to taking forward, if not precisely in this form.
The Government are rightly giving Ofgem the power, in cases of breach of licence condition, to require licence holders—that is, supply companies—to pay compensation to the consumers who have suffered detriment, as well as raising a fine. I am not entirely clear whether that power also covers Ofgem requiring compensation for straightforward breach of general consumer law, rather than strict breach of licence, but it would make sense if it did.
The level of consumer complaints in the energy sector is one of the highest—in some years, the highest—of all sectors in our economy. The level of complaints dealt with by the consumer organisations, the ombudsman and, on occasion, by the courts, as well as by Ofgem, remains high despite significant improvements made or claimed by the supply companies.
It is clear that the complaints systems of several of the large energy companies are not really up to scratch. The ombudsman and Ofgem remark on this from time to time. Tens of thousands of consumers suffer from the effects of mis-selling, misleading information and misleading advice on choice of tariff and other conditions relating to tariffs; for example, on the cost determination. If you switch tariff, you have to pay a significant cost but that is rarely conveyed to you up front in an understandable form when you sign up for the tariff. It is a significant inhibition to many consumers switching and therefore to there being a proper consumer-led market in this sector.
One of the other areas of complaint is contested bills, particularly the estimated bills. As we were saying the other day, these are by definition wrong but are often insisted upon by the companies. On many occasions, eventually a settlement is reached, but it is on an individual basis. It may involve an ombudsman case but it reflects the general approach of the company to its consumers. In the impact assessment of the Bill, the provisions to improve Ofgem’s powers in this area are not given an accurate assessment. However, it is implied that the effect will be positive, and certainly I think that it will be. However, the size of detriment in the energy sector is potentially very large, and the inhibition on taking individual cases is also substantial. You have to go through a complaints process, and if you are not satisfied, you have to go to the ombudsman, take a case to court or get help from the various consumer and interest group organisations. That ends up costing a lot of time and often a lot of money, with not necessarily a coherent outcome to each case.
This situation is not confined to energy but, because of the high level of problems within energy, there are general aspects of provider behaviour from which a large number of consumers suffer. It is difficult to prove on an individual basis, but it is important that we recognise that there ought to be better systems for getting redress for consumers. By and large, consumer law in this country does not include collective provision, unlike in the United States, where there are significant class action provisions. Successive Governments have gone part of the way down the road towards greater collective provision, recognising that, for example, the PPI scandal in financial services would have been much better dealt with had there been a collective redress system rather than often quite aggressive complaints-handling companies taking up cases of varying degrees of authenticity, which led to differential outcomes case by case.
That was recognised by BIS in some of the discussion that surrounded the presentation of the draft consumer rights Bill that is now under pre-legislative scrutiny in another place. You have to get quite a long way into the Bill before you find it, but it is a significant breakthrough. It comes in paragraph 7 of Schedule 14 to the Bill and is the beginning of a provision for general collective redress in this area. It is on an opt-in basis, which is still somewhat narrower than the provision in the Financial Services and Markets Act of the previous Government, which unfortunately had to be dropped in its original form. It had a whole section on collective redress in the financial sector, which could have been taken out and generalised into other sectors and was particularly apposite for areas such as energy, where there is a regulator, regulated provisions and licence conditions, as well as general consumer law.
I attempted to get that written into the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, given that parliamentary counsel had already cleared it two years earlier. I have not bothered to provide the three pages for this Bill, because it covers esoteric matters relating to energy. I have set myself the slightly less ambitious target of requiring the Secretary of State to come forward 12 months after the Act is passed with some provision for collective redress in this area. I am encouraged by the fact that the Government have provided for at least one form of collective redress through the consumer rights Bill. Therefore, I hope that in 12 months’ time, the attitude of the House of Commons to that Bill and the Government’s reflection on it will give some guidance on how to do this with energy.
Therefore, it is an open-ended requirement on the Secretary of State in terms of the precise provisions. However, it is a signal that in this area of quite substantial consumer detriment and very substantial consumer distrust of the whole system we take this opportunity to make it clear that the Secretary of State must, at some future date, provide a means of collective redress within this sector.
There is a second amendment in this group to which I should refer. Amendment 51ZE seeks to delete the limit of the redress to detriment that occurred more than five years ago. The reality is that some of the mis-selling in energy, just like some of the mis-selling in the financial sector, started a long time ago, and the decision to apply a five-year limit is completely arbitrary. Indeed, that does not apply in the financial services sector. If a practice started seven years ago and was still happening within the last five years, there is no reason why the earlier detriment should not be taken into account. I am being quite modest in suggesting a 15-year limitation. I would be delighted if the Minister accepted my substitution of 15 for five; I would be even more delighted if he said that on reflection the Government would prefer to delete the limit altogether, because there are some long-standing wrongs in this area and the five-year limit does not seem sensible. I beg to move Amendment 51ZA.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I support my noble friend in his amendment. The amendment seems particularly sensible and apposite, because at the time that this legislation was being crafted we were not aware of some of the mis-selling issues that were to emerge from the customers of energy suppliers. The last time I checked, there was something like 27 cases still pending with Ofgem, and that was before the announcement of the fines relating to mis-selling affecting Scottish and Southern Energy. Given the number and complexity of tariffs, many people will be checking whether they have been mis-sold.
It has been suggested that there is a danger that the mis-selling of electricity and energy in general could reach a stage where it matches the mis-selling of PPI and some of the financial services mis-selling. This would be useful for the Government to have in the armoury should that situation emerge. It is not radical; it is actually quite a simple measure. If we take into account that the most recent instances of mis-selling had been in the pipeline at Ofgem for around four years, my noble friend’s proposal to extend the time period from five to 15 years is measured and logical. I do not see this as greatly controversial but as a way of dealing with a problem that may be coming over the horizon and that would save recourse to additional legislation in the future. If the Minister cannot make a commitment today to support my noble friend’s amendment, perhaps this is something we might be able to return to on Report.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Following on from my two colleagues, it seems that mis-selling is endemic in certain areas of our public services—public with a small p rather than in the sense of Government-run.
A bank is as much a utility as the provider of electricity or gas. Mis-selling results in fines and punishments, which seem to be absorbed, and the public end up paying the fines through higher prices. We do not normally see a reduction in dividends as a consequence of this, but we might see a reduction in investment, which is one of the difficulties that we have if we clobber the utilities that want to invest. We require them to invest in order to sustain our supplies of power, gas and the like and, if we fine them very heavily, however understandable that is, we perhaps endanger some of that much needed investment. On the other hand, we are talking about the legitimate concern customers have in getting some kind of redress that they have not had in the past. That should also act as a deterrent to the companies so that they do not go about setting tariffs in the misleading and cavalier fashion that they have in the past.
We are talking about organisations that are persistent offenders when it comes to overcharging and misleading the public and, at the moment, we do not seem to be capable of deterring them. If we had simpler means for the public to get redress and for ensuring that these offenders are punished, we might begin to develop a deterrent culture, under which they would be a lot more reluctant to jump headlong into fiddling tariffs in the way that they have done recently—usually at the expense of not just the vulnerable but the whole spectrum of society. As we do not always know the full character or nature of the abuse, it is about time that we tried to introduce some more blanket form of deterrence. To my mind, a blanket form of deterrence in the form of easier access for the public to seek redress would be a major caution to these potential persistent offenders, which are in the dock at the moment as far as a large section of the community is concerned.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling these probing amendments, as he described them, and therefore providing this opportunity to continue the careful scrutiny of this part of the Bill. I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said. I believe that we all want to secure the best for consumers but suspect that we may diverge on how that is best achieved.
Amendment 51ZA would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to allow collective redress for energy consumers. We agree that consumers should be able to get the compensation that they are due when things go wrong. The consumer redress order powers we have put forward in the Bill will provide energy consumers with what we believe is the most appropriate and cost-effective way of obtaining this. In principle, collective redress can provide benefits in some sectors, but I am concerned about the potential impact such powers may have on the time and cost involved for energy consumers seeking redress through this route, and the impact of any additional costs on all consumers.
The most effective redress mechanism ensures that consumers receive timely and cost-effective compensation, and I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said about balance in these matters. Under existing arrangements, energy consumers can already obtain redress through the courts, but the legal process does not typically offer a quick or cheap remedy for consumers who have suffered a detriment. In part, the concern that I have about the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on collective redress is that it would not speed up the process; indeed, it may, perversely, lengthen it, although I am sure that is not his intention. Consumers will also be required to identify themselves as potential claimants and join an action. Consumer redress order powers overcome these barriers by allowing Ofgem to take action on consumers’ behalf, without them needing to initiate action or incur costs.
Allowing collective redress via these amendments would benefit intermediaries involved in bringing such cases, who will seek awards that allow them to recover their costs—which would be borne by claimants or, where costs are awarded, by all consumers as energy companies seek to recover these sums. Collective redress could also encourage litigation on fine points of law, creating higher costs for energy companies, which would again risk increasing prices for consumers as a whole. In contrast, the consumer redress order powers contained in the Bill offer a speedier resolution to consumer detriment, which does not require consumers to come forward and take action, is proportionate to the sums at stake and minimises the potential costs for all energy consumers.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether the Bill’s provisions cover regular breaches of consumer law. The intention is that they will. If the breach is also a breach of licence conditions, such as mis-selling, that would be included.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 51ZE and 51ZF would increase the time limit for consumer redress order powers contained in Schedule 14 from, as the noble Lord has mentioned, five years to 15. I naturally have sympathy with amendments designed to ensure that consumers can obtain redress. The intention is certainly not for these time limits to be arbitrary. The time limit is consistent with the existing time limit for Ofgem imposing penalties on energy companies. In some cases, both penalty and redress may be appropriate, and so it is important that the enforcement regime that we establish allows Ofgem to balance both penalties and redress when looking to put things right.
This five-year time period for penalties was introduced as recently as the Energy Act 2010, following, as the noble Lord will know, two high-profile cases which showed the limitation of the then one-year limit for Ofgem to investigate and take action. There has been no case involving an energy company either before or since where it is alleged that this five-year time limit would not have provided ample opportunity for Ofgem to take action.
Lord Deben
On that point, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Professional Financial Advisers. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that very long periods allowing for what is by then retrospective action can have a damaging effect on the confidence of an industry. We have to be very careful to get this balance right. The reference to the financial services industry made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is a mistake because many people now recognise that that has done and will do significant harm, and is against any sense of human rights. There comes a point at which those who have been involved are now so far removed from those who are operating that it does not make sense. Five years was chosen, and it seems not a bad choice. I hope that the Minister will resist any temptation to go further. I say that as somebody who has no interest whatever in energy provision companies.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My noble friend provides an excellent prelude to further commentary on why the Government are concerned about the extension to 15 years. There are indeed jurisdictions with longer time limits than those afforded to energy consumers though these powers. Of course, there are others which are significantly less. These variations reflect various factors, including the length of time required to detect and act on wrongdoing, the scale of the sums at sake and the likelihood of sufficient evidence being able to investigate and determine a claim.
The powers are drafted to balance—a word that was used by my noble friend—these considerations without placing unnecessary additional costs on consumers. My noble friend has mentioned business. We are certainly seeking to provide an appropriate balance to all these matters. For those reasons—although I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that his amendments have been given proper consideration—I hope that the explanation I have given is sufficiently compelling at this time that he might feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I find the explanation on the five-year period extraordinary. I think it was my noble friend Lady Liddell who mentioned that the notorious recent Scottish and Southern case had gone on for four years. It would not have needed to go on for more than another six months for it to fall foul of this restriction. There may be something in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that you need some restriction. Indeed, that is why I proposed a 15-year period rather than delete the provision entirely. I do not accept that there should be a shorter jurisdiction for energy than there is for financial services, nor do I accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that it is a bad thing for people to be entitled to redress for the mis-selling of, for example, PPI and pensions in the financial services sector which happened a long time ago, albeit that continued until relatively recently. As for confidence, there is no consumer confidence in the energy sector. It is all very well saying there will be no business confidence if companies think they are going to be fined for something which happened 15 years ago, but at the moment there is almost nil consumer confidence. The energy sector has the worst record among the allegedly competitive markets in terms of consumer confidence. That is partly because over time consumers have had difficulty understanding whether or not they have been misled or mis-sold products and have faced grave hurdles in trying to remedy that. Sometimes they have—
Lord Deben
For the correction of the record, the problem is that the further you extend something, the less you can prove the case, the greater the chance that the people who are now involved had nothing to do with it and the less the chance that the circumstances in which it took place can reasonably be identified. You have to have a balance; that is all. There are many examples of cases where the conditions that obtained 15 and 20 years ago are unprovable and very different from the conditions obtaining now. In the end, you have an unfair circumstance. Therefore, some way or other, you have to have a decent balance—otherwise, you find that people’s confidence and willingness to invest in industry reduces. That is the experience and that is why so many fewer people now provide services to the public than used to be the case. We have destroyed confidence. You have to have confidence on both sides; that is all.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, if something is unprovable, redress will not be awarded.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way but the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to the financial services industry. The whole issue around the mis-selling of personal pensions covered a period of between 15 to 20 years. One of the reasons why there had to be redress there was because the entire financial services industry had been damaged. Our energy suppliers are being damaged at the moment. I remind noble Lords of the statement by Warren Buffett that it takes 20 years to build a reputation but five minutes to lose it. We owe a debt to the industry to make sure that it operates with the highest possible standards. One way of doing that is to support the amendments that my noble friend has put forward.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my noble friend has expressed the position far more precisely than me. I underline her comments. I will not pursue the point today but I ask the department to reflect on it and on how it will justify to the public that there should be a lower level of potential redress in the energy sector than there is in the financial services sector. I just ask that question.
In relation to collective redress, I believe that the Government, the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who is replying for her department, have moved some way to recognise the need for consumer redress to be dealt with on a collective basis on occasion. It is particularly important that that is provided for in the regulated sectors. The amendment that I am proposing would allow the Minister to come forward with a whole range of potential forms of collective redress. Most of those would be less expensive than individuals taking cases themselves and would take less time. They could, indeed, be pursued by intermediaries, but the aggregate cost to consumers and the industry would be significantly less than if every single consumer, or even 10% of consumers, started to take individual cases through the courts, with each one taking time to reach a conclusion. I cannot see that collective redress is ever going to be more time-consuming and costly than having a range of thousands of individual redress cases, whether they are taken through the ombudsman, the economic regulator or the courts.
Lord Whitty
AEnergy company obligationEnergy company obligations
Subject to the review provided for in section (Energy company obligations review) the provisions related to the energy company obligation shall in principle be extended to 2019.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, we have touched on this. The ECO is central to the Government’s strategy for delivering on their fuel poverty targets. We have had a lengthy debate on the context in which they will do so, and the targets and strategies that they will adopt. Clearly, their main attack on fuel poverty will be through the measures they bring to improve the energy efficiency of the homes of the fuel poor. The ECO is intended to be the main weapon for them to do this.
I have had some exchanges with the noble Baroness about how we are going on the ECO at the moment. I have received information from various sources that there are serious problems. This follows quite a good year—the last year of the old scheme, if I may put it that way—when a significant increase was recorded by the climate change committee in many types of interventions, including cavity wall insulation, solid wall treatments and loft insulation. All those schemes have now come to an end. They are all being replaced by the ECO, which in aggregate terms is less than the aggregate of the others—although the Minister pointed out that you also have to take into account the warm homes discount. That is on the other side of the equation—the income side—whereas in aggregate under the ECO, the number of schemes that will be delivered, and the aggregate cost and resources devoted to the schemes, will be less than under the pre-existing three schemes.
That would be a problem in itself, but it will be a greater problem if the way in which the ECO is being delivered is inefficient. Several sources appear to suggest that there is a serious problem with measures being brought forward under the ECO. On the climate change committee’s figures, the number of cavity wall insulation interventions declined by 60% in the first few months of the ECO regime. That is a serious teething problem. It may be a teething problem but it needs to be addressed seriously. The new structure under the various regulations introducing the ECO seems to create a problem for the cost of each individual measure as well.
I am probably not the only noble Lord who has received a letter from Scottish and Southern on this point. The supply companies have to buy from the market the interventions that they require to make up their ECO contribution. They have said, and this is quite startling, that the cost of some of those interventions under the ECO provisions is more than twice than under the old schemes. That reflects the volume but it also reflects the new system.
Scottish and Southern claims that the average cost at which it is buying cavity wall insulation, solid wall insulation and loft insulation has more than doubled under the new regime. That is also reflected in the views expressed by the insulation industry and the installers. They say that because the volume of work has gone down substantially, they can no longer send their workforce to an area where they can do four or five jobs in two or three days. They now have to go to an area where they can do only one job and then move on to the other side of the country, or the region, and carry out the other jobs. Therefore, the average cost to them is increasing. That is reflected in the prices they are offering through the brokerage system, which is therefore affecting the charge that Scottish and Southern and other electricity suppliers pay in the ECO context.
That is not a good situation. It is also having a knock-on effect in that those firms are also laying off workers. My own union, the GMB, which is the main organiser of insulation and installation workers, has seen significant layoffs already and sees more in the pipeline as the old schemes end. I have asked the Minister to give me some details about how the department sees the situation, but that is how it is seen from the point of view of the energy suppliers, the industry and the workers within the industry. If this goes on, the effectiveness of the ECO intervention is going to be substantially less than the equivalent level of resources that were provided under the pre-existing schemes.
Part of the problem, according to both the suppliers and the installation industry, is that the period over which the ECO is supposed to be operating is relatively short. Under present provisions, it runs to only 2015. That can be extended but at the moment there is certainty only over it existing until 2015. My amendments are an attempt to address this issue by, first, extending the period of the ECO in principle to 2019, giving time for this to be smoothed over; and secondly, providing for a review of how the ECO is operating. I am suggesting that we should put that in statute. If the Government are not prepared to put it in statute, they should make a commitment, in view of these assertions, that they need to look within the next six to 12 months at how the ECO is really working out.
The last stages of the old scheme are now going through their finishing stages. Everything that is starts from now on will, therefore, be under the ECO provision. Unless ECO rapidly builds to the same volume—and I hope at the same or better price—it will not deliver as great an impact on energy efficiency of homes, and thus on fuel poverty, as the previous system, even pound for pound and intervention by intervention. I want a review, which should be in the context of the ECO system lasting for a longer period because, theoretically, it is simpler than the multiple systems we had before. We need to know, however, what is really going on and whether the system and the market that has been established are operating properly. If they are, in the sense that real costs are being charged, what is wrong? Are the volume, incentives, or relations down the supply chain not right, or is there a basic flaw in the system itself? The sooner we have the answer, the sooner we can put the ECO system on a better basis, and one in which the industry, suppliers and consumers can have confidence. I beg to move.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his amendments dealing with the future of the energy company obligations and the approach to replacement boilers adopted within the scheme. By way of background, ECO is worth £1.3 billion per year and is split into three obligations: affordable warmth; carbon savings communities; and carbon saving. ECO has been specifically designed to help us fight the battle against fuel poverty and to reduce carbon emissions by requiring obligated energy suppliers to invest in heating and energy-efficiency measures. Importantly, ECO is expected to be more cost effective than the Warm Front Scheme, with the delivery cost of 120,000 major measures estimated at around £350 million each year under the affordable warmth obligation. Under Warm Front, this amount of funding might have supported only 80,000 major measures, on which basis ECO is likely to be 50% more cost effective than the previous government-funded scheme. I recognise how important it is for vulnerable consumers to know how to access the support. That is why, in recognition of some of the reported difficulties, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated in his opening remarks, in identifying vulnerable customers who are eligible for help, we have provided a data-matching and referral service for ECO affordable warmth, operated by the government-funded energy saving advice service. Working in partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions, this service confirms whether a consumer meets the qualifying benefit criteria. Already, nearly 12,000 customers have been referred to an obligated energy supplier through this route. As we work on a new fuel poverty strategy to support the proposed new fuel poverty target, we will also be considering the scope for making more extensive use of data matching in future.
I turn to the amendments in more detail. Amendments 51ZB and 51ZC propose that ECO be extended to 2019, subject to a review. At the time that ECO was introduced, we indicated the intention that ECO would run until at least 2022 and the Government will, in due course, bring forward proposals for consultation on what the next phase of ECO, from 2015, should look like. In designing these proposals, it is important that we have flexibility to take account of experience under the current phase of ECO and new issues that may arise. It would therefore be wrong to restrict the future design of ECO to its current provisions. As part of our consultations on its future, we would, in any event, also consult all the organisations specified in the noble Lord’s amendment. Given the Government’s plans for the future of ECO, we believe that setting this requirement in law would be damagingly restrictive.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, it is precisely for the reason that this needs to be about the long term that I suggested that we extended the statutory period. I appreciate that we have talked to industry and said that we intend to run it to 2022, but all the industry sees is that it is going to run to 2015. I would certainly ask the Government at least to look at that. If the system is going to run to 2022, subject maybe to some tweaking, it would be useful for both the energy suppliers and the installation and insulation industry to know that that is indeed going to be the case. I can pass the noble Baroness the exact costs that Scottish and Southern claims it now has to pay, as against the figures in the DECC initial assessment of the cost of the ECO. Those costs are quite startling. For loft insulation, it goes from about £280 per installation to the brokerage outcome of £1,080. There is a similar escalation for cavity wall insulations. These are not consumer figures or even the insulation industry’s figures. They are ones that the insulation industry has charged to a supplier. Scottish and Southern draw the conclusion that we should put a cap on ECO. I do not go along with suggesting we should do that. Nor do I suggest that we should cut back on the ECO and change course. I suggest that the Government look at these figures and see how they have arisen. If it is a teething problem I accept that we need to give it a little time to settle down but I would like to be convinced that it will, otherwise the scheme will not be cost effective.
I did not speak very much about Amendment 51ZD, on boilers, in my opening remarks because I thought it was self-evident that probably the biggest contribution to household energy efficiency achieved in the last 10 years was when we required all replacement boilers to be A- or B-rated. That was a dramatic change and it has brought dividends to thousands of households. The amendment suggests that we try to extend that into the area of identified fuel poverty. Where the suppliers know that there is an old, inefficient boiler still operating, and that is matched with data identifying a household as within the definition of fuel poverty, there should be a possibility of using the ECO allowance to replace it. The amendment is not saying that it is mandatory to do so or that you use up the whole of your ECO figures in so doing. It simply says that that ought to be one measure recognised under the ECO portfolio. It matches one set of figures to another and tackles fuel poverty and energy efficiency at its very heart. If we could replace the F-, G- and worse-rated boilers that are still in a lot of poor homes, particularly in the private rented sector, with A- and B-rated boilers, it would make a huge difference to people’s bills and the energy efficiency of those buildings.
I am disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to take this up. She has to recognise that there is a perceived problem with the ECO at the moment that the Government and the department need to put right. I am not saying we should abandon the policy or even drastically change it but we need to get it right. If we do not get it right within a few months it will begin to fall into disrepute. At the moment there is that danger. I hope that in not accepting the amendments the Minister will at least accept that there is a bit of a problem. People need to be talked to as a matter or urgency and, if necessary, a formal review by the department needs to take place. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Data from smart meters
(1) All data on energy use generated by a smart meter shall remain the property of that consumer.
(2) The energy supplier that receives data from a smart meter shall make that data readily available in an appropriate generic format, to be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State, to the consumer on demand.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, one important but largely forgotten area of energy policy is the smart meter rollout which has been recently, rightly, postponed to make sure we get it right. To put it into context, nearly 50 million meters altogether will be rolled out to some 30 million homes and businesses at a cost, over about a decade, of £11 billion. That is a major national investment. Sometimes I feel that we do not give this enough attention—I am sure Government do but maybe Parliament does not—to make sure that that investment delivers what should be a real change to the way that the electricity market, distribution and usage, work in this country as the future foundation of a truly smart grid.
One important area is data. I apologise to the Minister for tabling this amendment very late; it is a probing amendment and she might tell me that I have nothing to worry about. If that is so, I will welcome it. I have felt a concern both on the consumer side and from within the industry that this area is not fully clear. If you look up smart meters on the DECC website, it says that both these areas are satisfactory. Clearly, there is no great detail there. The amendment would ensure that the considerable data that come out from smart meters and are transmitted to energy suppliers will remain the property of the consumer who used the meter, and that they will be able to use the information in whatever way they want, primarily to help use their energy more efficiently but also to get quotations from other energy companies. This will ensure that the data are used properly and to the benefit of consumers as well as to the electricity supply industry, which will have reduced collection charges.
Those two areas are fundamentally important. I would be very pleased to hear from the Minister that I have nothing to worry about and that this is already enshrined in a reasonable degree of law. If it is not, it is important that we make sure that it is enshrined in some legislative form. I beg to move.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I should perhaps start by declaring an interest. I am chairman of SmartGrid GB. In some respects we will have an information overload as a consequence of the rollout of smart meters. On the other hand, it would be desirable for the rights of the consumer to be taken properly into account. It is quite likely that there will be a lot of information, and it would be a reassurance to the consumer if they had access to what was out there. Some of the enthusiasts for the new technologies, which have yet to be fully realised, find their eyes glowing at the prospect of smart metering. We have to be a wee bit cautious. There could be civil liberties concerns, although not about the time when you put on a kettle or whether you run the washing machine in the middle of the night. These issues are trivial.
It is a bit like another problem that we have at the moment. If we use our passes on the Underground, we could be tracked over the course of a day or a week. While that might be of use to some authorities, and might be used for beneficial purposes, it could be a problem. It will be the same when we get these new meters in households. I see the noble Lord, Lord Deben, looking at me, but I am sure that, in his experience of constituency surgeries, he had, as I had from time to time, individuals who were convinced that in a television set there was a camera as well as the receiver, and that somebody, somewhere, was finding out what was going on in their living room.
Lord Deben
The noble Lord is absolutely right, but we should not allow people to think of this just as a joke. Some newspapers will certainly try to suggest that this sensible proposal is a means of doing untold damage. Therefore, we must get it right from the beginning or we will destroy the whole system.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I remember being a lorry driver’s mate in the 1960s when I was a student. As a consequence of a Labour Government’s legislation, the haulage companies were trying to introduce the “spy in the cab”. That is now regarded as a very important health and safety measure. At the time it was not very well presented. If we can get an understanding and an appreciation by government of the dangers of the overload of information that could emerge, the public could be educated on the beneficial uses of it and made aware of the dangers—of which the civil liberties lobby could take account—the anxiety that parts of the press might have about the rollout of smart meters would in large measure be mitigated.
Therefore, while I appreciate the probing character of this amendment, it would benefit the process if the Government gave us positive indications today that if this is defective, or if it is otherwise necessary, amendments could be presented at a later stage in the appropriate format. We would do well to keep this in mind even if we do not get completely uptight about it.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
I would like to speak to Amendment 51AA, which I tabled with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
I was not at Second Reading but I have been listening to some of the Committee’s sittings. I went to a meeting last week at University College Energy Institute which discussed the difficulties people will have—up and down the country—with the new Energy Bill, which has many laudable objectives. I recalled at this meeting the case of one noble Earl finding that his electricity statement was five pages long. My son-in-law, who works in a green energy company, comments on the great difficulties people have when installing new green systems: heating, insulation, flood-prevention, and so on.
So how are people going to understand it? There seems to be a feeling we are not yet, and perhaps never will be, a society that gets it all on the internet or from a phone call. Perhaps we need to go back to what used to be quite a familiar sight on the high street: the energy showroom. Not only could you see a range of electrical apparatus, you could show your bill to someone. These showrooms were the front office for the energy company.
Our suggestion in this amendment is that the Secretary of State makes adequate provision for the universal availability of information, in order to enable domestic energy consumers to make effective decisions about their energy usage, including information relating to installation, running costs and monitoring equipment— that last point refers to smart meters. People studying smart meters realise they are going to be a source of great difficulty to many people.
My suggestion, therefore, is that we should have energy showrooms up and down the UK’s high streets, where empty shops give organisations such as councils, the Government and energy companies the opportunity to provide places offering this sort of information. As I have explained, it is important that in these places there are people who can provide information.
Like all good ideas this idea builds on the wide variety of existing initiatives run by councils and voluntary bodies. However, the Government should take it as a general responsibility to encourage, where possible, and to provide funding, where necessary, to ensure that these energy showrooms, or information centres, become available. The idea is that in such a place you could not only see technology but make a decision about spending more money on insulation or on heating.
It is true that, under the Green Deal, there are approved operatives who can come and visit you, but that is a second stage. You would really like to see a rather broad overview of all the possibilities as well as having somewhere where you could find out about the bills coming through to you. We have been talking about fuel poverty, which is a complex issue and will be dealt with in many different ways. Again, you need a real person to do it. I know people who work in the CAB, and I fear that the CAB will be overloaded with people trying to ask questions about their energy bills. The effect will be such a big ramp, it will be necessary to have additional or separate places for energy.
One of the other points is who would do this. Well, there are lots of people out there seeking jobs. This would be a rather interesting, useful and perhaps economical, way for people who have technical skills, abilities and inclinations to provide this kind of information. Anybody working in such an energy showroom would of course develop skills that they could quite quickly apply elsewhere, so it might be a practical way of upgrading the skills of many people with a direct objective.
Of course, the information services are available on the internet and via helplines but, speaking for myself, I always much prefer to go and buy something from a shop and talk to a person. Although I am a computer person and use a Japanese supercomputer, when it comes to my bill I like to go and talk to somebody down the street. I am not sure if the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is in his place, but people like him who go down to their electricity showroom might also like to get some government information about climate change from approved sources. When you go to a doctor’s surgery you learn about your health and how to change your lifestyle, and you learn about science and medicine. Maybe we should be hearing a variety of views, but it seems to me that these would be climate change centres as well as energy showrooms.
Lord Deben
I was just wondering how the noble Lord would make provision for the views of certain people who find that most of the information given at these centres will be somehow or other not to be trusted? Will he have a special little place on the side with a notice up that says “Contrarians”? If so, will he take some care to ensure that what they have said had at least some connection with the truth?
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
I was going to suggest that, in an objective way, you present the official view but you might say that there are some areas where there are questions, as there are in science. However, I am sure that if these centres were formed, the Committee on Climate Change would be able to give excellent advice on how these centres might be used. The other point, as we learnt this afternoon, is the question of safety, including the safety of carbon monoxide and so on. Again, you could have that information at these places.
Secondly, as I have commented before in the House of Lords, I visit the Netherlands quite often—I am a visiting professor there. They have an excellent European energy centre where you can see a tremendous array of all the different kinds of technologies and energy developments available. Of course, in the UK we have the Centre for Alternative Technology at Machynlleth in Wales. There was one in Swindon. Surely we should have many more of these centres where people can make these really quite complex choices between windmills—if you are a Prime Minister, you have one on your roof—solar collectors, heat pumps, biomass generation and new kinds of insulation. Two critical issues are insulation and flood damage. We really need centres up and down this country where people can go and see them, funded and managed by energy companies, non-profit bodies and councils.
These two suggestions are building on what exists already. They are in line with the Government’s big society—going to meet your fellow citizens dealing with energy is surely part of that scene. I believe that all political parties would support this kind of initiative in order to get the whole energy and climate change movement going faster and with less concern to people, and that people would make use of it. DECC should take action quite soon.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
My Lords, I support my noble friend on this issue. As he was speaking, I was thinking that we have a model for what he is talking about. If you go along Oxford Street or the main street of pretty well any town there is at least one telecoms shop, where you can sign up to get a new phone. The last shops to close seem to be the mobile phone shops. Yet this is a far more pressing requirement than just a mobile phone.
One of the consequences of privatisation has been the demise of the old electricity and gas showrooms, in which various pieces of equipment, from washing machines to cookers to refrigerators, were on sale. Unfortunately, of course, they have now been superseded by the likes of Currys and tend to be in shopping areas outside the high street. With regard to the level of public concern about electricity and gas prices, and the confusion over the effectiveness of one piece of equipment against another, it is fair to say that if you go to some of the high street shops you will get very good, helpful assistance but that tends to be in the minority. Due to the churn of staff in the retail trade, people are there for relatively short periods and do not have the experience that was built up in the old showrooms.
The telephone companies and the makers of telecoms equipment seem to be able to provide a service for the public which the big six energy companies seem incapable of doing. They have retreated from the high street. The cost of property on the high street is not very high these days and one would imagine that it would not cost an awful lot to get people in there, but of course they would say that that was too much and that if people were better informed they would probably be looking for better tariffs than the ones that they get and we would be back talking about mis-selling and the like.
This is something that the Government ought to put their mind to and I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say. As my noble friend said, it is part of the big society, part of a well informed consumer society, and one would have thought that it might be an attractive proposition for some of the big companies to look at in terms of looking after their customers.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, raises a really interesting issue, and I commend them for tabling it. It brings this Bill into contact with people, consumers and citizens.
When I read about the amendment, I thought back to my childhood, where in a medium-sized town in south Wales, there was the South Wales Electricity Board showroom, right in the centre among all the shops. You could get advice about your bills and you could speak to people, but it also had a showroom for the sale of electrical goods. Of course, in those days—and I am sure this started a long time before—the energy companies had a great interest in making sure that every family had a washing machine, a fridge-freezer and an electric cooker because it would boost the sale of their product. They were ensuring that we were all making the most of all the labour-saving devices that were coming forward in order to boost the sale of the units of electricity that they generated. It probably made very good business sense. However, times have changed and over the years energy companies have receded into the background. Now they are engaged mainly in a massive database management exercise, in which they try to keep interaction with the consumer to a bare minimum. I have been told that, from a supply company’s point of view, every time someone rings up it is money off the bottom line and it does not like it. Companies invest in call centres, which have become a modern job-creation exercise here and overseas. We can talk to people only on the phone. There is very little interaction on the high street.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I do not know whether noble Lords are aware but some local councils have energy roadshows, which they take round to the town halls in small towns. They did it in Northumberland. Some of them have a trailer that they take round. I think that the energy centre in Milton Keynes used to have a roadshow, so there are some things that could be built on. However, I cannot see how a Government could afford to put something all across the country and I think we ought to build on what we have.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for their amendments concerning consumer access to information. I start by saying to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, that I take the issues around data protection and data security very seriously. I hope that in responding to both noble Lords I will be able to reassure them of the measures we have in place. However, I will address that at the end.
Amendment 51ZDA relates to the ownership of, and access to, the energy consumption data that will be stored by smart meters. I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to explain the important regulatory changes on smart metering data access and privacy that have came into effect since last month. The smart meter data access framework is based on the principle that consumers should have a choice about how their data are used and by whom. The first step is that energy consumption data will be stored by smart meters themselves, in people’s homes. The meters will be capable of storing at least 24 months-worth of historic data. The second step is that consumers will have control and choice over who can access the data held on those smart meters.
Consumers will be able to access their data directly from the meter in their home. Energy suppliers are required to ensure that consumers are able to do this. As part of their smart meter installation, all domestic consumers will be offered an in-home display. This will connect them directly to their smart meter and show them how much energy they are using, in real time and historically, and what it is costing them. We expect other innovative products to be developed that will connect directly to the smart meter, which consumers will be able to purchase on the high street.
Consumers can also choose to give their energy supplier, or anyone else offering them an attractive product or service, remote access to their data. This enables companies to offer services to consumers such as regular home energy reports. The only exception, where consumers do not have a choice, is that the meters will provide energy suppliers with the data required for billing or other regulated duties. One of the key benefits of smart metering for consumers is the end of estimated billing. This data access framework, embedding the principles of consumer choice and control, has been implemented through changes to energy suppliers’ licences and will be enforced by Ofgem.
Before I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I will respond to two points. Both noble Lords asked about data control and engagement. While I have given noble Lords a broad overview, we also have in place a central consumer delivery body that would be able to reach out and reassure consumers with an independent voice on how their data are being kept. We have come to create the mechanism through which the data are stored with advice from the National Technical Authority for Information Assurance, which is linked to the Government’s GCHQ; I hate acronyms. We therefore know that we have worked with a huge amount of expertise on national data security. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, will welcome the appointment of his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, as the chairman of the central delivery body.
The other mechanism, which I have just mentioned, is the data and communications company. This will effectively be the mechanism through which all information will go. It has security on the front and back ends. The information that will be utilised from consumers’ homes cannot be accessed unless it has been accredited to the suppliers who have signed up through their licence conditions to the utilisation of smart meters. There is a huge amount of information out there that I urge noble Lords to access. If noble Lords would like me to, I am more than happy to ensure that they receive the updated frameworks and codes of practice that we are putting out there to ensure that there is absolute privacy for and security on data for consumers. We have worked hard to ensure that we satisfy the sort of concerns and fears that noble Lords are raising.
I now turn to Amendment 51AA of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, support the sentiment behind the amendment concerning the provision of energy information to consumers. The first step to saving energy is to receive reliable, quality advice about energy efficiency. Generic advice from a high street shop will only get you to a certain stage of information availability. The best approach is to get personalised advice that is tailored to your own home. This is the only way to ensure that recommendations and savings estimates are truly meaningful for the consumer. The Green Deal assessment does exactly that.
The Green Deal assessment provides detailed advice about the range of options which might be suitable for a particular property, including insulation and other efficiency measures, renewable heating systems and options for generating low-carbon electricity, like solar panels. Householders also receive advice on how they use energy through an occupancy assessment. It is still early days, but awareness of the scheme has grown rapidly. I am pleased to say that nearly 40,000 Green Deal assessments had been completed by mid-June, with thousands happening every month. Physical demonstrations are always a highly effective way to raise consumer awareness of the measures available. That is why we are supporting the development of a national “open homes” network to make it easy for people to see how homes can be improved by energy-saving retrofits.
Baroness Worthington
We have seen the statistics on the Green Deal. If I am right, you have to pay for those assessments. That seems very different to somebody being able to walk in off the high street to receive advice. Would the noble Baroness care to comment on that?
If, in a year’s time, the numbers of actual, completed, signed-up Green Deal participants are still very low—and they have been quite low, in terms of completing the whole process—would the Government consider that perhaps a new approach is needed where a lower level of advice is available without any cost?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, first, we have to recognise that the Green Deal is still in its early stages. Given that, the numbers of assessments received and accepted are quite high. The noble Baroness does not get the point that the Green Deal assesses the individual’s needs and tailors advice to that individual’s home, whereas getting generic advice would be exactly that: generic. Everybody’s homes and requirements are different. The way the assessments are carried out is tailored to those individual needs and engages on a one-to-one basis—if the noble Baroness would allow me to finish—the needs of those consumers and their households. You cannot get that from going to a one-stop shop for that advice. This is tailored advice and it is too early to say whether the Green Deal measures are reaching out and people are engaging with them. Given the number of assessments that we have delivered, people are engaging with them. We must not be pessimistic about the numbers. I welcome the fact that there has been quite a surge in people wanting to access them.
Baroness Worthington
Unfortunately, the noble Baroness missed my point. Obviously, everybody’s body and lifestyle are different but we go to a doctor’s surgery without cost to receive advice from an expert. Does she not accept that if you place the barrier of an up-front payment fewer people will receive advice? Is there not a role for very low-level but expert advice that can be tailored? Of course, people can communicate their circumstances. They are not incapable of speech. That is exactly what you do when you visit a doctor.
Baroness Verma
It is up to suppliers whether they charge: they may or may not. Government cannot dictate that to suppliers. It is in the interest of suppliers to offer the best possible deal out there, knowing that they compete for that work. We need to leave it to the people offering the Green Deals as to whether they charge, do not charge or give the costs back if they have a Green Deal accepted.
The energy-saving advice service will ensure that both consumers and businesses have access to impartial advice on the range of measures and services available to them. The Government are also currently operating a cashback scheme to consumers as further encouragement to install energy efficiency measures. The steps we are taking in the area of energy efficiency form part of a whole coherent strategy. As noble Lords mentioned, alongside the Green Deal we are also rolling out smart meters. The introduction of smart meters will provide consumers with real-time information on their energy consumption to help them control their energy use. As part of the smart meter installation visit, suppliers must also provide energy efficiency advice.
I will also say a few words on energy labelling and product standards. Already, measures like the ECO design and the energy labelling directive have played a key role in enhancing energy efficiency, securing above-average savings from electrical appliances. The UK continues to work with partners in Europe and is currently pushing the European Commission to increase the level of ambition on this issue. We are not just doing it nationally here but trying to encourage our partners in Europe to do the same. I hope my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, see that the Government are taking every step possible to reassure and inform consumers. On that basis, I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I am greatly reassured, particularly that, as the data are held for at least two years on the smart meter on the premises and are also being checked by GCHQ, if I lose the data I can be sure that the National Security Agency over in Washington has got it and I contact them to get them back. What could be better than that? I have every pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, Amendment 51ZE deals again with the redress powers. The issue here is that the Government have rightly given Ofgem the ability to require compensation as well as to fine for breach of licence conditions or consumer law, but it is not clear whether this could apply to the cases that are currently under investigation by Ofgem, to which my noble friend Lady Liddell, who is no longer in her place, referred earlier.
Those outstanding investigations include one that started in September 2010, looking at doorstep selling for Scottish and Southern, ScottishPower and npower; a separate one into doorstep selling for E.ON; one into customer complaint systems at EDF; and one into misleading tariffs from ScottishPower. In total, there are eight or nine ongoing investigations, some of which have been going on for three years.
Ofgem has therefore already started a number of such investigations and, as I understand it, will start some more in the months between now and Royal Assent. At present it does not appear that the powers to award compensation would be allowable under that welcome provision in this Bill. However, if Ofgem finds against the companies it seems likely that a significant number of consumers will have suffered detriment and that the consideration of potential damage to the companies has outweighed the Government’s determination to ensure justice for those consumers.
When a similar point was put in the Commons by my honourable friend Tom Greatrex, the Minister replied that this would be retrospective legislation. It is not retrospective legislation. Ofgem would have to find that there had been breach of consumer law or a licence that already existed. Previously, consumers would have to go to court to get compensation but the provisions in this Bill would allow Ofgem to award that compensation. This is not inventing a law in retrospect; it is ensuring that the compensation comes through an easier channel.
It is important that those consumers whose complaints are currently being investigated by Ofgem benefit in the same way as future consumers will from what is a sensible improvement to the situation by the Government. I hope that the Minister will not resort to the retrospective legislation argument, because it is not retrospective legislation; it is simply improving delivery of the penalty and the rightful compensation that is due to these consumers. I beg to move.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendments. Amendments 51ZEA and 51ZFA are designed to amend Schedule 14 and permit retrospective application of these powers. I am aware that these amendments were debated both in Committee and on Report in the other place. The aim of these amendments is to allow Ofgem to require redress for events that happened prior to the enactment of this Bill.
In seeking to take powers through the Energy Bill, our objective has been to put consumers first and we will consider any amendments from that perspective. It may appear that it is in consumers’ best interests to seek to put right consumer harm irrespective of when it took place, but the effect of retrospectively applying powers in the energy market will have negative impacts on all consumers.
Noble Lords will be aware of the presumption that powers should not generally be applied retrospectively. This is an important principle, but we are also concerned by the effect this will have on consumers. It is likely that the introduction of the regulatory uncertainty that these amendments will create will lead to increases in the cost of capital for energy companies, pushing up bills for everyone. We want to avoid creating investor uncertainty, particularly when we are trying to encourage the private sector investment that is required to move to a low-carbon economy. Increasing costs will hit most heavily the small energy companies that we want to come into the sector. We want new entrants to the market and do not want to accept amendments that could hinder them.
In addition, smaller energy companies would be most likely to shoulder the burden of the increased costs of insurance premiums that could arise from these amendments, as companies seek to cover their liability for events prior to the enactment of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Deben touched on some of these concerns more generally when we debated an earlier group of amendments. The combination of these factors may push up costs for energy consumers, impacting the very people we seek to protect. The potential unintended consequences of these measures mean that, while I am entirely sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendments, it could be counterproductive to accept them. For those reasons, I hope that at this stage the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not accept those arguments at all. New entrants will not be affected. If they are not operating in the market at the moment, they will be operating under the very process that is prescribed in the Bill. There is therefore no uncertainty for them. Furthermore, the only retrospection will be in how compensation is delivered. Any breach will have been under a contract or licence that already existed at the time that the breach occurred. Any breach of consumer law would have been a breach of the law at the time, and therefore susceptible to a court case brought by one or more consumers at that point. This is not retrospective legislation. It is simply tying up the delivery of existing legislation and existing licensing conditions.
If the Government continue to resist this, they will need better arguments. There is no retrospection in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about earlier. He perhaps had a point. This simply concerns consumers who are currently under investigation. We also have to bear in mind, when talking about the detriment to consumers, that some of them might have started a court case had it not been for the fact that they knew that Ofgem was beginning to investigate the situation and that they might be precluded from bringing such a case.
The idea that resisting the amendment is in the interests of consumers, or that it should be resisted because it implies a breach of the principle—which I fully support—of not legislating retrospectively, is wrong. I hope that the Government will look at this again before Report. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, this is a straightforward question. The size of any compensation is limited to 10% of the company’s turnover, which is a fair amount. For some of these companies, it would be about £1 billion, which is a fair whack of compensation. Therefore, the possibility of awarding that compensation to an individual consumer would arise very rarely. However, it is of course possible that a serious breach of an industrial contract could lead to a loss to an operator of that order. My principal point here is that, in most sector regulations, a 10% limit applies to the fine that the regulator can impose. It is a reasonable limit on the enforcement and sanctioning powers of a public body. If Ofwat, Ofcom and Ofgem have the ability to impose fines of this order, the 10% limit is not unreasonable, but it is irrelevant to any potential compensation. The Minister may say this will never arise, and he may well be right, but in principle, if you have suffered detriment, should there be a limit on the degree to which you can seek redress for that detriment? That is the principle I am trying to establish. I beg to move.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, Amendments 51ZEB and 51ZEC, 51ZFB and 51ZFC are designed to amend Schedule 14 and permit unlimited liability for energy companies by seeking to ensure that the amount of compensation that can be required through a consumer redress order is not limited. I am aware that these amendments were debated both in Committee and on Report in the other place.
Our aim in drafting the powers in the Bill has been to ensure that the overall interests of the consumer are put first. With this in mind, we have sought to achieve a balance between the need for consumers to get speedy access to the redress they are due and an appeal process which is proportionate to the potential liability faced by energy companies and which does not present a barrier to entry for the small suppliers that we need to ensure a healthy competitive market.
In response to previous amendments, I mentioned that consumers can obtain redress through the courts under existing arrangements. However, the legal process is lengthy and does not offer a typically quick remedy for consumers who have lost out. This is largely because the legal process is necessarily equal to the potential sums at stake, where compensation is unlimited. Schedule 14 sets out powers which contain appeal mechanisms that are proportionate to the potential penalty. These are also limited to 10% of an energy company’s annual turnover and offer a relatively straightforward resolution of cases.
Accepting amendments to remove the cap could deny consumers timely compensation, as they would require us to make changes to the appeal mechanism, which could result in a more lengthy resolution of cases. Given how unlikely it is that consumers would lose out on a scale that went beyond the level of the 10% cap, we do not consider such a change is justifiable. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has mentioned, for the very largest domestic energy suppliers to exceed a cap of 10% of annual turnover would mean penalties and compensation of over £1 billion. This contrasts with the largest penalty imposed by Ofgem to date of £15 million. We therefore believe that the proposed cap on redress is unlikely to hamper Ofgem’s ability to impose appropriate redress orders.
As I have mentioned in relation to previous amendments, removing the cap on liability could also have adverse impacts on smaller energy companies and, in turn, on consumer bills, due to the increased cost of capital and insurance premiums for energy companies. I assure your Lordships that the approach set out in the Bill does not let companies off the hook. The combined 10% cap on penalties and redress will apply to each separate regulatory breach, so that any company breaking the rules on a number of occasions will face correspondingly larger payouts. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister particularly for that last point, because it indicates that it would not apply to a single breach—a single act of mis-selling or whatever—that applied to a large number of people. I am grateful for his explanation but I still think there is a difference between a limit on the ability of the regulator to impose a fine and a limit on compensation. However, although I am not in favour of a limit on compensation, he is right to say it is pretty unlikely to be applied and therefore it is not an issue to which I intend to return. I beg to withdraw.
Baroness Verma
“Feed-in tariffs: increase in maximum capacity of plant
In section 41 of the Energy Act 2008 (power to amend licence conditions etc: feed-in tariffs), in subsection (4), in the definition of “specified maximum capacity” for “5” substitute “10”.”
Baroness Verma
My Lords, in moving Amendment 51A I will also speak to Amendment 57; I hope that noble Lords will welcome them. The issue of increasing the scale of the feed-in tariff scheme was debated in Committee and on Report in the other place. It has also been raised by a number of noble Lords, both at Second Reading and outside the Chamber, including my noble friends Lady Maddock, Lord Teverson and Lord Stephen, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Cameron, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Having carefully considered the options, the Government agree that there would be a benefit to a limited extension of the feed-in tariff scheme. We intend to limit this support to community energy projects only. For developers of commercial projects larger than 5 megawatts, we continue to believe that larger projects are best supported through market-based incentives such as the renewables obligation and, shortly, contracts for difference as part of the electricity market reform process. This approach also offers the best value for money to the taxpayer.
Since the start of the FITs scheme three years ago, many communities have installed solar panels, wind turbines or hydro schemes. However, until now, they have been limited to a maximum capacity of 5 megawatts. We have listened to the compelling arguments of Co-operatives UK and others, and are convinced that the certainty of the feed-in tariffs scheme is a more appropriate way of helping community groups to deliver locally generated energy at scale and at the heart of their communities. We want to see communities up and down the country raising their ambition, and consider community-owned wind and solar schemes the most likely to benefit from this change. We hope that these amendments pave the way to support this greater ambition for community energy.
Amendment 57 is a procedural requirement which explains when this enabling power to amend the feed-in tariff scheme should come into effect. We will consult on how we intend to enable this change in secondary legalisation following Royal Assent. The current FITs scheme includes a definition of “community” which will form the basis of our consultation. We know that many will want to apply for this new support. However, we want to ensure that only genuine community energy schemes are permitted to benefit, so it is important that we create robust legislation which provides confidence to the public that subsidies are being delivered only to the intended recipients.
Taken together, these two amendments will drive a step change in the deployment of community energy. I hope your Lordships will support these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Roper
My Lords, can I be the first to welcome the amendment? Those of us who have read the debates that took place in the other place in Committee and on Report are certainly very pleased that the move to assist communities to produce 10 rather than 5 megawatts has been agreed to. It will, however, be rather important that we watch carefully the secondary legislation which will define what is a “community activity”. Quite clearly, if it were to move into the commercial area, the increase to 10 megawatts would be resented by those who generate a little more than 10 megawatts. As it has been defined by the Minister today, however, it is an important step forward and will help a lot of micro-microgeneration in communities.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, this is an important government amendment and we welcome the group, which replicates amendments tabled by Labour in Committee in the other place to increase the feed-in tariffs to at least 10 megawatts. This comes as a welcome acknowledgment of the gap that exists in the Bill on community energy. I also pay tribute to the personal enthusiasm of the Minister of State in the other place, Mr Greg Barker, both for these schemes and for the work that he has done since the debate in order to secure the amendment. We welcome the progress the Government have made in this respect.
On Report in the other place, we pushed the Government to introduce a minimum threshold for the fixed feed-in tariff of 10 megawatts. The Community Energy Coalition of NGOs, including the Centre for Sustainable Energy, the Forum for the Future, the National Trust, the Low Carbon Communities Network, Co-operatives UK and many more have called for the threshold to be raised even higher to 20 megawatts to allow community energy schemes a guaranteed income and enable them to participate effectively in the energy market in the future.
Already in the UK a number of community energy schemes exceed 5 megawatts, such as Westmill Wind Farm Co-operative in Oxfordshire of 6.5 megawatts, the Lochcarnan Community Wind Farm on South Uist of 7 megawatts and the Neilston Community Wind Farm near Glasgow of 10 megawatts. Community schemes are not necessarily small. The mid-size market can attract the participation of the wider population in renewable energy and the attainment of our 2020 targets. These schemes should also be given the signal that there is support to develop further.
The Energy and Climate Change Committee has argued that medium-sized projects of up to 50 megawatts are disadvantaged because they cannot access the feed-in tariff, yet often lack the financial capability to deal with the complexities of the renewables obligation and, in the future, contracts for difference. In the interim, until contracts for difference come into play, the gap remains. They may also struggle to obtain the reference price under the CFD regime, meaning that they would lose out financially. Why is the threshold fixed at 10 megawatts? What will the Government do to support mid-sized community energy schemes which are not eligible for the FITs but have difficulty accessing the contracts for difference? Community and co-operative energy schemes can be hugely beneficial in helping to meet our renewables targets that must be met by 2020.
Research reported by Co-operatives UK estimates that there is the potential for at least 3.5 gigawatts in UK community energy schemes by 2020—the equivalent of four conventional coal-fired power stations. Looking overseas, Germany, where 15% of renewables are community owned, is a good example of how community energy generation helps to diversify the market and increase its resilience. Locally owned and locally targeted strategies for energy generation and saving can be better tailored to local needs, such as helping to tackle fuel poverty, and can increase community awareness and engagement in a way that leads to lower bills and greater sustainability. We welcome the Government’s call for evidence on community energy launched last month. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said that he wants,
“nothing less than a community energy revolution”.
While it is disappointing that this proposed new clause is in many ways an afterthought to the Energy Bill, nevertheless it is welcome that it may become an integral part of the Government’s vision for the future electricity market.
FITs are a user friendly, bankable mechanism to encourage easy investment and engagement from people and organisations for whom energy is not their core business and who do not want the complexity of the renewables obligation. So far the mid-size market has failed due to excessively low FIT tariffs and unfair capacity constraints. However, the constraints on many applications of non-domestic solar are unfair. First, the FIT tariffs were set too low for many of the non-domestic FIT bands. Secondly, the degression mechanisms under budgetary constraint measures that come into play at relatively early stages are having the effect of leading to an imbalance between technologies.
The solar industry especially feels that it is subject to unnecessarily harsh measures. The consequences of these low capacity triggers is that any significant national deployment of solar power in schemes over 50 kilowatts in size—about the size of a school roof—will result in major cuts to the tariff that will make developing further schemes uneconomical. The solar industry contends that between 50 kilowatts and 5 megawatts it is cheaper than other renewables supported under the renewables obligation. I ask the Minister: why does it feel that it is subject to constraints beyond those that utility-scale renewables are subject to under the renewables obligation? Can the Minister clarify whether this Energy Bill could be used to correct the situation or could this be achieved through secondary legislation? Would there be any repercussions to correcting her department’s imbalance in the energy mix between technologies? Would there be an increase in the total budget before degression or would it result in reducing payments to some other technologies?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for my noble friend Lord Roper’s warm welcome for these amendments and I think I sensed a warm welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, as well. He said it was an afterthought. It was actually because we considered really hard what people had been saying and took that advice on board so I hope that the noble Lord has welcomed it with open arms. I agree with my noble friend Lord Roper that we must ensure that we have in place robust legislation, which will provide confidence that these subsidies will be delivered only to the intended recipients.
As always, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised a number of searching questions. Although I tried very hard to keep up with him, I suspect that I will end up having to write to him in response to one or two. The noble Lord asked why we should stop at 10 megawatts. Supporting generation through the FIT scheme is more expensive than market-based mechanisms such as the renewables obligation. We value community energy and are willing to extend the FIT scheme to support the ambition of the sector. Community developments larger than 10 megawatts will still get support but at that scale they will need to apply for the renewables obligation.
The noble Lord also mentioned that we had a call for evidence around the benefits of and barriers to community energy access. The community energy strategy will be published in the autumn and will identify the potential of community energy projects in the UK to bring benefits to communities while, very importantly, still helping tackle climate change and maintain energy security. The strategy will go further than renewable electricity generation projects. It will also include community energy-efficiency schemes, community renewable heat projects, smart grids and collective energy-purchasing and switching schemes.
On degression, the non-domestic solar PV sector is supported by the renewables obligation and the FIT scheme, so some schemes are receiving both. But degression is a necessary tool. As we discussed yesterday, we do not want to put an unfair balance in favour of one technology over another while technologies are developing. The mechanism of degression assists us in ensuring that some technologies do not get an overexposure to subsidies while other technologies try to reach up and compete on an equal basis. On that note, I commend these amendments.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
“Energy information
(1) The Secretary of State shall make adequate provision for the universal availability of information to enable domestic energy consumers to make effective decisions about their energy usage, including information relating to—
(a) installation;(b) running costs;(c) monitoring equipment.(2) Measures under subsection (1) should include physical demonstration and comparison in collaboration with industry providers.”
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
I was astonished by the Minister’s remarks. She does not sound as if she goes shopping before she buys something. The whole point of this is that you want to see things—you cannot get a custom service. I do not know what the Minister’s life is like but it is not like most people’s lives.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
The noble Lord can move his amendment if he wishes and then he will get a response. However, he must move the amendment in order to get the response. The noble Lord is entitled to degroup if he wishes to.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
I wanted to move my amendment and thought that we had done that before. I just wanted to make my point.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I have proposed that this clause should not stand part, partly because this is a very odd part of the Bill. I read it and then read it again. Then I thought that I would go to the Explanatory Notes as they would help explain what it is all about. However, the Explanatory Notes simply repeated what was written in the clauses in the same language but with the numbers taken out. So that was absolutely hopeless. I then turned to the debate in the Commons when this clause was introduced. I was seeking some sense of why this was needed, how it was going to operate and what it was for. My colleagues in the other place pressed the Minister quite hard but, I am sad to say, I am still a little confused as to why this power is being taken.
It did not appear in the draft Bill, so it was not subject to any pre-legislative scrutiny. There is very little background information on it and there seems to have been no consultation. It introduces quite extraordinarily wide-ranging powers with almost no definitions at all. It allows the Treasury and the Government to raise money, but the amounts that are allowed to be raised do not even need to pass before Parliament; they can simply be determined by the direction of the Secretary of State. It is quite a profound, if small, piece of legislation. I was curious to know what it was for and I still am. Perhaps the noble Lord can provide us with his account. Is the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, going to tell me that there is lots of background information that I have not read?
Baroness Worthington
In the other place, the Minister did try to give some explanation as to what these fees for energy resilience might be. My colleagues in the other place did press him quite hard, because one reading could see it as a way to discourage strike action in those sectors that deliver fuel or are connected with the energy sector. We were pleased to receive quite emphatic reassurances that these fees would not be applied to unions that sought to take strike action.
What seemed to emerge was that the fees are going to be levied on business in response to extreme events that it was almost impossible to predict. That could be anything but some examples were given. The Government might need to step in and provide personnel to companies in the event of an outbreak of a flu pandemic and would want to recover the cost in fees. Then there was the potential for equipment or vehicles that the Government own to be deployed in the event of extreme weather or of a clean-up. Then there are the unspecified assets that might need to be provided in the short term to business. Really, this is the Treasury seeking a power to regain costs for that. What have we come to? Is the government budget so tight that we are introducing powers to claw back money for disaster situations? In reality, if a disaster strikes you want the Government to be able to respond. You do not want there to be any quibbling about costs being passed on or who will pay for what. Why do we—and companies—pay taxes? The Government are there to provide a service in the event of national security issues.
Maybe I am wrong and there are plenty of precedents for the Treasury introducing specific powers to recover money for specific unintended events. If there are, I stand corrected. However, my reading of this is that it is an extraordinarily broad power with almost no definition and very little accountability. For that reason, it does not have a place in this Bill. Obviously, as we go forward we know that there will be an increase in natural disasters that could potentially interrupt energy supply. In fact, we have quite a resilient system for dealing with that. The power companies and National Grid are on the front line. Their licence requirements mean that they have to reconnect customers as soon as they can. When the large storms hit the Isle of Arran, SSE men in vans were out there fixing that problem. The Government were not involved. I suspect that the Government do not have the skills to address these issues.
It strikes me that this must be about military personnel. It can only be about military deployment because the department certainly does not have skilled engineers who can go and fix transmission lines. That is all done in the private sector. If it is about concerns about the military and the budget, this is quite a strange precedent to set, that there will somehow be fees applied to businesses. Are those fees voluntary or mandatory? How will they work? Does a company have to pay? As I said, when will all this be negotiated? If there is a natural disaster I would hope that we got on with fixing the problem and that the Government would be sufficiently robust and well resourced to do that, not that we would be quibbling about collecting these fees.
As I said, we are going into a world where there are likely to be more natural disasters. We should not shy away from that, but the Treasury would better spend its time getting to grips with climate change rather than preventing us from tackling it and introducing apparently innocuous but quite powerful bits of legislation that enable it to collect costs. It should be thinking about how it can act to stop the excessive increase of natural disasters and it should start taking climate change seriously.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I apologise for appearing to interrupt the noble Baroness in mid-flow. I just have one question. I had the same problem as the noble Baroness did. I thought, “Why has this clause stand part question been put down and what does the clause say?”. I turned up the Ofgem consultation letter published on the same day as its recent capacity assessment report, which has of course shown that the margins will, by the middle of this decade, become very much smaller. It goes on making hopeful remarks that perhaps there will not be interruptions but an increasing number of people think that there might be. The letter consults on additional balancing measures for the grid. It proposes two of them. I will not go into this in great detail at this hour of the night—we are due to rise in two minutes—but does that have anything to do with this clause? There is nothing in the letter about fees so there may be no connection, but it proposes new methods to achieve resilience to avoid power cuts. It seemed that there might be a connection. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, seems not to think so. We will listen to my noble friend replying in due course.
Lord Roper
My Lords, I want to raise a slightly narrower point, but one related to that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. The report of the Delegated Powers Committee raised very clearly a point about subsection (3)(b), where money can be specified or determined by the Secretary of State without any reference to Parliament. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee is very clear, and concludes:
“We accordingly do not find persuasive the explanations in the memorandum that the power conferred by clause 134(3)(b) is appropriate; and we recommend that, unless the House can be satisfied to that effect by further explanations from the Minister, paragraph (b) should be removed from clause 134(3)”.
I would be most grateful if the Minister could give us such a reply.
Perhaps, as I am dealing with the Delegated Powers Committee, I could raise a slightly wider question. We have, of course, had a new report from the Delegated Powers Committee this morning, based on a further memorandum submitted by the department to that committee. It is impossible to find a copy of that memorandum on either the department’s or the committee’s website. I would be grateful if it could in due course be made available to Members who have attended this Committee.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for this opportunity to consider this clause, which will enable the Secretary of State to charge fees for providing energy resilience services in the event of a disruption or threatened disruption to energy supplies. It will allow the Government to recoup some or all of the costs of the services provided to businesses, and to set appropriate fees for these services.
The clause does not set the rate of any fees or charges. It will enable the Secretary of State to set fees either through secondary legislation or through administrative means and, as such, to recoup some or all of the costs of providing the service. It cannot and will not be used as a revenue-raising measure; that is not the purpose of this provision. The services will be provided on a discretionary basis, because businesses can choose to take advantage of them or not, based on balancing the effect on revenues and meeting contractual obligations against cost of the service.
The services which the Government may provide, to help improve the resilience of the energy sector, are those such as making available personnel, supplies, equipment or other assets, to businesses. Examples of where the Government could provide a service for which it might be appropriate to charge businesses include: provision of personnel in event of widespread impacts on workers due to flu or industrial action; equipment or vehicles which have greater flexibility in extreme weather conditions, allowing companies to carry out repairs or clean up more effectively; and provision of assets to enable a critical component of the supply chain to remain viable in the short term and until alternative options are identified.
The need for this power became apparent last year when there was a threat of industrial action by drivers, which would have caused widespread disruption to fuel supplies across the UK. As a result of that, the Government have set up a military fuel school to train military personnel to drive commercial fuel tankers. Drivers could be deployed to haulage companies in the event of a future dispute of this nature, and this power would enable us to charge those companies for some or all of the costs incurred by Her Majesty’s Government—which is to say, the taxpayer.
My noble friend Lord Roper raised the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the recommendation for the removal of subsection (3)(b) which enables the Secretary of State to set the levels of the fees by means of a direction to be laid before Parliament, as well as by means of regulation. The Government are considering all the committee’s recommendations very carefully and will respond in due course. However, I take this opportunity to clarify why we feel that this provision is important.
The requirement for the services proposed is likely to arise in the event of a significant unexpected disruption. This may be necessary to plan and provide services in a situation of emergency and urgency. There may well be situations where it would be appropriate and feasible to set out the level of fees to be charged for a particular service in secondary legislation, and the Government would aim to do so in those circumstances. However, it is likely that there may also be circumstances where it is not feasible to work within the timetable required for secondary legislation, and the flexibility afforded by ministerial direction would be required for those sorts of situations. Lack of this flexibility may make the services difficult to deliver within the optimum timescale. At worst, it could render timely delivery completely unfeasible, with the consequential loss of benefit to businesses, the economy and consumers.
My noble friend Lord Roper mentioned other matters in relation to the publishing of the department’s reply. We will be happy to make it available. It will be published on the department’s website as promptly as is possible. That is in hand.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin made some points. I will say that these powers are not connected with, and would not apply to, provisions elsewhere in the Bill on the security of electricity supplies and capacity market provisions.
For the reasons I have set out, and given the importance of the provision for improving national resilience, the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Will the Minister clarify one point? If there is an official strike, for which due notice has been given, and military personnel are used as strike-breakers, companies will have to pay the Government for the use of the strike-breakers. In that event, what would the companies have to do to recoup the money that they had been forced to lay out to pay for the strike-breaking? Would they have recourse to the courts? Would they be able to sue the unions for the money involved in the strike-breaking activity?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this provision is not designed to interfere with the normal relationships between employers and employees. Wherever possible, the Government’s preference is for the supply of fuel to be maintained by the normal, civilian supply chain. Military personnel would be deployed only where this is not possible. Ministers will take a decision to deploy military personnel only where there is a threat of significant disruption to fuel supplies. Industrial action in this sector can have a very serious impact on the UK economy, as well as endangering the health and safety of our citizens.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
The Minister did not answer the question. If the Government impose a charge on companies in the event of an industrial dispute where military personnel have to be responsible for driving tankers, what redress will the companies have to recoup the money that they will have to pay to the Government to fund the strike-breaking exercise?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
We do not anticipate that the companies could recoup in those circumstances.
Baroness Worthington
It seems to me that we have got to the bottom of this. It is a very narrow thing that is needed, yet the Government have created an incredibly enabling piece of legislation with no scrutiny. It is poor legislative drafting to have taken such a wide-ranging power. The Minister says that it will not apply to electricity, or will be used only in certain circumstances—which boils down to the Army learning how to drive fuel tankers. That is very narrow, but this is not a narrow provision. It almost sounds as if one could interpret this as the Government going into the energy supply business. It is that broad. I am glad and encouraged that we are not. I am also reassured to hear that this is discretionary, although how that would play out I am not sure. Either you deploy or you do not deploy.
Is the Minister saying that we would not deploy unless the company agreed to pay? That would be a reduction in the security of the country. The company might say, “No, we’re not paying for that”. Who in their right mind would say yes? If you are an oil company, you will not have factored into your bottom line unexpected payments to the Government for people to drive your tankers. The money has to be recouped from somewhere, and a company would be perfectly within its rights to refuse to pay. In that case, the Government will have to deploy their personnel anyway, or risk an interruption in our fuel supply. This needs to be narrowed in its application. It needs more definition in law.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roper, who pointed to the delegated powers recommendation that subsection (3)(b) does not deserve to be here. It is far too wide-ranging. The whole thing is ill conceived. As I pointed out, in a disaster situation the last thing you want to be doing is negotiating around who is paying who. We have a Government. We pay taxes for a reason. That is what we expect of government. This is penny-pinching from the Treasury and it does not deserve to be in the Bill.
House of Lords
Press Regulation
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to achieve final all-party agreement on their proposals for a royal charter on the supervision of ethical standards in the United Kingdom press.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, a cross-party royal charter has been agreed and published. On 4 July the Culture Secretary updated the other place by way of a Written Statement, as I did in your Lordships’ House, on developments since the cross-party agreement on 18 March. On 30 April the Press Standards Board of Finance petitioned the Privy Council with an alternative charter. The PressBoF charter will be considered by a committee of the Privy Council and a recommendation made before any recommendation is made regarding the cross-party royal charter.
Lord Dykes
I thank my noble friend for those details. Will he confirm that the priority now is to look after the past, present and future victims of press harassment and bullying and definitely not to appease international proprietors who do not pay UK personal taxes and insist on treating Parliament and people with continuing contempt?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I understand fully, as I have in many of the exchanges we have had on this matter, that the priority is to ensure that there is a resolution in place so that the victims can be reassured that it can never happen again. It is clearly in everyone’s interests that the committee acts swiftly to consider the charter in a manner consistent with delivering a robust and justifiable decision.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, the agenda, the rules of decisions, the timing and attendance are determined by Cabinet Members. They have decided to give the press charter greater priority. Is the Minister aware that there is division on the press charter as a number of the papers do not support it? It is not consistent with Leveson’s request for independence—free of government, free of Parliament and free of the press. In giving priority to this they have chosen to make a controversial political decision inside the Privy Council. That may inevitably mean a division of opinion between Parliament and the monarchy.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I do not agree, although I can understand the noble Lord’s point about priority. There are due processes and legal opinion, so we have had to consider the PressBoF charter first.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
There was an application to the Privy Council. The cross-party royal charter could not be referred because a number of outstanding points needed to be dealt with, including making it Scottish compliant because on 30 April the Scottish Parliament asked to be included in the matter. That is the position. There is no sense of priority; it is about dealing with the matter through the procedures that are required.
Lord Fowler
In relation to the newspapers’ own scheme, was it not Lord Justice Leveson who warned that over the past half century there have been fine words and promises from the press following similar inquiries and commissions, and frankly we ended up with phone hacking and scandal? Surely what we want this time is for the reality to match the rhetoric and for the Government to ensure that that is the case.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I agree with my noble friend. That is precisely why we are going through the procedures that we are, which we must do for legal reasons. The PressBoF charter will be considered swiftly, as I said. But Parliament has already, as we know, passed two Acts of Parliament—the Crime and Courts Act and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. All the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson will provide strong and effective incentives for relevant publishers to join a recognised independent self regulator.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, we should hear from the Cross Benches.
Baroness Hollins
Under the currently planned schedule of Privy Council meetings, final approval for the Leveson-compliant royal charter, which we and the other place approved in March this year, may not come until October. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is no further delay in securing Privy Council approval of the March royal charter? As Hacked Off, the campaigning organisation, rightly says, the public, the victims of press abuses and the democratic will of Parliament deserve better than this.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That is precisely why I said the committee was set up yesterday and the membership of it will be announced very shortly. It is determined to act as swiftly as it possibly can to ensure that the PressBoF charter is given due consideration. Once that has taken place and depending on what is said, there is obviously the cross-party charter, which is being finalised. That can then be put before the Privy Council.
Lord Richard
My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us who will be on this committee? Can he confirm that they will all be members of the Cabinet? Can he also confirm that the decisions that will be taken by the committee will not be reported to the whole of the Privy Council or indeed reported to Parliament but will be governmental decisions? We will then be faced with a situation in which a committee of the Privy Council, consisting of members of the Cabinet, will have taken a decision that will be backed by the Government and we will be presented with a fait accompli. Does he not think that that is an absolute disgrace?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As I have just replied to the noble Baroness, the membership and indeed the chairman of that committee will be announced very shortly. It will be for that committee to ensure that its work is rigorously applied given the legal opinion that has been given.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, is there any particular reason why the membership of a committee of the Privy Council should contain only members of the Cabinet?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
With regard to the membership of this committee, I had hoped to be helpful to your Lordships and to have been able to give the information this morning, but it will be announced very shortly.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, what would the position be if this special committee of the Privy Council recommended in favour of the press’s own charter?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I obviously cannot pre-empt what the committee is going to say, but it is fair to say that in the other place last week the Prime Minister said that there were serious shortcomings in the PressBoF charter.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
Does the Minister agree, however, that an agreement between all the parties in Parliament is an extremely important step towards asserting the powers and influence of Parliament? Is it not important that the public know what has just been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, the former Lord Chancellor, that members of the Privy Council will not be all the members or even a selection of members of the Privy Council? I have written to the secretary of the Privy Council as a privy counsellor to ask whether he would consider widening the terms of those taking part. This will be a government decision rather than a Privy Council one.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that. I can only say—I am seeking to be helpful to the House—that all the announcements on the membership will be made very shortly. I am sure that they will be mindful of what my noble friend has said.
Health: Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Howells of St Davids
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are taking steps to ensure that those suffering from mental health disorders such as anorexia and bulimia nervosa are receiving the most appropriate care; and what provisions exist for urgent cases, particularly those of 17 to 18 year-olds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, early intervention is essential for those with eating disorders. We have been clear that GPs are expected to use guidance produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE—when choosing the most appropriate treatments, from physical and psychological treatments to medicines. The NICE guidance is due for review in January 2014.
Baroness Howells of St Davids
I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he recognise that talking therapies are more effective for treating eating disorders, yet to date there is no legal right to receive talking therapies, as there is for drugs? Recent figures outline that more people than previously are waiting longer than the targeted access time of 28 days to receive those therapies, especially those under 18. In fact, the figures show that those under 18 are sometimes referred to mental hospitals rather than being given such therapy at the time. I respect the fact that the Government have committed to make measurable progress by March 2015 to parity of esteem, and that they cannot make any commitments before that. However, I am concerned that there appears to be no monitoring of this situation. The fact that this is urgent does not seem to be taken on board and many young people under 18 are suffering.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the mental health of children and young people is a major priority for the Government. Half of those with lifetime mental illness first experience symptoms by the age of 14 and three-quarters before their mid-20s. That is precisely why we are investing a large sum of money—£54 million—over the four-year period 2011-15 in the Children and Young People’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme. We know, as the noble Baroness rightly emphasises, that those talking therapies can make the most difference, particularly if early intervention is achieved.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, is it not so that very often parents do not realise what is happening to their child? As for cancer or any other condition, early diagnosis is the secret. What can be done to speed that up? When I was chairman of a hospital, we had a whole ward full of people with this problem, but their condition had been recognised too late and therefore treatment was extremely difficult.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is absolutely right. However, it is encouraging to see that in recent years a range of information and support has become available. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has published a fact sheet on eating disorders, which is aimed not just at the profession but particularly at parents, teachers and young people themselves. It is called Mental Health and Growing Up. The fact sheet discusses the causes of eating disorders, how to recognise them and gives advice on how to cope with a child who has an eating disorder.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl accepts that some young girls have an eating disorder that is not anorexia or bulimia—they may have CFS/ME or reactions to HPV vaccines. Very often, they are incarcerated in mental hospitals when they should receive a different form of treatment. I have spoken to the noble Earl about this but perhaps he could say what progress is being made in ensuring that such young people are not mistreated?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that this is an area that NICE will need to look at when it refreshes its guidance to the clinical community. The noble Countess is absolutely right to raise the issue. CFS/ME can often be misdiagnosed; it can be mistaken for other conditions without proper differential diagnosis having taken place. We know that there is more work to be done in this area. However, the range of programmes now available to GPs, some of which I have referred to, can be helpful in this area.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register. Perhaps I can take the noble Earl back to my noble friend’s question. She mentioned “parity of esteem”, which of course the House legislated for in the 2012 health and social care legislation. Could he tell the House how the Government intend to ensure parity of esteem, particularly ensuring that mental health services are given their fair share of resources in the health service? How do the Government intend to take that forward?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not wish to duck the fact that this is a very difficult area to define. We all know that we want to achieve parity of esteem. It depends on ensuring not only that mental health services are given their fair share of the budget but that the right treatments are delivered to the right people, and that everyone in the country has access to appropriate treatments. We are currently firming up with NHS England what the right metrics are in order to judge whether they have met that aim. I will write to the noble Lord with the latest news on that front.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the growing trend for eating disorder clinics and hospitals to treat much younger children and, indeed, boys with eating disorders. Given this, what additional steps does the Minister think need to be taken to ensure that everyone involved—children’s services, primary schools and others—are spotting these signs, particularly in boys, where stigma is often attached to acknowledging these things, to ensure that effective treatment is quickly available?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is absolutely right. The figures that I have before me show that by far the largest number of cases occurs in the age group 10 to 17. We are working on raising awareness of mental health problems, including eating disorders, and on providing support in schools. Particularly, we have provided £3 million of funding over two years to the BOND Consortium, which is led by YoungMinds. The aim of that is to build capacity in the voluntary sector to support the access that schools have to local services. We are also producing an e-portal tool for children’s and young people’s mental health, which we hope will be delivered next year.
Health: Prescription Drugs
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Sandwich
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what changes have been made in the training of junior doctors and nurses in the long-term effects of prescription drugs and in the availability of services to those suffering from addiction to and withdrawal from such drugs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, recent changes to key documents governing the training of doctors have strengthened the requirements for their training in the long-term effects of prescribed drugs. The training of student nurses, due to the introduction of new educational standards, has been strengthened. Services to treat dependants, including for addiction to medicines, are commissioned locally. Information on changes to the availability of services locally to those suffering from addiction to and withdrawal from prescribed medicines is not collected centrally.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, prescribed medicines can be every bit as dangerous as hard drugs, and the length of withdrawal can be much longer—up to three or four years, as I know from personal experience. Their victims lead a half-life and are out of the range of the NHS, with only the voluntary services to help them. Despite what the Minister has just said, which is encouraging, does he agree that the training being given to the younger generation of doctors and psychiatrists, and even the older ones, is still inappropriate and inadequate? What can the Government do to strengthen this training and to reinforce what the voluntary sector is already doing?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will be encouraged to know that a lot of work is going on in this area. The Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Public Health England and others are developing information and educational materials and training on addiction to medicines for GPs and other healthcare professionals. In fact, the Royal College of General Practitioners published a consensus statement in January in which a wide range of professional organisations signed up to tackling this serious issue. I know that the Board of Science of the British Medical Association has also discussed it. I hope that the noble Earl will be encouraged that there is genuine activity in this area.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, many years ago when I was chairman of the General Medical Council’s education committee before I became its president, I received in the course of two months 32 letters each demanding that the special interest groups that wrote to me should have their conditions and concerns included in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Does the Minister accept that the range of medical knowledge is now so vast that basic medical education over five or six years does no more than simply enable graduates in medicine to benefit from postgraduate or vocational training having acquired skills and knowledge in principle which will help them to do that? Can he assure us that this extremely important matter raised by my noble friend now figures in postgraduate training of doctors, and not least in the mandatory vocational training programme of three years which must be undertaken by all intending general practitioners?
Earl Howe
I do, of course, agree with the noble Lord. I am sure that we have to be realistic about the extent to which every GP can be fully informed about this area. I can only say that it has risen in prominence in recent years, not least thanks to the efforts of the noble Earl. There is growing concern that this particular cohort of patients has been poorly served in the past and that is why the extent to which these drugs are being prescribed has diminished significantly over recent years.
Baroness Corston
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Royal College of Psychiatrists said many years ago that benzodiazepines are unsuitable for long-term use and should be prescribed for periods of two to four weeks only? And will he revisit a Written Answer he gave me recently saying that there was no connection between benzodiazepine addiction and suicide, when there is 30 years of eminent research to show that that is indeed the case? I declare an interest as the patron of Battle Against Tranquillisers, the foremost charity campaigning in this area, whose mission statement is:
“To lessen the harm caused by benzodiazepine and z drug tranquilizers and sleeping pills”.
Earl Howe
My Lords, of course I will revisit that Answer, and I will come back to the noble Baroness if I find cause to correct what I have said. However, I agree with her that the risks associated with long-term use of tranquillisers have been well recognised for many years. There are several authoritative sources for guidance for prescribers on this issue. I believe that that guidance is having an effect because, as I said, the prescribing rate has considerably diminished of late. There is no shortage of guidance out there. There is the national formulary, which already describes the importance of gradual withdrawal from benzodiazepines, and there is a wide variety of other impartial and trustworthy information resources to support prescribing.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, GP training is important but for a user the crucial thing is the availability of the services. Will my noble friend tell the House whether services for those addicted to prescription drugs are readily available within each CCG area and where one might find details of such services?
Earl Howe
My noble friend will be encouraged to know that Public Health England has published a commissioning guide for the NHS and local authorities which sets out its expectation that support should be available in every area for people with a dependency on prescription or over-the-counter medicines. Local authorities are now, as she is aware, responsible for commissioning services to support people to recover from dependence in line with local need. Most of the support available for people who are addicted to prescription drugs is with their GP and not in services treating those addicted to illegal drugs, but there is a range of services available.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
To better understand the size of the problem, will the Government consider adding a box to the yellow card, which has been successful in reporting adverse drug reactions, to state that the doctor suspects that this person may have dependence on the drug? That would provide ongoing epidemiological monitoring.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that in the past few years nurses have been given much more authority, once they have been properly trained and authorised, to prescribe medicines. Can he confirm that the measures he has talked about will apply to nurse prescribers as well as to doctors?
Banking: Regulation
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent their response to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is aligned with proposed European Union legislation on bank regulation.
Lord Newby
My Lords, none of the measures in the Government’s response to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards are prevented by proposed European Union legislation on bank regulations. As the detail of these measures is developed, HM Treasury will ensure that they are appropriately aligned with any relevant European Union legislation.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, given the slender reference to the European dimension both in the Tyrie report and the Government’s response, could the Minister illustrate what obligation there is at present, under CRD IV and Basel III, for us to report the British banks that have a high-risk assessment to the European Banking Authority? Given the flat-footed nature of the Government in responding to the financial transaction tax and the European banking union, may we have an assurance that preparatory work is being done in anticipation of the Liikanen proposals coming to fruition this autumn, and indeed the recovery and resolution directive that will cover all 28 member states?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think that I can give that assurance as far as the Liikanen proposals are concerned. As the noble Lord probably knows, the Government believe that there is no incompatibility between what he is proposing and what the Government are doing in respect of banking and the banking reform Bill. I am confident that the Government are acting with all due speed on these measures, and indeed in some areas we have moved more quickly than the EU as a whole has been able to do.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, as a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I remind my noble friend the Minister that in our unanimous report we were in fact highly critical of the emerging European Union banking regulation, and indeed not greatly enamoured of the approach of Basel III either. We made it clear that, given that London is the only world-class financial centre within the European time zones, it is incumbent upon this country to put in place whatever system of bank regulation we feel is necessary to address the problems that have emerged.
Lord Newby
Yes, my Lords, and of course that is exactly what we are doing with the banking reform Bill.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, the draft banking Bill came from the House of Commons yesterday. I have only just had a chance to glance at it, but it clearly is not quite in line with what was recommended on the important issue of regulation regarding ring-fencing. Why not?
Lord Newby
My Lords, as my colleague the Financial Secretary has made clear in another place, there are some aspects of the commission’s views on the speed and timing of ring-fencing that the Government are going to look at further and revisit when the issue comes back to your Lordships’ House. We have Second Reading of the Bill on 24 July, and my noble friend Lord Deighton will look forward to telling the House more about the provisions of the Bill at that point.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
Forgive me. If we could hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, then we will hear from my noble friend Lady Kramer.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, does not quite stack up in view of Written Answers from the previous Government on 21 July 2009, at col. 365 of the Official Report, which confirmed that they had passed overall supervision of our banks and financial institutions to Brussels? Given that the EU has not had its own accounts signed off for 17 years, and given that it deeply dislikes the City of London, was this wise and how do we get out of it?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the basic assertion that the noble Lord makes, that the Government are unable to put in place a satisfactory regulatory framework for banks in the UK, is, frankly, simply not true. We have taken a wide range of measures to strengthen the regulatory structure and the provisions with regard to remuneration and capital, and in all those areas what we have done is compatible with what has been happening at EU level.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, while many of us in this House will be working to strengthen banking regulation based on the commission’s report, and I was privileged to be part of that commission, is it not also true that what is remarkable from the evidence we received from the European Union is the common ground shared by the regulators, both in their definition of the issues and the areas in which they are seeking solutions? Is it not true that the key issue of dispute between the two is in fact whether or not there should be a cap on bankers’ bonuses—on which, ironically, the British public are with the EU?
Lord Newby
My noble friend is clearly right in that respect. The previous Government started a process with regard to remuneration for senior bankers, which has been strengthened in several respects. One of the more encouraging developments in recent years is that as a result of that—and as a result of public pressure—the level of bonuses at RBS has fallen by 70% between 2010 and 1012, and at Barclays by 40%.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards says at paragraph 896:
“Remuneration requirements should, ideally, be mandated internationally in order to reduce arbitrage. The Commission expects the UK authorities to strive to secure international agreement on changes”,
and it goes on to describe the changes. The Government’s response on this paragraph is unclear. Will the Government be taking a lead internationally to secure the commission’s recommendations on this issue?
Lord Newby
The Government have taken a lead on remuneration levels—in particular, in seeing how remuneration levels can be more closely matched to risk. We are, for example, sympathetic to one of the commission’s proposals about linking remuneration levels not only to the immediate risk, but by making some degree of the remuneration relevant to what happens even up to 10 years after its level is set. So we are already taking the lead and will continue to do so.
Business of the House
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 15 July to allow the Finance Bill and the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill to be taken through all their remaining stages.
Business of the House
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord Patel and Baroness Deech set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.
Inquiries Act 2005 Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Soley be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Clinton-Davis, resigned.
Privileges and Conduct Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Manningham-Buller, resigned.
Health and Social Care in England
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
That this House takes note of future models of funding of health and social care in England.
Lord Patel
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the future funding of health and social care. I would like to thank all noble Lords taking part in the debate today. Looking at the list of speakers, no doubt we will hear radical views and provocative ideas in an altogether interesting debate. I thank in particular the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the Opposition Front Bench for taking part today. Perhaps neither of them will be willing to put forward what the views of their own parties would be if they were in Government post-2015, but who knows? They might be persuaded to do so. The procedures of the House mean that the Minister has to wind up the debate. However, any questions put to him about future Government plans for funding health and social care beyond 2016 would be, in my view, inappropriate, and I, for one, would not do so. I hope that we have an open debate which can form the basis of a wider public debate. In my view, that is necessary before the next general election, and only this Chamber could facilitate such a debate. I also thank the Library staff and the many organisations outside, chiefly the Nuffield Trust, for providing detailed briefings to facilitate this debate.
Last Friday, 5 July, was the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the NHS through a bold and courageous piece of legislation that established free healthcare for all, irrespective of the ability to pay. Despite its many faults and occasional disasters, even to the point of causing harm and death to patients, and the daily reports of its shortcomings, it remains the most cherished public service—to the extent that, much to the bewilderment of foreign visitors, we celebrated it at the Olympic opening ceremony. Some say that it is our only national religion.
The NHS is the most successful and envied health system in the world. I have had the privilege of working in it for 39 years and 62 days, and I was trained in it for five years before that. Today, over 1 million people are at work in the NHS, over 70% of them female, and many thousands more provide a voluntary free service. Over 1.5 million patients and their families will be in contact with the NHS. Each month, 23 million people visit their doctor or a nurse. Every minute, five 999 calls will be answered by the ambulance service. The NHS has delivered many innovations: drug developments, new devices, CT and MRI scans, ultrasound and innovative surgical procedures. In September, a Member of your Lordships’ House will celebrate 25 years of his heart transplant, which is quite an achievement. It has also delivered assisted conception, complex treatments and much more. In fact, in some ways we have failed to harness the potential of the National Health Service to deliver innovations, including healthcare delivery. The majority of people who come into contact with the health service are satisfied with their care. Of course, it fails some people and that is unacceptable, but all this suggests that the NHS is a good ship, and any future plans need to bear that in mind.
Is the NHS the product of brilliant design or of politics and circumstance? Are the continuous changing of structures and reorganisations beneficial or merely ideological? In an odd way, the strength of the system is that it is resilient enough to absorb change to meet changing needs and yet continue to provide care. I do not believe that any other health system in the world is able to do that, certainly not under the insurance model of funding. However, in prolonged austerity, can a service that is free at the point of use survive and continue to do so? If the answer is “yes”, how will it have to change? If the answer is that it cannot survive as a free service at the point of use, who is best placed to make the argument to the public for the alternative? Is it the clinicians, the politicians or the managers?
There does not seem to be much of an appetite to change the model drastically. A poll of public views suggests that there is a willingness to contribute financially for minor, non-clinical services, but the majority want a free service at the point of use and are willing to pay higher taxes if the efficient use of money can be demonstrated. In a recent report from the Nuffield Trust on the NHS as viewed by 65 politicians, many of them previous Secretaries of State, managers, clinicians and others, the majority feel that the founding principles of the NHS are deeply enshrined. Some, however, do not feel that that is so and say that we are sleepwalking towards destroying the NHS. Some, like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who unfortunately could not take part today—I think he is sorting out the US health service—feel that we should start exploring the basis on which we fund the NHS, which is with a complex mix of hypothecated taxes, user charges, and so on. Other notable voices such as those of Stephen Dorrell, Alan Milburn, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and Kenneth Clarke, say that despite the financial challenge, the NHS should remain free at the point of use.
Expenditure on the NHS has risen constantly since its establishment in 1948. In its first year of operation, the Government spent £11.4 billion. In 2010-11, the figure was 10 times greater, at £121 billion. At a growth rate of around 4% per year, in GDP terms that was 3.7% of GDP at the inception of the NHS to nearly 8.9% now. A reduction in funding and cost savings over the next decade will, based on historical cost growth, produce a funding gap of £54 billion by 2021-22. Sir David Nicholson made a speech yesterday suggesting that it might be less, but that is the figure worked out by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Historically, the drivers of increased NHS spending are population growth, growth in national wealth, cost increases and developments in medical technology. An ageing population with an increasing number of older people is thought to be much less important as an increase in life expectancy merely delays the healthcare costs associated with death. If we follow the trajectory of spending over the past 50 years to the next 50 years, we will spend one-fifth of the nation’s entire wealth on the provision of health and social care. Of course there will be the benefits of better health, quality of life and a positive impact on productivity and economic activity. However, spending at that rate will also produce diminishing returns and therefore costs will always need to be controlled.
To remain free at the point of use, the NHS will have to change. We will need to find a better way of spending £120 billion. Some, such as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and Sally Davies, argue for a plan to reduce demand: a strategy of disease prevention. Demographic and behavioural trends will put increased demands on the service. By 2023, the population of England is projected to be 58 million, with those aged over 75 accounting for 10% of the population. There will be an increase in the number of people with long-term conditions such as diabetes, vascular disease and dementia, and there will be more cancer survivors. People with such conditions account for 64% of out-patient appointments and make up 70% of in-patients. For every £10 spent, £7 goes towards the health and social care of these patients.
In 2011, nearly 25% of the population were obese. Behavioural factors such as smoking, drinking, obesity and a lack of exercise will have a significant effect on the health budget. The public and private sectors, particularly the food and drink industries, will have to contribute to preventative strategies, voluntarily or through legislation and taxation. One-third of healthcare costs are consumed by three categories of patients: mental health, vascular disease and cancer. The last two will double in incidence in 10 years and 40% of that incidence is based on the behaviour and attitudes of the public.
Inevitable technological progress will push up healthcare costs as new technology is expensive and will increase life expectancy, particularly of those with the highest healthcare costs. Likely developments in the medium term include better cancer care, better drugs for cancers, focused radiotherapy and ultrasound, the molecular targeting of cancers with drugs, nano-medicine, embedded chip monitoring of disease progression, genomics, better stratification of patients for treatment, proteomics, population genomics for risk identification, personalised care and, in regenerative medicines, cell therapy such as the treatment of age-related macular degeneration, autologous stem cell therapy, gene therapy, tissue engineering, robotic surgery, drugs that will slow the progression of diseases causing dementia, and many others. Other cost pressures will be rising wages, which can be controlled temporarily but not in the long term, and will affect productivity. These costs have stagnated since 2010, probably because of a reduction in labour. Productivity growth of 4% a year, year-on-year, cannot be sustained; neither can cost savings without providing care differently, which will mean managing public and political attitudes. It will also mean the better use of data and technology, which have the potential to transform treatment and the management of care.
What possible options are there for finding funds from other sources? The public view, as we can see following the Ipsos MORI and King’s Fund event, is interesting. The public want free care at the point of need, but may accept charges for inappropriate use or clinically unnecessary procedures. Some would accept increased taxation, particularly hypothecated tax. Many have accepted that the NHS is under pressure, but do not accept that it is justified to change the fundamental principle on which the NHS is based.
I am sure that there will be proponents of other ideas for raising funds or reducing costs. Arguments for co-payment will come to the fore; the experience of New Zealand and France may be of interest in understanding that. There have been novel ideas such as taxing the providers of risk foods and alcohol, as we did those responsible for fixing LIBOR interest rates, to pay the costs of the Armed Forces covenant; charging for GP appointments; and part-insurance, either for the young or the older population, on the California model. The evidence suggests that the public have no appetite for any of the above. Charging those not entitled to the service would be more acceptable if it was incremental. The majority of the public see the NHS as a morally special property and therefore expect it to be adequately funded, even to the detriment of some other public services, if that is the choice.
Any changes to NHS funding would require the public to be convinced that the current system is working as efficiently as possible before considering radical changes. The public want to be involved more and more with the NHS, including on decisions related to funding; changes need to be explained to the public, with a public debate before any legislation. The public have a strong attachment to the founding principles of the NHS and will not accept a radical change to the current model of funding. The only likelihood of success is through an incremental approach. I beg to move.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate. There are two subjects on which I would like to comment. First is the underlying cause of the ever increasing demands on the NHS; they are due, of course, to the ever increasing number of patients with diabetes, eye disease, high blood pressure, strokes, heart attacks, cirrhosis of the liver, cancer, worn-out knees and hips, and so on, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has already said. But it has to be pointed out that most of these conditions have a single cause, and that single cause is obesity. The obesity epidemic is the worst epidemic to afflict this country for 90 years; it is killing millions and costing billions and the cure is free: simply eat and drink fewer calories. A great deal of obesity is due to that poison called alcohol, a cause not only of obesity but of many diseases.
This enormous problem has been bedevilled by the Department of Health, Health Ministers and opposition spokesmen, and that quango NICE, all misleading Parliament by stating that all the calories we eat is spent on exercise. This is totally untrue. Exercise is good for the heart, helps keep the cholesterol at a safe level and improves the feeling of well-being, but it is not effective at reducing weight. One has to run 10 miles to take off a pound of fat. Really obese people cannot exercise, and they do not need to in order to lose weight; all that they have to do is to eat and drink fewer calories. NICE has informed me that it is going to correct its misleading advice, but it will not be published until January next year.
Secondly, this enormous obesity epidemic is obviously bankrupting the NHS. It is often said that it is old people who are costing the NHS so much, but in fact it is people who are dying who are so expensive. It so happens that most people who are dying are old, but young people who are dying are just as expensive.
Where is the extra funding to pay for the ever increasing demands going to come from? Perhaps we should try listening to other people and learning from their experiences. Perhaps we could listen to Prime Minister Attlee, who was a very perceptive and brilliant man. Within a year of the inception of the NHS he realised that there was a major problem. In October 1949 he announced, in another place, “We propose to bring in prescription charges in order to discourage people from using the NHS excessively and unnecessarily”. I suspect he really wanted to put the charge on going to see the GP but he realised that that would be political suicide.
We might learn a lesson from the radical changes in the dental services which occurred under the previous Government. A large number of dental treatments had to be paid for by the patient. All credit to the Labour Government for grasping this particular nettle. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has already said, we could learn from the French, who pay the doctor up front and, if they cannot afford it, are reimbursed. There is an attraction in the patient paying up front because he is not asking for charity, he is employing the doctor. It changes the relationship. The system in France has worked well.
As Labour Governments have pioneered these kind of changes, they might care to join a cross-party movement to work out a new funding arrangement. One suggestion was to charge patients £5 or £10 to visit the GP and then reimburse those who cannot afford it or who have chronic or recurrent illnesses. All hospital treatments would be free. Another suggestion, which has been discussed for many years, is to have a compulsory health insurance scheme for those who can afford it. It would seem sensible at this time of financial crisis for a cross-party group to be set up to try to work out a solution, free of petty party politics and the shibboleths which have so bedevilled the National Health Service for so long.
Lord Filkin
My Lords, my short speech will build on the work done by the House of Lords report, Ready for Ageing?, which we look forward to debating when we receive the Government’s response, which I expect will be next week. I will say a few things, building on what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, set out so clearly.
It is unarguable that the NHS and social care will face a massive increase in demand and cost. It is axiomatic, even though not done, that we have to have a major service redesign, as Sir David Nicholson said today. However—and this is different—it would be naive to think that the process of massive service redesign, given the time and complexity of doing it, will by itself fund the significant gap consequent on the increase in demand. We will, therefore, have to have a debate, not only about service redesign but also about how we fund the NHS going forward.
For my part, I hope we abide by the principles of the fundamental services being free at the point of use. That requires us to have a wider debate about the welfare settlement of our society, given the very considerable increase in demand and costs consequent on our ageing society. That, in short, is what I will say, so your Lordships can nod off if you do not want to hear the rest.
Those who have glimpsed the report will know it, but I will try to encapsulate the situation on ageing now. In the current decade there is going to be a 40% increase in the number of people aged 85-plus: it is not a future change. The numbers who are 85-plus will increase by 100% in the two decades 2010 to 2030. Largely consequent on that, we will see a quite remarkable increase in the number of long-term conditions experienced by those older people.
We were staggered to find that there is no public forecast data on demand of that sort published by the Department of Health or the NHS. We therefore had to ask eminent academic epidemiologists to do forecasts for us, by applying current and forecast incidence rates to the future certainty of the age cohorts that we know. The illustrations showed increases of between 45% and 90% in the five main chronic conditions in the long term. The number of those with multiple conditions will increase from 1.2 million in 2008 to 1.9 million in 2018, and those needing social care and daily assistance will increase by 90% between 2010 and 2030. It is therefore clear that there will be a massive increase in demand and it would be of great help if NHS England, if not the Department of Health, would put out some clear evidence on why demand increases are likely. It will help an honest public debate across society.
I will not go on but it is obvious that because the number of long-term conditions will increase massively—they drive roughly 70% of health and social care costs—there will also be a massive increase in those costs. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that David Nicholson is clear in what he said today but is underestimating the scale of the challenge. Nuffield and others state that £40 billion-plus is more likely to be the sort of funding gap that we will face by 2021-22, if you consider health and social care together.
We should therefore beware of the myths being portrayed, whereby if we do what we have to do—integrate health and social care, increase prevention, shift from an acute focus to a community and primary-focused model, and get more older people out of hospital—that in itself will crack the funding problem. It will not do so because all those changes will take a considerable time, even if there is stronger political leadership on these changes than we have seen from any political party so far. These are big systemic changes that will take 10 years and require investment. The benefits will not always be cashable and there will be double running costs while the changes are being made. Thinking that they will produce short-term savings is naive, although I do not for a second belittle the importance of going for those big changes.
If one looks at the context of continuing public deficits in 2015-16 and high levels of public sector debt, a difficult challenge is facing whichever Government address these issues. They have to be looked at in the wider context, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that the more that we can get at least some attempt at cross-party discussions about the reality of this situation, the better for our society.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate on such an important issue. I declare an interest that I suspect is shared by many other noble Lords: this debate is about my care down the line. I would like to examine the challenges facing us on future health and care funding, the public expectation of the future delivery of these services and how the public can be seen as part of the solution, not the problem.
Our population is ageing and the gap between pension age and life expectancy is increasing. Thus, the ratio of taxpayers to pensioners is decreasing. According to the ONS, the population of over-65s will increase by an average of 1.8% a year between 2014 and 2021. Coupled with other factors such as the rising population, this will create an increase in demand for NHS services of 4% a year. I appreciate that there are other figures but those were the results of my research. Pension entitlement has caused pensioners as a proportion of spending to increase from 17% in 2010 to 21% in 2015. This proportion is likely to increase with fewer working-age people to fund it. However, we must remember that older people generate some £40 billion for the UK economy, and this will increase to £70 billion by 2030.
It is important to contrast the views on welfare entitlement as a whole between generations. Recently, the Economist highlighted that more than two-thirds of people born before 1939 consider the welfare state one of Britain’s proudest achievements, whereas less than one-third of those born after 1979 say the same. Polling by YouGov shows that those aged 18 to 24 are more likely than older people to consider social problems the responsibility of individuals rather than of the Government. They will become the taxpayers who fund our health and social care system in the future and will make the political decisions, yet their views on the state’s responsibilities to individuals are markedly different from those of baby boomers entering retirement now, so things will have to change.
Clearly, there must be a debate on where the public’s priorities lie. By 2061, non-health departments will have had to reduce their proportion of net government spending from 80% to 50%. This 50% would apply to education, pensions, benefits and defence. So how do we fund future health and social care? What behaviour and attitudes need to change? I think we all agree that we cannot continue as we are. If it is funded purely out of taxation, excluding all efficiency savings, for every 1% increase in healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP—that is around £15 billion—it would add to the tax bill of every household in the UK another £570 a year. To put this in context, a 1p increase in income tax would yield only an extra £5.32 billion per annum for the Treasury, so it would require a 3p rise for each extra percentage point. The sums are now beginning to sound really scary.
Obviously, there are efficiency savings to be found, such as extra investment in preventive care and the use of technology, which, as a recent Deloitte report for Scope has shown, achieves average returns of 30%, which would reduce the number of people entering the system at crisis level. Do we cut big-ticket spending items, such as Trident, which is projected to cost £20 billion, or High Speed 2, estimated at £32.7 billion? Do we means-test access to primary care? Do we cut pensions in return for better social care? Do we encourage planning for old age to include care and pensions? Here I must make clear that I am repeating questions that others have asked, not making personal or party recommendations.
We also need to ask what we can do for ourselves. One thing we will not be short of is human resource—and fairly fit human resource. The Olympics last year in London made volunteering acceptable and even cool. Volunteers were given the inspiring descriptive title of Games makers. They were given a role description, managed brilliantly and changed the face of the Games. They were the envy of the world. The voluntary sector is already active. It knows that older people can be the solution and not the problem. What better legacy of the Games could there be than using that sort of model to support the health and care sectors?
The issues are complex and the stakes could not be higher. We need to have a long conversation involving the public, all political parties and policymakers, the voluntary sector and care professionals, and we need to start it sooner rather than later.
Baroness Boothroyd
My Lords, official warnings of the mounting crisis in the National Health Service are coming thick and fast. Last week, the Government said that the NHS could break down if we continue to run an international service open to all comers from other parts of the world. At one o’clock this morning, the body responsible for the NHS in England published its report, A Call to Action, saying that it is about to run out of cash and may need a minimum of another £30 billion a year by 2020. The royal medical colleges believe that 20 hospitals may have to close to prevent financial ruin. In short, the NHS is fighting for its life. Painful though it is, I welcome this outburst of reality. I only regret that it has taken so long.
There is a culture of denial and indifference in this country that allows serious problems like this to reach a crisis point before we face up to them. Too often, those in authority react by creating new organisations that do not work, prattling about lessons being learnt when it is clear that they are not being learnt, and hunting for culprits who pass the buck to others, who say they did not know anyway.
Last week’s report by the Department of Health breaks new ground. It points to the chaos in our hospitals and GP surgeries caused by overseas visitors who are not entitled to use the NHS, yet do so and avoid payment for their treatment. We do not know how much this racket costs. Ten years ago, a document produced by CCI legal services estimated that between £50 million and £200 million is lost every year through under or non-recovery of charges applicable to overseas visitors. We have never known the true cost because successive Governments did not want to know, and said so. Serious though this issue is, I believe that we have almost advertised our willingness to be taken for an international trolley ride.
I take no pleasure in saying that this is not hindsight on my part. In this House on 9 December 2003, I asked how the Government intended to strengthen the regulations to prevent overseas visitors unlawfully obtaining free national health treatment. My question fell on stony ground. I was told that we must not get this out of proportion, that it was best left to local authorities to decide who should or should not be charged and that no data were collected centrally. I was astonished to learn that this important information, costing the country millions of pounds, was not among the information that hospital trusts must yield to central authority.
Six months later, on 20 July 2004, I tried again and said that GPs have neither the time nor the resources to decide which foreign nationals were entitled to free treatment. I suggested a system of compulsory health insurance. After a lost decade, that is one of the options in last week’s consultation paper. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, may remember the exchanges that we had with the Minister responsible at the time, who said that the NHS was “a humanitarian service” and talked about a Cabinet Office review into the problem of seriously sick migrants. Today, 32 diseases qualify for free diagnosis and treatment, regardless of a person’s nationality or conditions of stay here. That does not count sexually transmitted diseases and HIV treatment, which also qualify.
Some say that we can easily afford to run the world’s most generous health service and dispute that it is exploited or defrauded on a significant scale. They are living in a land of make-believe. Professor Meirion Thomas, a cancer specialist, has first-hand evidence. He tells a different story, as do those of us in this House with friends in the medical profession who have experience of tourists who exploit the system.
Doctors rightly have the last say on whether patients need emergency care, but the parameters have surely become too wide. One hospital I know routinely gives free dialysis to foreign nationals on the grounds that their condition would worsen without it. Dialysis can cost more than £30,000 per patient a year. How long can this go on? Under the NHS tariff, private outpatients are charged £250 a visit, in-patients pay £500 a day and a normal pregnancy costs £3,000—with complications, this can rise to £9,000.
Insiders know what goes on. The Health Secretary says that fewer than half of overseas visitors who should pay are charged and that fewer than half of those who are charged pay up. Fraud specialists report a trail of false addresses, false identities and untraceable patients.
The current guidance to GPs and hospitals shows why the system never worked. This document runs to 89 pages. Last year alone, there were seven revisions of it. What are doctors supposed to do if they suspect a bogus patient and read on page 9 that they should consult a lawyer if they are unsure of their obligations, or that, before refusing a patient, they must sign a statement that reminds them of the Human Rights Act 1998?
The NHS is bleeding and needs emergency treatment. The dream of free universal care from the cradle to the grave lasted from 1948 to 1951, but the NHS survived and it is time to face reality. The fraudsters who exploit it have had more than their fair share of our resources, our doctors and our hospitals. We can no longer deny what we know to be true. It is time to say: enough.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing the debate. As we have heard from all speakers so far, there is a strong narrative about how precious the NHS is, how high public expectation remains and the problem of rising costs—it’s own health check has just been referred to.
I want to talk a little about care systems and the models that we might need to develop. Experience on the ground tells us that care systems are very fragmented. As systems such as family stability collapse, many people are isolated and struggle to access care and health services. The current system is very skewed towards the delivery of episodic interventions around particular crises. We need to look below that. We need to step back and see how we can create a culture of engagement, support and well-being for people that puts those episodic interventions in a different context and perhaps provides a context in which they would be less necessary and less frequent. I shall raise some questions about models and capacity, not least in relation to the elderly.
I work in the county of Derbyshire. Last year, in the city of Derby, I organised a commission, the Redfern commission, which looked at models of care in our community and how we could contribute alongside the statutory provision. We had a public hearing looking at models of care for the elderly. One of the experts who came as a witness to that public hearing raised three issues. She started by talking about people’s feet and the fact that proper foot care is very important to allow people to continue to have mobility—to be able to shop, do their cleaning and have social intercourse. Very simple things that require microengagement make a huge difference to people’s well-being and health. She also talked about the reluctance of doctors to diagnose depression in elderly patients who suffer a lot of loss. She said that something like 2 million elderly people are diagnosed with clinical depression, but there are probably far more, and it is hard for them to get treatment or even support on the ground. She also raised the lack of provision of advice for elderly people about sexual health.
Many of these things can be dealt with not through episodic major interventions but through a culture on the ground of support, care and contact. It is voluntary groups—churches especially—that in most communities provide lunch clubs, outreach and all the things that allow people who are otherwise isolated and struggling with medical and social care conditions to be supported. However, 87% of local authorities are setting their eligibility criteria at substantial or higher. I think we need models that look below the surface where people need care and can be sustained more realistically. In a parish in a rural group of parishes, the parish, the diocese and the Simeon Trust have brought together resources to appoint a chaplain. In that rural area, that lady visits 140 people regularly to monitor them, to put them in touch with each other, to help to assess them face to face and to know when support from the medical and care system might kick in, so that people do not get to an acute moment. There is a community system of monitoring, care and contact.
That kind of model needs to be developed. The Dilnot report said that there has to be a new relationship between individuals and the care system. Beneath the radar of the formal care system, there are enormous resources in the voluntary community that can allow that to happen. Will the Minister consider how the Government, local government and the framework of formal systems can enable a small amount of investment to encourage voluntary and church groups doing this face-to-face work on the ground that provides the context for care and well-being to flourish and grow so that the demand for the major interventions that are so costly might be more controlled and probably reduced because of a better sense of well-being at grass roots level? I would be interested if the Minister could comment on that model and how it might be encouraged and developed to create greater capacity in our systems of social care and health provision.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for having secured this important debate. I declare my interests as professor of surgery at University College London and as a consultant surgeon for University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
We have heard that the National Health Service is a vital part of society’s infrastructure in our nation. It provides a unique reassurance by ensuring free and universal access to healthcare. In addition, it provides a most remarkable structure for the provision of public health and preventive strategies, which are vital in ensuring the nation’s long-term health and in containing costs. It also provides a unique environment for biomedical research. Indeed, the research infrastructure that we have heard about has resulted in much innovation and a change in clinical practice for the benefit not only of our own citizens but of people throughout the world. Furthermore, it provides the basis for a vibrant and important life sciences industry which makes a huge economic contribution to the welfare of our country. Beyond that, it is the social solidarity, or glue, that the National Health Service has provided to bind our society together that forms a vital part of the debate about its future.
During this debate we have heard from many noble Lords about the increased financial demands of the National Health Service. Some 50 years ago, it consumed 3.2% of our gross domestic product; last year, some 8.2%; and in 50 years’ time it will be some 20% of GDP if the rate of growth—the 4% per year that we have seen over the past 50 years—is sustained over the next 50 years.
Figures relating to the increasing financial requirements of the NHS produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that in 2032 the OBR expects £132 billion to be spent on NHS provision, whereas if the 4% growth that we have traditionally seen in the past 50 years is sustained, the figure will be closer to £170 billion. However, what is striking is the number of people employed in the NHS—currently one in 18 of the working population. If we continue at the same rate of growth with 20% of GDP consumption by 2062, one in eight of the working population will be employed by the NHS. What modelling is done in the Department of Health and the Treasury around this increasing consumption of healthcare resources? Does the noble Earl recognise these figures, and does he, as well as others in government, consider this a sustainable trajectory?
In terms of a solution, one that has been suggested during this debate is to increase taxation. There is a great fondness among our fellow citizens for the National Health Service but even providing one extra percentage point in GDP to be diverted towards health spending would require an increase in taxation of £570 per household per year, and that is a huge increase in taxation. Of course, we know that the demand is going to be much greater. We could settle on giving a greater proportion of public expenditure to health, but 20% of departmental spending is currently already devoted to the National Health Service. Is it sustainable to take more and more from other public services and divert it to health if we do not increase the income available?
A third potential option is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the services that we provide, and in this regard Her Majesty’s Government have to be congratulated. The report entitled Innovation, Health and Wealth, published last year, clearly focuses on ensuring that the National Health Service can improve the outcomes that it achieves for fellow citizens in a way that adds to economic growth rather than continuously draining economic resources, although I think that many would agree that it is not a drain of resources to ensure that our nation is healthy.
In establishing the outputs of Innovation, Health and Wealth and, in particular, in establishing the academic health science networks—I declare a further interest as chair for clinical quality at the recently designated academic health science network at UCL Partners—what metrics will be applied to determine whether the networks are successful in terms of the economic rather than just the health question? We know that, as part of the designation process, each of these networks across England has been asked to define high-impact innovations that will be applied across the population and to adopt NICE guidance to improve clinical outcomes, but both those sets of interventions should also have an impact on resource utilisation. Are metrics defined that we will be able to assess over time to determine whether a focus on improving efficiency and effectiveness in the NHS can also result in better utilisation of resource?
Viscount Ridley
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on the timely nature of this debate, and it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. They are a reminder of the great expertise that this House has on this subject.
I have learnt a lot already this morning, and expect to continue to learn more. I am particularly struck by the consensus among the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Boothroyd, who said that things cannot continue as they are. However, I want to come at this from the bottom up, as it were—from how technology and patient expectation will drive changes both to the structure and, by necessity, to the funding of healthcare services, and in particular, how digital and genomic innovation will have an effect on the National Health Service. It is a subject that has been much discussed at the International Centre for Life in Newcastle, of which I have the honour to be honorary president, and I declare my interest therein.
It is not all bad news. We are likely to see huge reductions in the cost of certain procedures as a result of innovation. IT, 3D printing in surgery and new materials are all helping to drive down various costs. I believe that the cost of a cataract operation has come down dramatically because of an increase in the speed of doing it and a decrease in the cost of the materials. This is, of course, bringing operations within the reach of the poor in other countries as well as in this country.
Genomic sequencing has come down from costing billions to thousands in the past decade alone. As we know, however, if we make things cheaper, people will want more of them. I suspect that, through new technology, we will soon be putting enormous demands on healthcare services. We will use our smart phones to find out precisely what kind of lurgy we have, rather than just accepting that we have one; what kind of allergy we have; which drugs work best for our particular condition; and indeed, checking our blood for early precursors of cancer. At the very least doctors will have to get used to dealing with us online. I have a friend who over lunch checked his electrocardiogram with a device on his iPhone and sent it to his cardiologist.
We would be sticking our heads in the sand if we hoped to prevent this end-user innovation, as it is called, turning medicine upside down, as it has done to so many other industries, and if we continued to think of medicine as a top-down business in which the doctor knows best. In the past, treatments have too often been designed to treat the population rather than the individual. For the patient, the change will be great in many ways, and there will no doubt be some savings. For example, we can have many more virtual appointments. As Eric Topol, who has written a book about this, says:
“I expect some 50% to 70% of office visits to become redundant, replaced by remote monitoring, digital health records and virtual house calls”.
This will keep down hospital-acquired infections as well. Overall, however, it will vastly increase costs because personalised medicine means not only more demand but more expensive sorts of demand. That is bound to push up costs well beyond what any pooled system can bear in terms of cross-subsidy, whether from the rich to the poor or through insurance. It will undoubtedly raise ethical issues. If precise genomic diagnosis or drug toxicity information is available to some individuals and not others, it will put enormous strain on the budget of the NHS and the principle of common access to it. There will then effectively be a form of rationing. Added to that, of course, is the growing burden of us all living much longer, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said, and of having up to five conditions when we are old, which I believe is the average, not to mention the obesity epidemic which my noble friend Lord McColl mentioned.
It is obvious that we face rising healthcare costs as a proportion of household budgets. That is why it is vital to turn the NHS as far as possible into an organisation that tries to drive down its costs in a ruthless fashion. The Government have made a good start on this. The NHS is on track to make £20 billion of efficiency savings by 2015 and, we hope, more beyond that. However, as many noble Lords have said today, this will prove to be a drop in the ocean. Not even the NHS’s most ardent champions would at the moment call it a ruthless pursuer of cost-efficiency. It has none of the usual levers such as competition or fear of losing business to other providers that drive up efficiency and quality in the commercial world. No amount of top-down diktat will substitute for those trends. To meet the bottom-up challenge coming from patients and from technology, health funding needs to experience a form of bottom-up reform. Sixty years on from the founding of the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we need to be open-minded about all the models available for discussing the future of health reform.
Lord Bhattacharyya
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in a debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The noble Lord spoke with his customary wisdom. I have learnt a lot discussing medical problems with him.
There are many healthcare experts speaking today. I am a little more of an outsider. From my perspective, it seems that we constantly read of reports, inquiries and investigations into the problems of our health and care services. Whether it is care assistants, inspections, waiting times or long-term care, every day seems to bring a new story about how our health service is struggling.
Of course, when you consider the great changes of the past 60 years, it is remarkable how the NHS has met the health needs of the nation, and done so in a very cost-effective way. However, that does not mean that this will continue in future. Just this week, we saw how health and social care funding faces three major pressures. Just 24 councils now offer adult care for those with moderate needs, and national eligibility standards will restrict this further. The cost of long-term care will expand significantly, with Ministers this week telling the insurance industry that it must fill the gap left by their proposed cap. Finally, as we heard this morning, NHS England faces a £30 billion shortfall by 2020, with the NHS director for patients saying:
“We are about to run out of cash in a very serious fashion”.
If I did that in my industry, I would be bankrupt.
Each of these tensions is a major challenge to the aim of a comprehensive, universal health and care system. So what can be done? The truth is that if we want good, comprehensive, universal care, we will have to find a way to pay for it. The obvious route is taxation, whether direct or in the form of a levy or giving tax benefits to private health insurance. Yet such new taxes will be hard to sell to the public. Why? Because while the NHS generally delivers good care for a reasonable cost, many patients feel that social care is of a low quality. Others have witnessed inefficiency and poor treatment in their local hospitals. They will not be content to see taxes go up simply to pay for more of the same. Of course, for more management consultants, not hospital consultants, that would be fantastic. So we must demonstrate how we will improve our care system, not just fund it.
To do so, we must develop new skills and structures for workers throughout the National Health Service. I have a personal interest, as my wife has been a midwife and a tutor. She knows first-hand how better and up-to-date training and career development for those on the front line can transform patient care. However, many of our health career structures and much of our training still seem stuck in the 19th century. From care assistants to consultants, from matrons to health technologists, we need to rethink career development in the health service totally. Even our definition of what a doctor is will have to change in the future.
One reason we need to change how we develop our people is that technology is radically shifting how patient needs are identified and treated, as the noble Lord just mentioned, in everything from social care to heart transplants. To take just one example, the Scripps Research Institute is developing embedded sensors in the bloodstream to alert users if they are at increased risk of heart attacks. Such advances create new treatment routes for those seeking better health, which means that new ways of offering care will be needed, such as advising people at risk on how to improve their health, and monitoring their progress. Is that a role for a doctor or a nurse, or a new role entirely?
Technological changes also mean that individuals will seek greater control over their care. Therefore, despite the promises of consolidation of services, there will be more demands, so although the service improves, the savings will not automatically follow. Yes, we should expand personal budgets so that people in continuing care can choose their care packages. But we should go further, removing the divide between health commissioning and social care to create whole person care. This will raise some fundamental issues about what is included in universal healthcare. Does it make sense that we offer little support to people who wish to maintain good health, but expect no contribution from people who visit their GPs 10 or 20 times? The answers to these questions will be controversial, but they must be found if we are to find an equitable, affordable way of meeting expanding expectations and increasing routes to access healthcare.
To address these challenges we need major innovation in people, technology and funding. That will be difficult and controversial. However, if we tackle them head-on, we will be as bold as a Butler in Education, a Beveridge in welfare or a Bevan on the NHS. That is an ambition well worth fighting for.
Lord Rix
My Lords, as president of Mencap, I wish to focus on social care and the importance of a well funded system for disabled people. Indeed, one in three social care recipients is a working age disabled adult. Social care is of critical importance for around 143,000 people with a working disability who receive one or more of the social care services in England.
Spending on social care services for people with a learning disability represents 25% of gross expenditure on social care services by local authorities. Let me put this in perspective by talking about Laura, who is 25, and has a learning disability and autism. Social care plays a vital role in her life as an active and valued member of the community. This would not be possible without her personal budget. She uses some of the money to pay for transport to get to her places of work and she uses the rest to take part in activities that build her skills and confidence. Laura is a committee member of Worcestershire self-advocacy group, SpeakEasy NOW. She attends a care farm three days a week, where she helps by looking after the animals and tending the kitchen garden. She studies art for a qualification and has passed London School of Music exams. She also works as an ambassador to a multisensory centre for people with more complex learning disabilities and volunteers as a steward at the Swan Theatre in Worcester. With the right care and support, Laura is making a significant contribution to her local community. She, too, benefits personally, as do many others around her. The support of a loving family has been crucial to Laura, but none of her achievements would have been possible without good social care.
In May, the charities Mencap, the National Autistic Society, Scope, Sense and Leonard Cheshire launched the report, Ending the Other Care Crisis: Making the Case for Investment in Preventative Care and Support for Disabled Adults. It showed that currently 40% of disabled people are failing to have their basic care needs met and the system is underfunded to the tune of £1.2 billion.
The underfunding of social care has catastrophic consequences for individuals, especially people with learning disabilities who are often isolated and in many cases live on the very periphery of society. Well funded social care would lead to a more inclusive society and it would also save on the public purse. The charity’s report shows that every £1 spent on services generates benefits for people and carers, as well as local and central government, worth an average of £1.30. These economic benefits come from preventing people’s needs escalating and having to rely on more costly public services.
It should of course be recognised that the Government have committed further funding for social care through the recent spending review and that is to be welcomed. However, there is significant concern in the sector that the new national eligibility threshold to be set in the Care Bill will simply be too high to bring benefits for many disabled people. The Care Bill and accompanying regulations, as well as present-day actions by many local authorities, suggest that this national threshold will be set at a level equivalent to substantial, as in the current system. That would spell disaster for thousands of disabled people who will be denied the care that they need to maintain their well-being and their independence.
A year ago, Mencap published Stuck at Home, which found that one in four people with a learning disability spent less than one hour outside their home per day. Without adequate funding to enable people to get out and be valued members of their community, I fear this shocking figure will rise.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whose work for Mencap is widely admired throughout this country and beyond. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, not only on securing this debate at such a propitious time—the 60th anniversary of the National Health Service and the date on which we have been given this extraordinary wake-up call about the £30 billion or more—but on the way in which he introduced the debate in his very wide-ranging and wise speech.
For many years, I have never talked to any person in the health service—clinician, administrator or anyone in a position of seniority—who has not agreed with my contention that we need a plurality of funding in the National Health Service. In the same period, I have never met a single Secretary of State or Minister who has been prepared—I am talking about both parties—to face up to the reality of the challenge. The National Health Service has been regarded for far too long by far too many as a sacred cow whose basic principle of free care at the point of need is never open to challenge, yet a number of speeches in this remarkable debate have shown that it should be challenged. No one did that with more feisty determination than my friend—I deliberately call her my friend—the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, in a quite remarkable and splendid speech. I would take it a little further than my noble friend Lady Boothroyd did: I believe that the time has come to recognise that, with enormous advances in medical science and with increased longevity, we cannot work to a formula that was devised more than 65 years ago. It is just unsustainable.
When I was first elected to another place, no one had had a heart transplant. This morning, we heard of a Member of your Lordships’ House who had a heart transplant 25 years ago. In 1970, I had no constituents who had artificial hips or knees. When I stepped down from the other place, I sometimes thought that every Conservative gathering that I attended was bionic because they all had them. One has to recognise that and in so doing one has to recognise that the money has to come from somewhere but not just from taxation. We have to look at things that we have not been prepared to look at before: proper charges for people who are in full-time work when they see the doctor, which could do something for absentee rates as well; and bed charges for hospitals, which might increase the dignity of a hospital stay.
A couple of years ago, my wife and I went to a hospital to visit a dying friend, a clergyman. He lay in his bed in rather a dingy ward, although it was not a bad hospital. There was a flimsy curtain around the bed and in ill written capitals above his head was his Christian name. I will not name the hospital or the man, of course, but to me that was indicative and symbolic of what we have to put up with sometimes. Do not forget that I represented a constituency in Staffordshire but I will not dilate on that.
We need a truly world-class service. In many respects we have that but countries such as France and Finland have a plurality of funding, which we do not have but which we must recognise that we need. I would like to support very strongly the plea made by my noble friend Lord McColl—I say to him that I am dieting—for some form of cross-party commission, committee or group. This House is uniquely placed to provide such a group as we have some of the most eminent medical people in the world here; we have people with long experience of administration and politics. If it cannot be an official committee of the House—although I should like it to be one—it could be a cross-party group that would look, without any fear, at the various possibilities for answering the problem that was so graphically underlined on the news this morning.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, this debate is extremely timely and I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing it so well and on stealing some of my best lines. It is hard to get away from the fact that we are in for a rather prolonged period of constraint on public spending that will inevitably impact on funding for health and social care. It cannot be denied that we are falling behind as inflation in medical care runs ahead of general inflation.
There is a commonly held assumption that the NHS is a bottomless pit but that is just too simplistic. During the years of relative plenty, when the Labour Government dramatically increased funding, we saw a remarkable improvement in care: waiting lists virtually disappeared; GPs could be seen on the same day in most places; waits in A&E departments came down; patient satisfaction levels rose; and productivity, despite views to the contrary, rose too. The number of operations and other procedures rose by 50% during the decade starting in 2000 and hospital lengths of stay fell by 27% from an average of 10.5 days to 7.7 days. So money did talk but now, as we deal with the Nicholson challenge, we are failing to keep up. We are seeing a rise in waiting lists and a fall in staff numbers. The pips are squeaking and we are beginning to see a fall in standards.
So how do we fill this funding gap? The Wanless report of a few years ago suggested that we would need to find 10.6% of our GDP by 2021, while John Appleby, in his report for the Nuffield Trust, suggested that in 50 years’ time we would need to put 20% of our GDP into the NHS. Fifty-year predictions are just a little fraught but he said it would be affordable—that is an important point—if our total GDP increased threefold, illustrating the point that the better off a country is, the bigger proportion of its GDP it can afford to put into healthcare. We have not been short of ideas about how we might fill the looming gap but few are free of problems. Doing nothing is clearly not an option as we will just see a steady deterioration in standards and quality with a public backlash, voter disillusionment and a change of government, whoever is in office.
That leaves us with three options: become more efficient, find more money or ration what we provide for patients. First, there are always efficiencies in a system as huge as the NHS but there are limits and we are pretty close to them now. So-called reconfiguration of hospitals is a popular idea at the moment. Close a few and the community services will pick up the bill for caring for the patients. I am all for focusing specialised services in a few places, as it certainly saves lives, but, unfortunately, it does not save money. I am all for closing small, inefficient hospitals and moving money into community services, but simply redistributing funds does not give us any gain.
I agree here with my noble friend Lord Filkin but, in the face of the enormous pressures building up, I really cannot see that even more efficiency savings are sustainable for very long. As regards finding more government money, I cannot see much prospect of that either, at least in the short to medium term. It would mean taking a bigger slice of the cake and leaving less for everything else, which would not be very popular. Only when we manage to increase our GDP and reduce our debt would we be able to consider taking a bigger slice of the cake. Then we could look at limiting what we provide in the NHS; that is, we could define a basic package of care but stop funding some types of treatments. Again, that is not likely to be very popular and defining which treatments should not be available in the NHS will always raise hackles. As a way of controlling costs it was found to be pretty ineffective in Oregon a few years ago.
Then there is the possibility of co-payments by patients—we have heard about that. We have already broached that principle in the UK, but experience elsewhere is not encouraging. When they tried it in Germany, they saw a rise in the number of patients who avoided visiting their doctors when they were ill or who failed to fill their prescription. The impact of charges for care will have to be examined very carefully if we are not to see a fall in the number of patients who need care but who avoid getting it for financial reasons.
At the end of the day, we will have to choose between a number of unappealing and potentially unpopular options, but one thing is absolutely clear: doing nothing is not one of those options. It is essential that we have a more open debate with the public about these possibilities. A cross-party discussion is desperately needed, as many noble Lords have said. We certainly cannot keep our heads down for much longer.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho
My Lords, perhaps like many here, I come at this subject from a very personal and a professional angle. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing this debate.
I shall speak, first, about the personal: my life was saved by the orthopaedic department in the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, so I owe my life to a well funded NHS. I am also someone who fervently believes in the power of technology to improve public services. It is only through their more effective deployment that we will continue to have a world-class healthcare system at a reasonable cost.
I am talking not about expensive NHS IT projects, top down and heavy, but about open standards, agile development, data and a more digitally minded healthcare sector. I would like to give some examples.
This era is often called the era of big data. We are able to aggregate information from a mass of different sources. The analysis of these data is changing the way in which we work and live. The Government have already encouraged the use of their own datasets, which are from many different sources.
However, we are only at the very beginning of this journey. A wonderful project which has come out of the Open Data Institute here in London illustrates why data are such an important part of this debate. In 2011-12, the NHS in England shelled out more than £400 million on statin drugs, from a total drug budget of £12.2 billion. However, in collaboration with Mastodon C, Open Health Care UK—a small start-up developed by a programmer and a doctor—managed to look at every prescription written for statins from every GP in England by using a dataset provided by the Open Data Institute. They looked at the regional patterns and discovered that, if doctors had prescribed the white label version, they would have saved more than £200 million. The variation is remarkable. Imagine the potential savings if this was applied across many other classes of drug.
As the Economist wrote recently:
“A study in the British Medical Journal … reckoned that the NHS could save more than £1 billion by switching from branded drugs to generic equivalents”.
Smart use of datasets will become essential in improving our healthcare, as long as the interoperability of systems is put at the heart of those improvements.
As 80% of the NHS costs come from the 20% of the population with chronic conditions, it will be essential to focus resources on how to help them manage their lives more independently. There is a growing evidence base that shows that online tools can help in this. Mindfulnet, Big White Wall and buddyapp.co.uk are just some examples of websites that provide help to people with mental health issues, giving them confidential help and techniques that allow them to manage their own lives. NHS HealthUnlocked is a London-based start-up that works with patient groups and gives 1 million people monthly information to support long-term illnesses such as diabetes and obesity.
More than 70% of us look at our smartphones before we go to the doctor. Every day, millions of people are using health apps on their mobile phones, logging into websites or chatting in online forums. New technologies such as UP by Jawbone, or even Nike+ FuelBand, allow people to gather their own data and make better lifestyle choices. This is where I respectfully disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I believe that such technologies will help prevent health issues and drive down costs.
It is vital that the NHS is able to deliver services of the same quality as citizens find on the web, or we will be in danger of undermining one of our most valued public services. This will require a cultural change in the sector so that all the people working with patients are able to provide high-quality, relevant and modern care and to connect with the innovative solutions being provided outside the NHS.
While I spent two years in hospital, I met some of the most remarkable people— from surgeons to doctors and nurses to healthcare assistants—but, even then, there was a huge gap between what they were able to do and what was happening in the commercial sector. We must ensure that all staff are digitally literate and that the internet is at the very heart of the design of services, surgeries and hospitals. On this the 65th anniversary of the NHS—surely one of the greatest innovations of our country—it is essential that we incorporate another of our greatest innovations, the world wide web, otherwise we will have no hope of meeting future funding challenges.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, as we know, social care, health and social security expenditure is being driven by the growing number of the elderly. It accounts for two-thirds—£110 billion—of our welfare budget. As local authorities face 50% cuts, we are none the less going to need 65% more hours of care from the same number of working-age people in the next 15 years.
People talk airily about the extra life expectancy since Beveridge’s time—it was then five years after retirement; it is more than 20 years now. They argue that there should be a fixed proportion of adult life for retirement—let us say 30%—and that the pension age should rise accordingly, saving some £15 billion a year. However, the health and social care statistics should give us pause for thought. Those extra years are not enjoyed as years of good health but are years of chronic disability. At 65, we may enjoy a decade of good health, followed by a decade of growing but chronic disability, such as arthritis and diabetes, impairing our ability to walk, to reach, to see and to hear. Finally, there are perhaps two to five years—this has not changed much—of conditions involving heavy dependency, including Alzheimer’s, with substantial personal care needs.
The years of extra life, therefore, are largely extra years of chronic disability, but it is heavily class-specific. The better-off will live longer in good health—and they include those commentators who seek to encourage the raising of the state pension age—but for everyone else, those extra years of life will be added to the years of chronic disability. In my city, in two wards that are one mile apart, there is 11 years’ difference in life expectancy and 15 years’ difference in healthy-life expectancy. The gap is widening. It is deeply unfair to raise the state pension age and reduce the good years of retirement for most of the population.
I doubt that we can significantly extend the decade of healthy-life retirement for most people, but we can make the next decade, of disability, qualitatively better. What must we do? Measures include adapted housing and equity release—only £0.5 billion of the £2 trillion locked away in property of the over-55s is being released each year. Decent state pensions under the new Pensions Bill will provide funding for heating, food and mobility. We also need to fund social care adequately and intervene early.
Can we afford it? We spend £62 billion a year on the state pension and more than £40 billion on pensions tax relief—a shadow welfare state for the well-to-do. It is outrageous really. We have three ages of man—work, early good-health retirement and later disabled retirement. We need to smooth income not just from work to retirement, as we do, but between early retirement and later retirement as well, which we do not do.
Standard tax rate relief on pensions and/or treating pensions like ISAs would release £7 billion or £8 billion a year. If that money was then ring-fenced for later-life social care, redistributing it not only from work to retirement but from younger, healthier, wealthier pensioners to the older and frailer among us, I think that it would command support. Raising the cap on employees’ national insurance, now frozen at the higher rate, would raise a further £11 billion.
There is money; it is about our political choices and our priorities. With a sufficient state pension which is coming, with the redistribution of money from pensions into social care, with the adaption of our homes for safer living, partly funded from equity release, and with a more courageous attitude to integrating hospital, primary and social care, we can cope. Half of the growth of the older old is indeed due to increased longevity, but half is due to the post-war baby boom. In a decade or so we shall be through that baby boom and in a better worker-pensioner support ratio than almost all other European countries—until the next baby boom, that is, which has just begun, but that is a problem for the 2070s and our great-grandchildren.
Lord Crisp
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. In fact, there have been many excellent speeches and, as a result, I have completely rewritten what I was going to say. I declare an interest as a former chief executive of the NHS and I have many non-commercial health interests, mainly abroad.
The core issue here is that we have an NHS designed and created in the previous century that is trying to deal with the problems of this century. We have an NHS that is focused on illness not prevention, that separates GPs and primary care, that is designed to treat episodic illnesses—heart attacks, infections and cancers that are not chronic diseases—and we need a different sort of health service. We need a massive change in the way that it is delivered, using technology, using staff differently and changing the infrastructure. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that that is a major change, and that it is the fundamental change that needs to be done, but we can make a start on it. It is important that we have a clear vision of what we want our health and social care system to look like in the future. This debate is not just about funding. Using the wrong model to deal with today’s problems is a recipe for inefficiency. We are not alone. Every developed country has the same issue. If we look across the Channel at, for example, France and Germany—which, incidentally, spend 20% and 25% more than we do—according to the United States Commonwealth Fund, they are less efficient in how they do it than we are. So this is a common problem. It is a big problem but we can make a start on it.
There are no simple solutions but let me mention two possible ones. First, the most interesting study on waste in health systems comes from the United States. It is estimated that 30% to 40% of expenditure in the health system in the United States is waste. The biggest reason for that is not overtreatment and the sort of things you would expect in America; it is a failure to co-ordinate care. It is somebody with multiple problems having to go to one doctor for this problem and to another doctor for that one. It is a failure to co-ordinate that and having repeated inputs into the system. It is also not getting the treatment right first time. Those are the biggest impacts on waste. I suggest to the Department of Health that it might wish to use the same methodology to look at waste within the United Kingdom because I think we will see a lot of similarities.
Paradoxically, we need to focus on quality in order to manage costs. As people working in industry will know, this is the way to do it. The Japanese guru, Kano, talks about three levels of quality. The first level of quality is doing it right first time—actually doing what is needed to deal with the problem, making sure that if you are in hospital that the X-ray or whatever is needed is done in time so that you do not have to spend the rest of the following week there as well. The second level of quality is doing the same thing but with cheaper inputs. The obvious question in the NHS is: to what extent can things that are done today by doctors and people working expensively be done by other people within the system? And the third level of quality is adding something. It is only that third level of quality that adds cost; the first two save cost. We see it across industry and in the best examples in the UK. Many people in the NHS know this and there are many isolated examples. This could be the really big push that I believe is needed to tackle many of these issues.
The second area, which I have touched on, is staffing. Reducing the drug budget by 10% saves 1% of the NHS budget; reducing staffing by 10% saves 6% or 7% of the NHS budget. We need to be much bolder and braver in thinking about who does what within the NHS, particularly when we are aware that new technology allows things to be done. We know how we can do that well. There is plenty of evidence of task-shifting or substitution, using people who are less trained and skilled but properly supervised to do things, not least from the All-Party Group on Global Health which I chair and which published a report looking at this worldwide and demonstrating how this could be done.
So those are two areas where I believe there is a great deal more that we should be doing. Before we get too radical about trying to change the financing system, we should be focusing on changing the NHS. In conclusion, this debate needs to be about the NHS and the social care system we need. There are no simple answers but there are many promising leads. Political, NHS and social care leaders need to do much more to lead and to win the arguments about the future with a sceptical public. There is at the moment, I believe, no clearly articulated vision from either Front Bench. We need one if the NHS and social care are going to continue to serve the UK population effectively in the 21st century.
Lord Desai
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Patel for initiating this debate. We have heard many innovative speeches already. I think I am the only professional economist speaking in this debate so I had better stick to economics.
First, all projections for 10 years’ time should be ignored. If you predicted backwards, you would find that you were spending negative sums of money 30 years ago. NHS growth has been very uneven. The NHS grew from 3.5% of GDP to 4.5% over 30 years and then from 4.5% to 9% in 20 years, the fastest growth being since 1997. We have been accelerating growth and we did that because of the determination of the Labour Government to increase the proportion of GDP spent on health. There was a target and that target was achieved. GDP growth was good at that time. GDP growth will not resume at anything like the level we had up to 2007. We will have much slower GDP growth with much more attention paid to reducing the size of the state’s share in total spending. We spend up to 48% now and we are going to reduce that to 44% by 2017, but once upon a time we spent only 36%. We will have to reduce it to something like that, and within that smaller share we will have to find money for the NHS. Productivity will have to grow. I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Turnberg. Productivity did not grow between 1997 and 2010. As the King’s Fund report shows, it fell by minus 0.2% per year. Between 2011 and 2015, it will grow by 5%. That is not my number; it is the King’s Fund’s number.
What is to be done? The first thing has to do with universality, which is one characteristic. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, was quite right. How do we ration this to only people who are entitled? When I arrived in 1965 I was given a card by the NHS with my number on it and I was told I had to show it. Nobody has ever asked me for the card. Why can we not have that very simple thing? The Labour Party abandoned the idea of an identity card. It would be very simple to have our NHS number, which exists somewhere in the ether, and to be asked to show it whenever we go to the doctor. That would sort out the tourists from the citizens. That is one thing.
Secondly, we have to make people aware of what they are getting. My biggest worry about the NHS is that people are not aware of how much they are costing the organisation. If we are spending, say, £2,000 per capita, give everyone something like an airline loyalty card containing 2,000 points and say, “These are your points for this year”. Every time you used the NHS, you would be shown how many points had been deducted. If you missed a GP appointment, it would cost you twice as much as going to that appointment. No one would need to pay anything, but this would make people aware that there are costs for what they do. As people in middle age typically will not need treatment, they would accumulate points over a lifetime so that they could finally spend those points when they needed them. You could have a lifetime budget of shadow points. This would be very good for people. Since I do not have much more time to speak, I think I can sit down.
Lord Owen
My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, one of the strengths of what was initially introduced as an internal market was that it would be able to show people the costs of healthcare in a far more systematic way than hitherto. In my view, it is a tragedy that the internal market has been changed into an external market, and we have lost the growing acceptance of people in explaining—particularly doctors and those who make financial decisions in the health service—what it costs.
I come to the main subject of the debate, the future funding of health, and the very objective and fair explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, of the various options. I have no doubt where I come out: I agree with the Wanless committee, which looked at this in some detail. It is still worth reminding ourselves of some of his report’s words:
“Out-of-pocket payments for higher levels of non-clinical services may provide one means of meeting demands for greater choice and responsiveness … The key conclusion to this Review, however, is that the current method by which healthcare is financed through general taxation is both a fair and efficient one from a macroeconomic point of view”.
I stress another fact: very unusually, we have had a social experiment in paying for the National Health Service. When the previous Labour Government substantially increased health expenditure, which was a very good decision, they paid for it by increasing the national insurance contribution. Far from being unpopular, that was an extremely popular decision.
With that experience, we have to take the next step, which is to break down the Treasury’s reluctance to earmark taxation and have on everyone’s tax form what is spent on the National Health Service out of their taxation contribution. They can break it down further into what comes straight from tax and what comes from national insurance. Most people in this country have felt for many decades that their national insurance contribution pays for the National Health Service. Many people are arguing for a greater contributory element in our social financing. The NHS provides a wonderful vehicle for that; it is popular and people are prepared to contribute more. If we had earmarked taxes on our tax forms and if we then raised national insurance contributions, all that would be seen for what it was on the tax form. In my view, that would gradually shift the national insurance contribution and it would be seen to be the mechanism of funding, but you would still need a taxation top-up.
That is my practical suggestion, and it could be done initially to simply explain the overall cost of the National Health Service that you yourself are contributing. If that was open and earmarked, and people felt that that money was going to the National Health Service, there would be much greater acceptance. The big macroeconomic factor in this climate is not ageing, which I will come on to in a moment, but the fact that we are very likely to have a sustained period of much lower growth than we have had over the past 20 or 30 years.
On the question of ageing, the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was very strong. My warning, particularly to those working on the Lords Committee reports on ageing, is that this is a much more complex issue. All the evidence so far that an ageing society has this great cost claim on the NHS was rejected in 1999 by the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly, the Sutherland commission, and three years later the Wanless report concluded that:
“Across all scenarios, the contribution of demographic change to future costs is relatively modest”.
Similar findings have been reported in the USA, Canada and Australia. There is also the supreme irony of regarding increased longevity as a problem when it is one of the great prizes of economic growth.
We should be careful in this whole area and have a little more history. My generation of doctors in the 1960s was faced with men of 50 dying a long, racking death because they had smoked, or in some cases because they had industrial diseases like pneumoconiosis or asbestosis. That is now very rarely seen because of the massive public health contribution of people giving up smoking.
That longevity has brought about a different type of death, too, and we should face that. The warning on that came from obesity. I have no more time to go on to that issue, but every word of the statement by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is vital in order to realise that this is a new public health scandal. Alcoholism and binge drinking among young people are also a problem. In 20 or 30 years we will pay a very heavy price for this, and we have to start doing something and spending money to stop it now.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to be able to take part in this debate. I am a consumer, more so than those who have made speeches today who have impressed me with their foresight, warnings and good sense, and I am deeply grateful.
I rise today to refer to an incident. An 88 year-old man who was partially disabled and partly immobile fell in his kitchen, and rang 999. That was at 5.30, but an hour later there was no sign so he rang again. At 7.30 he rang yet again and received no assistance. This old man then rang a care line that he subscribed to locally, and within the hour two ambulance men came along and looked after him.
That old man was me. I lay on the floor of my kitchen for three hours until assistance came. Although I was not badly injured, I just could not get up from the floor and I needed assistance. When the ambulance men came, they looked after me. They were superb and kind, so I thought to myself, “Well now, this is what it’s all about”.
My family have had great access to the National Health Service all their lives. I pay tribute through the Minister to what that service is and does. Of course the problems that have to be solved have been laid before him. Not many of them will be new, but he will be well aware, first, that the House holds him in high regard and, secondly, that he does what he can. What he did when I wrote to him was to tell me that he was not the person responsible for the ambulance service and that there was a different arrangement, which I did not know about, for which I apologise. He told me that I needed to write to the East of England Ambulance Service in the NHS, which I did. The Minister may or may not be aware of this—I am not trying to tie him down—but when he asked me to write to this organisation, I did. I was told that their procedure allowed 25 working days for a response. They guaranteed that I would get some response. I have counted 49 days since the date of the letter. I have had no action from them.
It is little things like that which spoil the image of the National Health Service. During the war, I lay on a hillside with gunshot wounds and my life was saved. Ever since, especially as my health has deteriorated of late, I have been grateful for the service that I have got. Does the Minister recognise that all I ever wanted was an explanation for why I had to lie on the floor for three hours? The answer is simple: resources. That is in the title of the debate today.
I express deep gratitude for all that I and my family have received, but I was particularly taken by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that now is the time to reassess what the health service is and how we proceed. That was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, whom I have known for a very long time. I can also see, sitting in her place, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who stood on a platform with me 61 years ago—
Lord Graham of Edmonton
Sixty-one years ago. I may have just given away the age of the noble Baroness. Well, the noble Baroness is just younger than me and I am now 88 years old, so I have not given it away too much.
Lord Newby
My Lords, before the noble Lord embarrasses the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, further—
Lord Newby
I remind the noble Lord that there is a time limit of five minutes on the speeches.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
I have watched a number of five minutes’ being put up for the past hour, but no one has said anything to me. Thank you very much.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow such a powerful and moving personal testimony from the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing this very timely debate. Why do I say timely? As so many other noble Lords have said today, it is an opportunity to look at some of the underlying causes of the escalating costs of healthcare and what can be done about it. The National Audit Office recently released figures showing that 30% of all non-emergency hospital admissions are avoidable. With resource inefficiency such as that alongside the pressures from our ageing population, technological advances in healthcare and increasing public expectations of the system—we have heard so much about these today—it is clear to me that standing still and having more of the same is not an option, particularly in a prolonged era of less public money.
I speak today particularly as a member of the Select Committee on Public Service and Demographic Change, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who has already spoken very eloquently. The Committee’s report, Ready for Ageing?, put considerable emphasis on the need for major redesign of the way the health and social care system is funded and delivered. I say respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that that committee made much of the very important contribution that older people make both to society and to the economy.
We have already heard some alarming figures in today’s debate. I will not repeat them but I refer to the Nuffield Trust’s prediction of the budget shortfall by 2021 if nothing happens, and the fact that 70% of current spending goes on people with long-term conditions. I want to focus my remarks on the ways in which the existing £120 billion budget could be better spent, fully recognising that this is only part of a much wider debate. The Select Committee received overwhelming evidence that a radically new system was needed with a funding model designed to ensure that health and social care funding is aligned so that it incentivises preventative care, early diagnosis and intervention, and active management of long-term conditions, thereby avoiding worsening health and the unnecessary use of acute hospital stays—with the home, in essence, becoming the hub of care.
The committee concluded that a remarkable shift in NHS services was needed, particularly to have older people with long-term conditions receiving good joined-up primary care, community care, social care and effective out-of-hours services; that is, a health and social care system that works well 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. I think we would all agree that we do not see that at the moment. This would be designed to shift funding from acute and emergency services, which currently consume more than half of the NHS’s budget, and allow for more investment in community and social care.
Welcome moves are already being made by the Government to ensure more integrated and co-ordinated care as part of the NHS mandate refresh. These are clearly steps in the right direction. Much more radical thinking, however, will be required. I urge the Government, and indeed politicians across all parties, to consider more fundamental changes in the run-up to the next election. One such change I would put forward—as the Select Committee did—was that there should be serious long-term strategic planning which can look 10 years ahead, with the Government introducing a 10-year spending envelope for NHS and publicly-funded social care.
I do not for one moment envisage that this will be an easy sell to the British people, who understandably fear changes to the local hospital arrangements on which they rely. However, it is a conversation in which we, as parliamentarians, need to engage with the public openly and honestly, as many noble Lords have said today. I, too, was very interested in the recent findings of the King’s Fund and Ipsos MORI deliberative event, which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred to at the beginning. It is very interesting to see how little appetite there was for the charging of clinically necessary care. When the former Health Minister, my honourable friend Paul Burstow, was looking at ways in which we could use more widely the resources that we and the wider community have, he put it very succinctly. He wrote that:
“Our current systems are predicated on perverse incentives: people have to prove dependence and refuse informal help to qualify for services. We need to work with the strengths of people and communities to foster resilience, reciprocity and support self-care”.
He also wrote that:
“The future of our care system lies in preventing or postponing people from needing care in the first place”.
Pooling health and social care budgets is one way to achieve this sort of prevention, along with person-centred commissioning and a single point of care for all commissioning.
There are other areas we could focus on—as the King’s Fund has recently indicated—where there is real potential to transform health and social care. I shall mention just one, as time is running out, but they include that of embracing more joined-up procurement so that the vast collective purchasing power of the NHS can be used far more effectively to keep costs down.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Patel for the way in which he introduced this debate and other noble Lords for their very valuable contributions. Like my noble friend Lord Crisp, I have had to change what I was going to say in terms of the range of things. I declare an interest in that I am a nurse by background, a long-retired nurse who had 60 years’ experience, in one way or another, connected with the NHS. It is true to say that there is evidence of brilliant care being given within the NHS and social care. However, there are also many deficits.
We have talked about a seamless service. Is there a seamless service today? A model needs to be developed from the previous Government’s introduction of the patient pathways. I hope that we will not forget that patient pathways are the most cost-effective and care-effective way of treating people in the future. However, we need to think about prevention being better than cure, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. Public health is defined as the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organised efforts and informed choices of society, public and private organisations, communities and individuals. This requires a change in the culture of the population served to a health and well-being approach to life and a personal commitment to living a healthy lifestyle from birth to the grave. This picks up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl.
Changing the culture of the NHS is an even more important issue. The prime focus must be on the principle that all aspects of public health are centred on the personal pathways of the population and the provision of health and social care given through those pathways to a healthy population. Changes must be made to the culture of the delivery of health and social care towards those who live independently, supported where necessary by expert professional teams that are educated in the delivery of holistic care to meet mental, physical and emotional needs within the community. Hospitals should be required only for the diagnostics, treatment and research that cannot be delivered in the community. To make all these changes, outstanding leadership skills are required. This can be achieved only by an open and honest approach to the population which helps them to understand that to live longer, healthier lives, changes have to be applied through a much more active and aggressive approach to the prevention of disease and the promotion of health. These changes must be assisted and supported by expert clinicians from all health and social care professions who utilise the good of what is in place while identifying the large gaps that exist. They must make those good not only by correcting the education and training of the workforce but by engaging the assistance of families and communities.
The education and training needs of the NHS social care workforce need to be radically examined to ensure that the overarching focus of care delivery in this country is public health-supported by the treatment of disease. This strategy requires a refocusing of the distribution of funding towards these aims. Florence Nightingale once said that hospital beds should be reduced in London. Perhaps we should look at the way in which our hospital beds are used and ensure that hospital services are cost-effective and care-effective within the framework of the patient pathways determined by the health and social care teams. This should be done to support patient pathways in a seamless way from diagnosis through to treatment. In turn, we must utilise the support of families and communities towards the future health and well-being of the individual on discharge to the community, where high-class care is delivered by professional health and social care teams, families and communities.
I hope that the Minister will be able to look at the point raised about the need for a cross-party multiprofessional group. However, I stress that it needs to be multiprofessional.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I declare an interest as president-elect of GS1 UK, as chair of an NHS foundation trust and as a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections.
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his opening remarks, but also for allowing us to debate one of the key social issues that we will face over the next few years. I warm to the noble Lord’s optimism, although there is no doubt that the NHS is in the midst of an unprecedented financial challenge. The supply of funding is not keeping pace with the growing rate of demand for healthcare. More people need care and they want it to be better than it has been before, but we know that growing pressures on finance could impact on the quality and experience of patient care. As Sir David Nicholson said today, hospitals are staring down the barrel of having to cut doctors and nurses from their employment, actions that could lead to another Mid-Staffordshire scandal unless the NHS radically reforms. I know that my noble friend Lord Desai warns us, I suspect with good cause, to be wary of long-term financial projections. However, there seems to be a general consensus around the work of the Nuffield Trust, which says that cost pressures on the NHS are likely to grow by around 4% a year up to 2021-22 due to the growing demand for healthcare to meet the needs of a population that is ageing, growing in size and experiencing more chronic disease.
We also need to factor in the impact of social care. There is no doubt, looking at public sector finances, that local authorities have borne the heavy brunt of the reductions. As adult social care is the largest part of discretionary spend within local government, it has inevitably been affected. A&E services were under the cosh this last winter. There can be no doubt that one of the main reasons for this was a reduction in social care provision and in the additional burden that our carers have had to face because of the reduction in support services available to them. Sir David Nicholson’s response was to call for a dramatic reconfiguration of services, including the centralisation of specialist services. I should like to put that point to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Will Ministers support radical reconfiguration of services? So far, we have seen little sign of that occurring. Will the Minister also ensure that clinical commissioning groups get on with approving radical changes instead of, as seems to be the case at the moment, resisting big change and being protective towards local services?
On that reconfiguration of services, I want to ask the Minister about today’s decision of the Competition Commission to reject the proposed merger of two hospital trusts in Dorset. That must be the most ridiculous decision that has ever been taken in relation to the necessary reconfiguration of services. His right honourable friend the Secretary of State has spent his time in office going around attacking the NHS. It would be nice to think that the Secretary of State might issue a mite of criticism of the Competition Commission for what it has done. The signal this will give to the health service is that reconfiguration of services will not be allowed because of the Competition Commission’s ludicrous intervention. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say something positive about what Ministers will do to stop the Competition Commission doing this in the future. It will be impossible for services to be reconfigured if in Dorset, a small county, two small district general hospitals are prevented from merging. This is very serious indeed.
Is it all doom and gloom? Will the NHS descend into mediocrity and inevitably become a second-rate service for poorer people? Will charges be introduced, with all the costs and perverse incentives to which my noble friend Lord Turnberg referred? I hope not. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I am more optimistic than some noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Graham, in his marvellous speech, will also recall, as I do, the beloved and late Lord Donald Bruce, who was Nye Bevan’s PPS. He sat just behind the noble Earl when Nye Bevan introduced the NHS Act 1946, when the Commons was using the Lords as its Chamber. Nye Bevan always said that the NHS will always be with us as long as people want it so. It is my contention that whatever the pressures and challenges we face, the British public want it to continue with us.
Of course, it is clear that muddling through is unlikely to be feasible, and spending more will always have to be an option. My noble friend Lady Hollis made a very powerful case for redistributing priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, argued for earmarked taxation. Some noble Lords have argued that higher spending on health and social care should not be seen solely as a debt or a burden but as an improvement and an investment in the economy and the economic and health well-being of people’s lives. I have no doubt that the public will continue to expect the NHS to be a tax-funded system free at the point of need. However, public finances will remain tight.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, doubted the efficiency achievement of the NHS in the absence of a market. All international evidence suggests that the more marketised a health system is, the more wasteful it is. My grounds for optimism are based on international comparisons. The Commonwealth Fund in the US, which is a very authoritative comparator of healthcare systems, ranks the NHS number two. It ranks it number one for effective care and for efficiency. We should not throw that away. Despite all the challenges, the NHS has a lot going for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, could have made his speech in every decade going back to the 1950s—perhaps he did make that speech in the 1950s. The Guillebaud Committee was set up in the early 1950s when debates took place about whether we could afford the NHS. Professor Bryan Thwaites in the 1980s came out with speeches that the NHS was unaffordable. Here we are, 30 years on from that, still debating this issue.
If the NHS is to survive of course it has to be more efficient and there are three areas where I suggest efficiencies. First, the Government at a stroke could stop the marketisation of the NHS. The amount of money that is going to have to be wasted in compulsory tendering of services is extraordinary—£3 billion has already been spent on the stupidest reorganisation the health service has ever gone through and much more money will be wasted in the future. Secondly, in central government there is heavily centralised procurement. I welcome that. The Government are not allowing individual government departments to procure separately. We should do the same for the health service. We cannot afford to have 500 different organisations procuring. Thirdly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about avoidable admissions, caused either by the public not turning up when they should do or turning up when other facilities should be on offer.
There is much to be gained. The shift to prevention offers much. The need to integrate health and social care is becoming broadly accepted everywhere. People need to shift from being passive consumers of care to active partners in their own health. The system needs to become much more open and transparent. Above all, I put my money on innovation. In this country we have fantastic scientists who are inventing new medical treatment and equipment day after day but we are very slow to use that in everyday practice. The academic health science networks, NHS England’s specialist commissioning facility and the assurance that NICE guidance is aggressively adopted would give us a foundation for an efficient health service where innovation is adopted quickly and the benefits are seen not just in the quality of patient care but also because the global pharmaceutical industry will see that the NHS continues to be a strong place in which to invest in the future. We must want to get to where health and wealth run closely together. If we can do that, the future of the NHS is a good one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate. I am particularly grateful to him for presenting the House with the scale of the financial challenges that face our health and care services. Those challenges should not be underestimated and I very much welcome the opportunity to debate them.
Healthcare systems across the world are facing huge and very similar challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, quoted a number of sobering and inescapable statistics. Our population is ageing. The number of people aged over 65 in England is set to increase by 50% by 2030 and the number of over-85s is set to double. New treatments and technologies, while very welcome, often increase costs. Of particular importance, more people are living longer with long-term conditions. There are now 15 million people in England living with a long-term condition and that number is rising fast. By 2018, an estimated 2.9 million people will have more than two long-term conditions, up from 1.9 million in 2008.
More people need to be supported to manage their conditions well and this means, as my noble friend Lady Tyler and many noble Lords have identified, that the NHS and social care need to find ways of working more closely together. This includes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, reminded us, managing older people’s care proactively to help keep them out of hospital, as well as ensuring that the care and support people need is ready and waiting for them when they are ready to leave hospital, along the seamless pathways she talked about. It also means making sure that the NHS is there for us all in an emergency, as it should have been for the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
I want to outline the Government’s approach to the financial challenge set out in the recent spending round and then go into more detail on our proposals to bring about the radical change in the integration of health and care services. The spending round set out that the Government are continuing to protect health spending in 2015-16. We are setting up a £3.8 billion pooled health and social care budget to transform service delivery—to which I will return in a moment. We are providing better and more proactive care for the vulnerable elderly. We are introducing a new national minimum eligibility threshold to protect access to social care services—again a topic to which I will return—and we are beginning work on introducing the cap on the cost of care so that no one should have to sell their home to fund care later in life.
In addition to taking these radical steps to integrate health and care, we are making enormous strides towards an ever more efficient and comprehensive health service. We are pressing ahead with investing in technology to reduce clinical mistakes and to guarantee quality of care; investing in cancer services through two new proton beam therapy centres and investing in better mental health care. We are also working closely with partner departments across central government to fund capital projects worth almost £700 million.
Last month in the spending round the Government committed to protect spending on health through to 2015–16. In addition to already committing £12.7 billion of funding to 2014–15, we will be adding an extra £2.1 billion in 2015–16. All this investment will go towards delivering improving services and boosting integration. Although funding continues to rise, meeting rising demand represents a huge challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, was absolutely right. Greater efficiency is vital here and I am pleased to say the NHS is already delivering significant efficiencies. Thanks to the dedicated and hard-working NHS staff, the service delivered £5.8 billion of savings during 2011–12 and approximately £5.1 billion for 2012–13. This means that the NHS is on track to deliver up to £20 billion of efficiency savings by 2014–15.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke about the importance of funding social care. We are clear that they are right. In the 2010 spending review, we allocated an extra £7.2 billion from 2011 to 2015 to support social care services and we have committed another £0.5 billion since. We calculated that this would be enough to maintain services if councils achieved 3% efficiency which was an assumption in line with the projections of The King’s Fund, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. This included money transferred by the NHS to support social care services that benefit health.
One very important way in which to deliver efficiency is to create a genuinely joined-up service, correcting the failure to co-ordinate care that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, spoke about so well. With some of the biggest users of the NHS being those who also use social care services, we need to make fundamental reforms to the system to ensure better integration between services. In delivering these efficiencies to date, the NHS and social care have clearly made huge strides in working more closely together and getting more value from the public money that they receive. Too often, people still fall through the cracks. The changes announced in last month’s spending round represent a significant opportunity to do more; rather than continue simple transfers from the NHS to social care, the spending round announced a £3.8 billion pooled health and social care budget. This is a radical step forward in reducing the silos of separate local budgets and will be a powerful driver of local integration. The aim is that the pooled fund will be directed at activities that have a clear benefit across both the health and care systems, and it will be given only on the basis that services are commissioned jointly and seamlessly between the local NHS and local councils.
Health and well-being boards, as well as being the local hub for planning service provision, will play a significant role in spending pooled budgets. To access this funding, local partners will need to agree a collective plan for how it should be used, including distribution within the health and care system. Plans will cover how areas will protect social care services; achieve seven-day working in social care and health to support patients being discharged and prevent people being unnecessarily admitted at weekends, which is an abiding problem; ensure better data sharing between councils and the NHS, with a requirement for the NHS number to be used as a unique identifier; and ensure a joint approach to assessments and care and support planning. Some £1 billion of the money will be linked to outcomes achieved, with half being paid at the beginning of the year and the remainder in the second half of the financial year. There will be a strong element of local determination in setting these outcomes. Many local authorities and NHS partners are achieving much greater integration between health and care services, thereby improving care for people and optimising the use of resources. The new pooled budget will help to make this a reality across the country.
A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the wider picture and have referred in particular to the predictions by NHS England of a significant funding shortfall by 2020-21. I am not sure that it would be wise of me to ignore those predictions, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, sought to advocate. Clearly, we are experiencing the biggest financial challenge that the NHS has faced. Work to set the NHS on a sustainable footing in the long term has already started. I have mentioned that it is on track to deliver £20 billion of efficiency savings by April 2015, and that is a start—but more must follow. We are pleased that NHS England is undertaking this work to better understand and respond to the long-term challenge for the NHS, and has committed to the development of a 10-year strategy. I welcome the realistic tone of the document that it has just published. NHS England will lead that work to build on the gains and efficiency in the NHS in 2015-16 and beyond; its publication today is an important first step, and it is looking for genuine engagement and the kind of open debate called for by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, spoke about the acute difficulty with funding that faces us. We know that demographic change and more people living with long-term conditions, as well as the rising cost of drugs, will continue to put pressure on the NHS. So those demands are accepted by all, and we agree with NHS England that the NHS needs to transform the way in which it does things to become more efficient. It must be able to make the decisions that it thinks are in the best interests of patients, which is why we set up NHS England to work with local doctors, nurses, patients and the public about how their NHS works for them. The consultation on migrant and visitor access should elicit some important messages from the clinical community as well as the general public. I shall refer in a moment to what the noble Baroness said on that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, suggested that integration and prevention alone will not solve the funding problem. I agree with him that it is not the whole solution but it is an extremely important part of the solution, which is why we have taken the opportunity of creating the pooled fund that I have mentioned. But we are not relying on that alone; we are maintaining our commitment to protect the NHS budget, despite precarious public finances, and the QIPP programme is on track to deliver up to £20 billion of annual efficiency savings by 2014-15—and we will continue to drive efficiency beyond that.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, expressed doubt about moving services into the community and whether this would actually save money. I believe that it will and should save money; moving care into the community is not about doing the same things in another location—it is about managing conditions well to avoid the need for acute care. There are some good examples of where that has happened. Evidence from the four whole-place community budgets suggests that savings from integration could be very substantial. In their business cases, the pilots that we have run suggest that the net savings that could be achieved over five years are: Cheshire West and Chester; £26 million; Greater Manchester, £3.8 million; Triborough, £190 million; and Essex, £90 million. Those are significant figures by any standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, asked me whether the department or the NHS models future trends on demography and disease. We most certainly do. My department, the NHS and other health bodies model all those trends. We agree with NHS England that the NHS must continue to change if it is to get ahead of these trends and, indeed, influence them. As my noble friend Lord Ridley recognised, this can be done. We have made a good start in delivering efficiency savings, but it is important to take on board the fact that savings in the first two years have been reliant on reducing bureaucracy and having pay restraint, as well as making local improvements in operational efficiency. The NHS now needs to focus on the transformational change of services away from hospitals and into the community.
I shall come on to the issue now raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, around reconfiguration. Certainly, the Government support reconfiguration. The NHS has always had to respond to patients’ changing needs and expectations. As lifestyles, society, technology and medicine continue to change, the NHS needs to change as well. Both the Government and NHS England are clear that this will not mean cutting, charging for or privatising services. Local empowerment is the key here. It is not fruitful or wise to go for topdown redesign. Local empowerment is the key to allowing services to respond to the needs of local people. Decisions about the future design of services need to be made as part of an ongoing conversation between commissioners, providers, local authorities, and the communities they serve. Clinical quality and local need should be at the heart of those decisions. As the noble Lord knows, we have made it clear that we expect proposals for significant change to meet four tests. There should be strong public and patient engagement; the proposals should support choice for patients; there should be a clear clinical evidence base; and there should be support for proposals from clinical commissioners. We have encouraged necessary reconfiguration through the NHS mandate.
I, too, noted the decision by the Competition Commission today around the mergers in Dorset. All mergers of NHS organisations must be in the interests of patients. The Competition Commission has a specific role to play in this, and that is the legal position. We note the commission’s provisional findings, which will be discussed with the two foundation trusts and other interested parties before a final view is reached.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, spoke powerfully about the life sciences industry and how vital it is to the NHS—and, indeed, innovation more generally. We are absolutely committed to innovation and healthcare, both to deliver the best possible care to patients and as an important driver of economic growth. Innovation can also help to drive down costs. The healthcare and life sciences section of the Government’s plan for growth 2011 highlights that health research and innovation have a key role in the national economy as well as in improving health and care.
NHS England has an important leadership role, such as continuing to support the strategy for UK Life Sciences, and in spreading innovation throughout the NHS in line with their commitments in the innovation, health and wealth strategy.
In our current consultation on revisions to NHS England’s mandate, we propose updating its objectives on growth. The aim would be to help drive forward the Prime Minister’s initiative, announced in December last year, to sequence 100,000 whole genomes over the next three to five years by supporting its implementation and delivery and by preparing the NHS for the adoption of genomic technologies.
The noble Lord asked me what metrics would be applied to determine whether AHSNs are successful. I agree that there need to be robust and transparent outcome measures, and that is why there is a three-year academic evaluation commissioned jointly by the Department of Health and NHS England, which is currently out to tender. In addition, we are designing the five-year licence and building into it robust and vigorous outcome metrics, national baselines and locally appropriate lead indicators. That is due for completion by 1 September. However, all this will evolve over the five-year licence period.
My noble friend Lord Ridley said something unarguable: that the NHS needs to remove more inefficiencies. I completely agree with him and will draw attention to two specific examples: procurement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred and technology, which was spoken to so well by the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
On procurement, the NHS undoubtedly needs to look at every pound it spends to see whether it is giving value for money. Procurement spend accounts for around £14 billion of the NHS budget and we need to make sure that this money is being effectively spent. We will publish plans this summer to save up to £1 billion by 2015-16 through more efficient procurement.
On technology, I listened with care to the expert views of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. We are committed to a paperless NHS by 2018 to improve services and make real efficiency and productivity savings. Better use of technology will save time for doctors and nurses, improve patient safety and has the potential to save billions. External studies have estimated that cost savings of £4 billion can be achieved, but these figures are illustrative at the moment and are subject to further work and examination.
My noble friend Lord Cormack suggested that we had reached a time when we needed a plurality of funding for the NHS. I understand the arguments that he put forward but I should make it clear that the Government have no plans to introduce any additional charges for NHS services. The NHS constitution states clearly that NHS services should be free at the point of use, except where charges are expressly provided for in legislation. Any decision to introduce new charges would need to be sanctioned by Parliament.
The noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Bhattacharyya, spoke about social care eligibility and the national threshold. In line with the recommendations of the Dilnot commission, the Government are committed to introducing a national minimum eligibility threshold. This will ensure that everyone has a minimum entitlement to social care, wherever they live, but councils will be free to provide services beyond the minimum level and there is no sense in which we are asking councils to be less generous.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke about local authorities facing 50% cuts. I recognise that local government has faced tough constraints on budgets but I do not recognise the 50% figure. Over the past four years of the current spending review, local government spending was forecast to fall by 14% in real terms and DCLG has calculated that this will fall in 2015-16 by a further 2.3%. It was that context that led us to take the decision to make significant additional resources available from the health budget to social care.
I am afraid that time is now against me. I have much more to say, particularly to my noble friend Lord McColl, who raised the extremely important subject of obesity, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby on harnessing the voluntary sector to deliver more care, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on NHS charges for migrant and visitor access. However, I fear that I will have to address those points in a letter.
I hope that this debate has brought it home to all of us, as it has to me, that the challenges facing us in ensuring that we have a sustainable, high-quality NHS for tomorrow and the long term, will occupy us for some time. They are issues that the Government in no way seek to avoid in our stewardship—which we are privileged to have—of this precious and valued national asset, the health service.
Lord Patel
My Lords, first and foremost, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this stimulating and brilliant debate. I am not biased, but it has been one of the best debates this Chamber has ever had. Some really serious thought has been given to how we might avert the crisis that may be happening in the NHS. Kenneth Clarke said, surprisingly, that:
“Every Secretary of State for Health will find they are trying to walk up a downward-going escalator”.
Despite that, he continued to say that it would be sad,
“if we gave in to the siren voices saying that an NHS largely free at the point of use can’t last”.
The NHS will last and we just have to find the means of making sure that it does. There is an issue about the demand and supply side. We need to address the demand side, a point made by many noble Lords, as well as on other issues. I see that the lawyers are gathering, and if I do not give in to them, I fear my fate.
Legal Aid
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
That this House takes note of the effect of cuts in legal aid funding on the justice system in England and Wales.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I declare an interest as a regulator of the Bar, but not its representative. My remarks today are informed much more by my decades as an academic lawyer in the home of lost causes and a law reformer rather than by any concerns about barristers’ income.
What we are debating today is the health of one of the great pillars of our democracy and liberty; namely, our legal system and the way citizens may benefit from or challenge laws which, as this House knows well, are painstakingly established for the good of the community. Access to justice is every bit as vital to our societal health as access to health services. In an ideal and affluent world, the need to fund legal services would be seen to be as compelling as the NHS and as deserving of ring-fencing, albeit with controls to prevent malicious or frivolous use. Our courts are like the NHS but with a far older pedigree. Our justice system has been the admiration of the world and a model for emerging democracies elsewhere. This is the country that litigants come to, if they can afford it, to seek justice that they feel is denied to them at home. This is the country that sends judges and barristers overseas to help new countries establish a decent legal system. I need hardly point out, in this week of Middle East chaos, how crucial and yet how fragile the rule of law can be.
The regulatory objectives for the legal profession, such as consumer protection, the rule of law and a strong, diverse and independent legal profession, are a fundamental pillar of the Legal Services Act 2007 and the basis upon which successful regulation of the legal profession is measured. My overarching concern with the proposals set out in the Ministry of Justice consultation, Transforming Legal Aid, is that they will undermine these objectives to such an extent that regulators and lawyers will not be able to mitigate the risks that arise as a result. Moreover, since the LSA is primary legislation, I consider that the Ministry of Justice should not pursue a policy which either is, or risks being, inconsistent with it without full parliamentary debate. I ask the Minister to provide that opportunity by giving the House the chance to debate primary or other legislation before such profound changes are made.
It is commendable that the Lord Chancellor has listened to the representations made to him so far and has recognised that choice has to remain in the allocation of a lawyer to a person accused of a crime. So far, so good, but in the complex area covered by the paper, much remains to be challenged.
Our system of judicial review, which it is proposed will be cut back, enables every citizen to challenge officialdom. Even when the chances of a successful JR are low, the shadow of it creates a climate in which officials know that they must stay within the legal boundaries and observe human rights; otherwise, they will be brought to book. Any diminution of this, no matter how severe our national financial situation, must be treated with the utmost seriousness. That is because everything we do, especially in this House, is built on our centuries-old acceptance of a functioning rule of law that is there to defend and protect all of us. JR is like knowing that the policeman is on the beat somewhere—if only.
The recent peddling in the media of the notion of greedy lawyers and litigants drunk on public money obscures a fundamental principle of our system. I have heard the Minister characterise the professionals I regulate as “fat cats”. The reality is the perception that government can use cuts in legal aid to reinforce the application of unpopular policies by choking off challenge and redress. How are people going to be able to challenge medical negligence, housing problems and treatment in prison? The silence that will fall as the proposals are implemented will allow future Governments to say that problematic policies have in fact succeeded because they were not challenged—it will have become impossible to challenge them.
Of course the Government need to save money. Here we are talking about £220 million a year, although some say that the sum does not take account of recent falls in the outlay on legal aid. This sum pales when one thinks of, say, expenditure of taxpayers’ money on council credit cards and failed NHS IT systems, or Apple and Vodafone not paying tax. Shave a little off HS2, and we would have it, although the profession has in fact come up with other ways of saving money that would render unnecessary the Ministry of Justice proposals. It is not helpful to compare our legal aid expenditure with that of other countries because they have inquisitorial systems whereby the work equivalent to that carried out by our barristers is done by officials before the court hearing. Those costs have to be on the state balance sheet somewhere. They could be cut by putting more of the legwork of an offence trial on to other organs of the state. They could be cut by reducing the outflow of new criminal offences from the legislature. They could be cut by removing some children’s cases from the criminal system and shifting them elsewhere. The organisation Justice has calculated that releasing around 6,500 prisoners from custody every year would make up the necessary savings in the justice system. We need to take a holistic view of expenditure. We need to know whether the ministry has calculated the additional costs that would be incurred if its proposals were to be implemented, quite apart from the broader balance of social benefit and detriment. I am not convinced that the deep calculations, allowing for the slowing down of the legal system and more failed cases and appeals, have been carried out or revealed. The knock-on effects may well wipe out the savings.
Others will speak about children and mental health, but I hope that the Minister will bring forward a proper impact assessment of what the cuts will really save and what they will not save. There is a clear risk to the most vulnerable and even the middle class in society. A threshold of £37,000 per household is unsubtle and will lead to defendants not having equality of arms when representing themselves against the police and a barrister acting for the Crown on the other side. Nor is there provision in the proposals for vulnerable defendants who simply cannot cope on their own. What of the impact of cross-examination on his alleged victims by an accused acting in person, about which we read so much in the media? Prisoners are to lose legal aid in relation to what happens in prison. The consultation is possibly over-optimistic in stating that the prisons complaints system can replace legally aided advice for prisoners. I have heard estimates that the complaints system is as expensive, if not more so, as using a solicitor.
Women have been especially hard hit by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, known in the trade as LASPO, which commenced the restrictions in legal aid. This is the second bite of the cherry. The impact of that first Act has not yet been observed, although we know that there has been a 27% increase in disputed cases concerning children. Social welfare law and family law have become largely ineligible for aid. Some 57% of those affected are women, who bring 73% of the education cases and, a few years ago, formed 62% of the applicants for family legal aid. It pains me to say it, but women may be less able to represent themselves than men and lawyers in general. In sum, the interests of the public could be damaged in that there may not be competent representation, and the criminal justice system may fail to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent.
The big money saver, according to the consultation, will be the introduction of price-competitive tendering. Giving out contracts based on cost alone removes any incentive on the providers to exceed the minimum standards of service. Going for the cheapest ignores the reality that defence lawyers have to work with the individuals they represent; they have to work at weekends and be ready to deal, by definition, with the weakest members of society and cope with their wider problems—rather like the NHS, which we have just debated. Tendering for this legal work cannot be an accurate or exact measure because the length and complexity of cases are unknown. Currently, lawyers in the local community have experience and reputations that are known to the local police and courts. Mergers of small firms may destroy that, along with the availability of specialist skills, for example, in human trafficking or war crimes which are not to be found in the large new corporate pile-them-high and sell-them-cheap providers. The supermarkets and haulage companies who will hold themselves out to do this are unlikely to send the appropriate cases to barristers, thereby reducing the calibre of advocacy and future judicial material. Once they have secured the work and closed down the local firms, they will of course put up their prices.
I am particularly concerned about the tapered fee. We are all innocent until proven guilty and have the right to plead innocence and face trial. That is not inefficient; it is the rule of law. There must be no influences brought on a decision to plead guilty, such as a higher fee for the adviser or the inability of a solicitor to conduct a trial if the client were to plead innocent. The client, even now, should be inquiring of his or her representative as to whether that representative has any interest in an early guilty plea.
It is irrational to propose, as the MoJ has done, to reduce fees on a daily basis if the trial is a long one. The number of witnesses may be necessary, the jury may take time, and the legal arguments and cross-examination may be complex. Let us imagine a health system in which the longer the operation takes, the less the surgeon will be paid. We should either have fee cuts of 17%, as proposed, or PCT interference in the market. We do not need both. If there is to be a 17% cut in fees, firms should be left to work out how they will manage. If there is PCT, the price should be allowed to be settled that way.
What about the barristers whom I regulate? Criminal lawyers earn a great deal less than MPs and have to bear their own expenses. The Bar has worked hard to improve diversity but there are now only 400 pupillages a year, of which about 19% go to black and ethnic-minority pupils. I fear that the profession will become exclusively the domain of white, middle-class, self-financing advocates because young people will have no assurance of even a modest legally-aided income as they set out at the Bar. I do not see how they can survive with the education debts they are chalking up these days, not to mention the cost of qualifying as a lawyer. No wonder social mobility is less than it used to be. I do not wish to read any more exhortations from diversity tsars to increase the number of young people from underprivileged backgrounds in the legal profession. The Government want universities to lower the entrance requirements to this end, but they may be making it impossible to attract poor young people to the legal profession.
I was sorry to read that the Lord Chancellor commented to the Justice Select Committee that the Bar has not engaged with the Government in contemplating the changes that need to be made. On the contrary, the Bar is putting forward its own suggestions. It will be ready, I am sure, to help in delivering efficiencies through what are known as alternative business structures. It would be ready by now, but is being held back from getting them off the ground by the excessive red tape and overregulation that is built into the Legal Services Act 2007.
I hope the House will agree that there ought to be primary legislation for an issue of such constitutional magnitude to ensure that whatever changes are proposed after consultation will receive the scrutiny typical of this House. The proposed changes are of the order of those achieved in the LASPO statute and deserve as much attention. Even the judiciary, which is normally reticent in such political situations, has criticised the proposals. I am convinced that the protection of the profession and of the public that is enshrined in Section 1 of the Legal Services Act will be undermined by the proposals of the Ministry of Justice as they stand. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this debate on these recent and very controversial proposals. I declare an interest as a barrister regulated by the board she chairs. Although barristers are not naturally enthusiastic about regulation, the Bar Standards Board has won increasing respect from practitioners. I wish that I could say the same about the LSB, the super-regulator.
On 3 December 2012, I spoke in another debate initiated by the noble Baroness about what can be described only as the overregulation of the legal profession. I am glad to say that the Government have now announced that they have embarked on a wholesale review of legal service regulations following concerns over their complexity and the unnecessary burdens that they place on the sector. That debate clearly had some effect, and I hope that what is said today in your Lordships’ House will similarly cause the Government to think carefully.
I also declare an interest as a barrister who, while not often paid by legal aid, has experience of the way that the system works, has acted with legal aid and has sat as a recorder in the Crown Court. When proposals are born out of a need to save money, there is a significant risk that cuts will be made in rather a crude way and that the legal system as a whole will suffer long-term damage. These proposals have met with extraordinarily widespread criticism, much of it admittedly from interested parties. However, it seems to me—and I may be alone here in believing this, or almost alone—that there is some good sense at the heart of what the Government suggest in the introduction of PCT. Indeed, in March 2010, the previous Government produced a Green Paper that said, in relation to the restructuring and the delivery of the criminal defence services, among other things:
“Currently the criminal defence service is highly fragmented, with a large number of small suppliers and relatively few large suppliers … We believe that these market trends are not sustainable. Therefore we believe a future tendering process would ensure a more consolidated market, with a smaller number of more efficient suppliers, required to undertake the full range of the services we need”.
I therefore expect that the party opposite will applaud at least the concept that these proposals contain for the restructuring of legal services.
It is of course important that any restructuring does not result in a degradation of the quality of justice or its availability. I, like the noble Baroness, welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that he will carry out a further consultation before finalising his plans. He has also said that he is looking again at the important question of choice of lawyer. I look forward to seeing precisely how he reflects this question of choice in any amended plans. I admit that I find it rather an elusive concept. Of course, it is desirable that anyone charged with an offence should be represented by lawyers in whom they have confidence. However, choice is unlikely to be an absolute matter. Indeed, I reject the suggestion that those charged with criminal offences are incapable of making informed choices. Some of them are quite experienced consumers. I can remember, on a couple of occasions when I was a young barrister, being introduced to a defendant by my instructing solicitor, to be met with the comment, “I do not want him”. That, I think, was an expression of freedom of choice in terms of representation.
Some of the personal attacks on the Lord Chancellor are highly regrettable. I also find the suggestion that lawyers in this area are overpaid and are, in effect, milking the system unfair and unsubstantiated. It is the habit of all Governments to publish rather misleading figures about earnings at the top end by practitioners in legal aid. These figures never tell the whole truth. The average earnings of a criminal practitioner are extremely modest. It is vital that we preserve the possibility of lawyers doing this important work. What is at stake is not just the standard of living of lawyers, which may be regarded by some as of secondary importance. It is much more important that we maintain the quality of justice for which this country rightly has an extremely high reputation.
Time does not permit me to examine the other proposals in detail. I can say, however, that the alarming increase in expenditure on legal aid by prisoners deserves careful examination. Some of this is explicable by the fallout from IPP sentences, abolished by this Government; I have considerable personal experience of the litigation arising from this. However, I understand that these cases, concerned with actual detention, will still receive legal aid. When it is for trivial disputes, I have some sympathy with the Government that they can properly be resolved by the alternative remedies. Similarly, judicial review, vital though the availability of this remedy is for constitutional reasons, does not mean that the availability of legal aid is not subject to some careful scrutiny. I found the evidence of the Lord Chancellor to the Justice Committee on this point persuasive.
I invite the Minister and others in the Ministry of Justice to look at the suggestions made by the Society of Conservative Lawyers for further savings in costs, which are not currently included in the proposals, in a recently published article on its website. I also ask the Government in due course to look at the inquiry that is to take place by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, which is looking at the human rights elements in these proposed changes. I do not think that these changes warrant the wholesale condemnation that they have attracted. I ask the Secretary of State to proceed with very considerable caution. He needs to have preferably the profession and certainly the public with him on these changes if they are to be successful and preserve our system of justice.
Lord Irvine of Lairg
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on having secured this timely debate. I will confine myself to the impact of the Lord Chancellor’s legal aid proposals on judicial review.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 provides in Part 1 that the Act will not adversely affect,
“the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, or … the Lord Chancellor's existing constitutional role in relation to that principle”.
The civil legal aid scheme supports the rule of law by making access to justice and the courts real. The Lord Chancellor himself has acknowledged that legal aid is,
“the hallmark of a fair, open justice system”.
I invite your Lordships to contrast that sound statement with the damaging effects, in practice, of his legal aid proposals on judicial review.
One is to refuse legal aid to those who do not meet a residence test—that is, those who have not been lawfully resident in the UK for 12 months—so no immigration detainee will be eligible for legal aid as, by definition, anyone in immigration detention is not lawfully resident in the UK. A second is to remove legal aid from a wide range of prison law cases. A third is to remove funding for cases assessed as having a borderline prospect of success—that is, most cases in public law.
Those changes will set the Government above the law in many areas. First, legal aid will no longer be available for those in immigration detention. The Home Secretary already has the power to deprive those individuals of their liberty by executive fiat, not court order. In 2012, more than 28,000 people were detained under immigration powers in immigration removal centres; many more were detained in prisons. Secondly, legal aid will no longer be available to destitute families with no immigration status who are waiting for a decision from the Home Office; nor, thirdly, to prisoners, who are wholly under the control of the state; nor, fourthly, to cases where foreign nationals have been murdered, tortured, or detained abroad by British soldiers.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to some recent decisions of our highest court in claims that could not in practice have been brought without legal aid but would not be eligible for legal aid under the proposals. First, there is the Lumba case in 2011, the leading case on the Home Secretary’s ability to detain individuals using immigration powers. The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State was applying an unlawful policy when detaining foreign national prisoners, in that the real policy entailed a presumption in favour of detention without exceptions, whereas the published policy had a presumption in favour of release.
Secondly, there is the decision of the House of Lords in Simms in 2000, which held that Prison Service policy and instructions preventing prisoners from having oral interviews with journalists, even on questions of whether they had been wrongly convicted, were unlawful. That claimant would no longer be eligible for legal aid, as he will be excluded under the prison law reforms. Thirdly, in Al-Skeini in 2007, the claim arose from the deaths of six Iraqi civilians and the brutal maltreatment of one of them, causing his death. Each of the deceased was killed, and the maltreatment was inflicted by members of the British Armed Forces. That claim, which succeeded in the Supreme Court, could not be brought under the proposals, because the claimants would fail the residence test.
In his evidence to the Justice Committee in the other place on 3 July 2013, the Lord Chancellor admitted that the changes are, at least in part, ideological in nature. He asserted that matters relating to conditions in prison should be dealt with through a complaints system and a prisoners’ ombudsman. However, judicial review is a remedy of last resort: only those cases that have arguably not been satisfactorily resolved through the complaints system and the ombudsman ever get to court.
The effect of the reforms is to make judicial review in practice unavailable to many of those most in need of its protection. No doubt, the Lord Chancellor and some of his colleagues in government find judicial review an irritant, but the critical issue is whether the proposals will in practice take a wrecking ball to our constitution and the rule of law. I am sure that many of your Lordships share my deep concerns.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I add my congratulations to those of noble Lords who have already spoken to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing the debate and the way in which she opened it. I also declare an interest as a practising barrister. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who is unfortunately unable to be here, asked me to say that, as one who has fought for legal aid all his professional life, he wishes that he had been able to contribute to this debate.
In the debate on the gracious Speech, I suggested that there was a need for a fresh settlement between the Government and the professions over legal aid. I am bound to say that the past few weeks have more than ever convinced me of that. The Government and the professions appear at times to be in a hostile stand-off. It is bad for both the Government and the professions, but it is also bad for justice and bad for the public’s confidence in our system of justice.
The starting points are that we recognise the need to save money in this area and that the professions must recognise that the Government do not owe them a living. However, the Government must accept that the professions are not simply special pleading but have genuine and justified concerns about access to justice for the many who need, but who cannot afford to pay, lawyers. Of course, they include the most vulnerable in our society, but we should not forget that they also include millions of ordinary people who can meet their day-to-day expenses but cannot afford the sudden demands of expensive legal costs for them or their families.
A new settlement can be achieved only by dialogue, and it is therefore welcome that the Government have already been responsive to the consultation, particularly over the issue of choice of lawyer. For myself, I regard the right of a defendant to choose his lawyer as fundamental for three reasons. First, it is wrong for the state which prosecutes a case to choose the lawyer on the other side. Secondly, it is essential for a defendant to have confidence in his lawyer. That brings practical benefits in sensible and early guilty pleas where appropriate. Thirdly, choice in this area is a simple matter of liberty.
I confine myself in this short speech to making a handful of points about the Government’s proposals. Much of the controversy has of course centred on PCT. I suggest that there is much force in the argument that competition based on price rather than quality risks lowering standards. If we set only a minimum standard, we will get advocacy of a minimum standard—the so-called race to the bottom. Tendering should be based on quality as much as on price, and that should be made explicit in the application process. A precedent for that is to be found in the Health and Social Care Act, where, on persuasion, substituting competition on quality against a tariff for the original proposal for competition on price significantly improved the Government’s proposals.
The Government have invited the Bar Council to help to design a system of tendering based on quality. It is a matter of regret that the Bar Council has not accepted that invitation. Exactly that kind of dialogue is what I consider to be important. When the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, next sees the Bar Council she might consider taking that back to suggest a change of view in that area.
A further area of concern is the number of providers and their distribution. I believe that a reduction from 1,600 to only 400 providers is far too great. It will badly affect smaller firms and reduce the possibility of both choice and competition.
Attention has been drawn to the problems in multi-handed cases, where a number of defendants may need separate representation. However, I suggest that those problems could be addressed in part if we reconsidered how far the existing professional rules on conflicts of interest are working in accordance with the public interest. Should it not be possible for solicitors in the same firm to act for defendants in legally aided criminal cases where there are conflicts between the defendants’ accounts but no financial conflicts of interest for the firms concerned? Of course, there would have to be safeguards in such a system to ensure that confidentiality was maintained, but barristers in the same chambers have always appeared against each other and the distinction between self-employed barristers and partners in the firm is not, in my view, an overwhelming obstacle.
However, the present proposals risk creating advice and representation deserts where no appropriate legal advice or representation is available. This the Government have recognised, but the proposals also risk creating specialism deserts. The danger of advice deserts could be addressed by increasing the number of providers in more sparsely populated areas. The specialism issue is more difficult. I fear it may become impossible to find solicitors specialising in particular areas of crime—for example, fraud or sex offences—throughout large areas of the country. Correspondingly, specialist lawyers may find that work in their fields is not financially supportable, so specific measures are needed to allow specialists to practise.
I turn briefly to civil legal aid. The proposals on judicial review are claimed by the Government to assist in ensuring that applicants’ lawyers will be paid only for cases in which they get permission, which will filter out weak cases. However, in practice many of the strongest cases are settled at the pre-permission stage where the body, often a local authority, admits fault and settles. Why should we not fund cases such as those, especially since the Government are rightly committed to encouraging early and economical settlement of litigation? The proposal to deny an oral permission hearing in all cases deemed to be totally without merit, while it may be acceptable in cases where there is legal representation, is entirely unacceptable in cases where a judge is needed to tease out the applicant’s case on an oral hearing.
Finally, in the time available, I shall say a word or two about the residency test. I suppose it is possible to conceive of arguments about why the residency test may be at least a relevant consideration in some cases, but given the examples set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, it is very difficult to see that it can be imposed justly in a blanket way. If the Government are not prepared to reverse this proposal, I urge them at least to preserve a discretion. There are other areas for consideration, but I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, before the next speaker, I remind noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate, and the limit for speeches from the Back Benches is six minutes.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Deech for securing this debate. I want to raise the issue of civil legal aid in relation to debt, welfare and repossession. I declare an interest not as a lawyer but as president of the Money Advice Trust, a national charity which advises individuals and small businesses via National Debtline and Business Debtline with the aim of helping people across the UK to tackle their debts and manage their money wisely.
Problem debt is a severe issue for an increasing number of people and is currently affecting one in five households, according to research recently updated by Dr Gathergood at Nottingham University. If reports in this morning’s news are accurate, it is set to rise even further with what has been described as,
“a major surge in families with dangerous debt levels—especially among worse-off households”.
Yet only 1.7 million people currently seek advice, while problem debt casts a shadow of wider problems affecting individuals, families and society, including mental health, the exacerbation of poverty and the repossession of homes.
Apart from the continued availability of legal aid for people at the point of repossession, civil legal aid was cut under LASPO for debt advice. The advice and justice systems will inevitably feel the impact of this cutback. First, the free advice and pro bono legal advice sectors will not be able to cope with the rise in demand. I know that the Money Advice Trust is very concerned that services which do not provide legal advice, such as the National Debtline, will see this upsurge but no longer have anybody to whom they can successfully refer clients at the point at which the advice needed is legal advice and beyond the expertise of general debt advisers. What assessment have the Government made of the likely increase in demand for debt advice leading to legal advice, and what do they consider will be the impact on individuals in debt, often through no fault of their own?
Secondly, it is thought that there will be a significant increase in the number of people forced to represent themselves in court. This carries the substantial risk of creating delays in proceedings and greater inefficiency. There is also a high risk that many litigants in person will find themselves left with exorbitant court costs, as they are not only unable to represent their cases effectively due to their lack of legal expertise— regardless of the merits or otherwise of their case—but are unable to afford the services of costs draftsmen who would be able to negotiate costs on their behalf. This in turn is likely to lead to the perverse outcome of further debt. Indeed, court fines have already risen significantly as a category of debt problem on which the National Debtline is called to advise. It is now in the 10 most common types of problem debt and is more common even than mortgages.
I am also concerned about the implications of the additional cuts currently being consulted on, which aim to reduce the legal aid budget by at least another £220 million a year. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the protection for legal aid for those at the point of repossession is safe and will not be slipped into the range of new cuts?
Finally, will the Minister comment in as much detail as he is able on the proposal to recover legal aid from universal credit? This proposal is of very serious concern to the free debt advice sector, and it is likely to exacerbate problem debt among vulnerable groups. As far as I know, no details have yet been given on how this mechanism will work, and I would be grateful for any light the Minister is able to shed on this aspect of the latest round of prospective cuts.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I, too, very warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing forward this very important debate. I declare my interest as a practising member of the Bar, a recorder, a deputy High Court judge and chair of the All-Party Group on Domestic Violence.
It is with a very heavy heart indeed that I rise to speak in this debate. During the passage of the LASPO Bill, a number of us in this House on all Benches raised serious concerns about the likely impact of the then proposed changes to legal aid, Lord Newton of Braintree being not least among them. I think of him every time we debate these issues. Our experience over the past 30-odd years had shown clearly the importance of having legal aid available to those who need assistance to resolve often emotional and sensitive issues that flowed from the breakdown of their relationships and marriages, particularly where those relationships had produced children and the breakdown affected them adversely. The fear was that those who had been in receipt of help, advice and support would not be able to obtain the assistance they needed, which would be deleterious to their well-being, to the well-being of the children and to justice as a whole. I remember well the Minister assuring us from the Dispatch Box that our fears in this regard were unfounded and that the quality of help and support that would still be available would be capable of meeting the needs. However, your Lordships will also remember that no impact assessment was produced to substantiate those assurances. Indeed, the indications that we had available pointed in the opposite direction. During this very short intervention, I will not reiterate the concerns I raised during the passage of the LASPO Bill. However, we were also assured that the Minister would keep a careful eye on the impact of these provisions so that we could readdress them if necessary, and that assurance gave us some comfort.
However, I have to tell the Minister that the concerns that we had then have all, tragically, proven to be true. Since the passing of the Bill into an Act, the consequences that we feared seem to have come to the fore. In preparing for this debate, I have had the benefit of reading innumerable submissions from practitioners, individuals and organisations who, with heart-breaking clarity, have set out the real consequences for the people for whom they care of what now, regrettably, appear to be quite pernicious changes in the legal aid provision rules. The speed of the downturn has, however, shocked most of us. Many solicitors have indicated that there has been a downturn in new clients of at least 50%. It has had an immediate impact on legal service provision and it is affecting the staffing levels in many firms so that they are simply no longer able to give the service that is needed.
Perhaps I may quickly give a couple of examples. Williamsons, which has offices in Hull, Driffield and Bridlington, has indicated that there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of its private clients, and even those clients are struggling to find the £50 or £100 that is needed for legal referrals. The number of referrals for mediation is down, and the reduction is commensurate with the volume of clients. The downturn in work has been in the region of 50%. The Legal Help scheme is so draconian that the clients are simply unable to show eligibility on the merits test, and the firm is unable to meet its legal help quota for any of its offices. That story is echoed across the piece.
There are instances of baby-snatching cases. In one, a grandmother had care of her grandchildren under a care order but the children were removed. Despite the fact that she had a low income, capital would be taken into account and, as such, she would have to sell her house to fight the case. There are all manner of private law children’s disputes involving contact and residence, and hundreds of such cases are being turned away en masse. The same applies even to domestic violence cases. When litigants come forward and are told about the threshold, as well as the need to get medical advice and the need to pay for the certificate, they do not come back. Where do they go and where do they get their justice?
The stories are heart-breaking. One solicitor talks of secretaries who have worked for his firm for a long time being in tears over the fact that they are unable to assist some clients in difficult situations. They have spoken to clients whose children have been kept by the other party and they have had to deliver the bad news to those clients. They are having to turn away grandparents, concerned mothers and fathers on low pay, domestic violence victims and others. It is truly shocking. The impact on the courts has been dire as well—they have been flooded with cases.
I end by reminding the Minister that costs flow from many different sources and the costs on the courts are dire indeed. It was really concerning to read what was said by the Court of Appeal in a recent case where none of the parties had been represented. The consequences of delay were clear. The judge in the case said this:
“The consequences by way of delay of other appeals which need to be heard are unquantifiable. The appeal would certainly never have occurred if the litigants had been represented. With more and more self-represented litigants, this problem is not going to go away. We may have to accept that we live in austere times, but as I come to the end of 18 years’ service in this court, I shall not refrain from expressing my conviction that justice will be ill served indeed by this emasculation of legal aid”.
That was said by Lord Justice Ward and I agree with him.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on winning the ballot for the Cross-Bench debate and on drawing our attention to this issue. It is a situation that concerns lawyers, of course, but only in relation to a much wider constituency of clients. As a non-lawyer, I have rarely received so much material for a debate, and most of this comes from individuals whom I trust to give a fair picture of what is happening. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, has already said, it has been quite moving to receive briefings and advice from a range of organisations which have a genuine concern for people in need. It is as simple as that. I have the highest regard for the CAB, for example. My sister worked for it voluntarily and I know that its specialists are like personal counsellors. They are often the very last resort for people in great personal distress.
The Minister will know from his previous incarnations that organisations such as BID and ILPA not only have a good track record in their field but they are the only ones that will stand by the most vulnerable groups in society, such as refugees and the homeless. I would go further than that. In the absence of government, they are effectively the government in their particular field in that they may be the only service-providers available. Of course, one of these services is legal aid.
As the Minister is bound to point out, none of these non-governmental organisations has the responsibility that government has in a recession. We all have to recognise financial necessity on a national level but they have to deal with the finance of individuals. They know better than anyone in government what the real costs of recession are to ordinary people on the brink of survival.
All these organisations are linked by a common purpose and they are all clear about what needs to be done in forthcoming legislation. They want the Government to understand that judicial review is the key way in which people can challenge decisions by public bodies. They want the Justice Minister to reconsider his refusal to fund the initial stages of judicial review, including the critical preparation of the evidence. They want the residency test modified to extend eligibility to currently excluded groups, such as babies under 12 months of age and asylum seekers. Asylum seekers will be allowed to access legal aid while their application is pending but, once they are granted asylum, they must wait a further 12 months, even if they have already been here for more than 12 months, before they can receive civil legal aid on any new matter. This can be discriminatory because refugees fleeing persecution abroad may be denied equal access to justice for longer than those whose residency arises from other causes. These organisations also want a fairer tendering process. They want contracts to be worded to ensure that appropriate adjustments are made to meet specific cultural, geographical and financial needs. They would also like the Government to undertake a review of quality assurance schemes to help consumers of legal services to identify reputable providers.
Here, the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, on 18 June about the quality and amount of legal aid must have given the Government food for thought. Essentially his warning was about cut-price litigation leading to unrepresented litigants and worse lawyers.
All the people giving evidence to the Justice Select Committee agreed with the Law Society that a 17.5% cut in fees on top of PCT in the case of criminal legal aid was unsustainable, even for large firms. The Secretary of State seemed to accept some of the Law Society’s ideas when he welcomed the model on client choice of solicitor. However, apart from the effect on the legal firms, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pointed out, there is a real risk of diminution of advice at a local level. On that, the Bar Council says:
“We are concerned that access to legal aid via the nationwide network of high street law firms will be undermined as 1,200 out of 1,600 firms will be forced to close or pull out of legal aid. The advice ‘deserts’ we already see in some rural areas will spread more widely, making it harder for millions to get the right advice and support”.
On asylum-seekers in immigration detention, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, there are many concerns that I have no time to mention. ILPA lists challenges to detention, applications for bail, judicial reviews of unlawful detention, habeas corpus applications and applications for damages for unlawful detention. I am tempted to quote from the Bail Observation Project’s latest report expressing views on the lack of justice in immigration hearings but I suspect that the Minister will already be familiar with that report.
Finally, I was shocked to hear from the Islington Law Centre only this afternoon of some of the effects of the proposed legislation on the more vulnerable prisoners that it works with. It says:
“We note with dismay that there are no exceptions for children, and those prisoners who are accepted to have mental health problems, a disability or other vulnerability, including those who may not have legal capacity. For example, a detained child who will be unable to identify legal issues, will not have the financial resources to pay for lawyers ... Such a child or person of any age with a mental health problem or other relevant disadvantage ... will have no means by which to fully frame their complaint to the prison authority”.
That speaks for itself. I am not convinced that the Government have sufficiently taken account of the most helpless people in our communities, and I look forward to the Minister’s positive response to these concerns.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I, too, express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this timely debate. I also declare that I am a practising barrister. I am the chair of Justice, the pre-eminent policy organisation working on the rule of law here in the United Kingdom and the British arm of the International Commission of Jurists. I am also the co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Institute of Human Rights.
My practice at the Bar, and my work with these organisations at a high level, have absolutely convinced me of a number of things. One of those is that I do not need to persuade people of the vital role of just law here in Britain and in societies around the world. It is also a constant reminder to me of the place of the United Kingdom as a source of influence and admiration the world over. Our judges are universally admired and drawn upon for their skills. Our professionals are deemed to be of the highest calibre and international courts comment regularly on the quality of the lawyering from this country. Our legal institutions are, in my view, the finest in the world—and that is not an idle boast. It is not an accident that we have such a fine system. It is great partly because it has taken us a long time to get here; we have built our success out of the hard stones of experience over many generations. Quality, we have learnt, does not come cheap.
This issue, I emphasise, is not just some hysterical pay negotiation as it has been caricatured. Governments wanting to cut legal aid always reach for a base argument, which is to crack the cynical joke about fat cat lawyers acting like a cartel to fix their fees. I hope we will not hear comments about the large number of lawyers speaking in this debate. The reason lawyers speak about these matters is because it is lawyers who see at first hand the impact on ordinary people of savage cuts. They also see the inevitable impact on the quality of work across the board, and they foresee the desperate effect this will have on the system as a whole, not just the risk of injustice but inhibitions on the development of law. Politicians often see cost cutting as a form of surgery, taking off some excess fat, but like the demand by Shylock for his pound of flesh, the removal does not come without real bloodletting and a very serious risk to the health of the body legal.
This debate is actually about an important constitutional issue, as others have said. It is a constitutional issue because legal aid has an important constitutional function. It is about access to justice, but it is also about the integrity of our criminal and civil justice system as a whole. Further, it is a constitutional issue because it is about holding government and public bodies to account. It is not just legal aid lawyers who are complaining, it is judges, commercial lawyers, academic lawyers who study the effects of law on people’s lives, and indeed most lawyers who see that the system is of a piece and that taking the shears to parts of it has implications for the whole. Justice is a central component of any civilised society and we have to maintain trust in it.
The lack of rigour by the Government on this topic is not new. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, regretted the failure of the Government to grapple with the human rights implications of the proposals in LASPO. I am afraid that we are seeing it again. It was only after long and contentious arguments in both Houses that the Government recognised that they would almost certainly face successful human rights challenges if legal aid was not available to the victims of domestic violence, human trafficking or other egregious wrongs. That was when carefully crafted exemptions were created. Yet the proposals in these reforms will substantially undermine those exemptions. It is quite wrong that such important changes should come into being through secondary legislation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, they should be subject to the proper scrutiny of Parliament, as was LASPO, and there should be primary legislation. I urge the Government to slow down and think carefully about this.
I enjoyed the account of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, of being rejected as a barrister by knowing clients. The only time it happened to me was when a woman in Broadmoor on trial for arson looked at me and said, “She’s too small”. It was because she had seen the prosecutor, Tim Barnes, a man of six feet six inches, and obviously thought that the trial process involved some sort of wrestling or armed combat.
The message that in practice we send to the Government is that justice cannot be produced on an assembly line or by bulk buying. What the Government had in mind with their competitive tendering proposals was to give a contract to the cheapest tender. Those ideas about going for the cheapest are still afloat. The cost-cutting is about one lawyer doing a great number of cases and not looking for the specialist. I want to emphasise that some cases require specific expertise, an issue that has been raised. Some clients have a relationship with a particular law firm and it saves time and money to have that firm act for them. Sometimes the case may concern mental health, and lawyers come to have rich knowledge about particular subjects, especially in the interface of law and psychiatry. Sometimes the expertise is in the field of domestic violence, child welfare or counterterrorism, the area in which I have spent a lot of my life. Some specialise in cases that involve abuse of the most terrible kind. A massive reduction in legal aid will interfere with this considerably.
I am still concerned about the flat fee, where people will receive the same fee whether there is a guilty or a not guilty plea. It means that solicitors, human as they are, will have more incentive to get their clients to plead guilty since a not guilty plea entails considerably more work. At the moment, 73% of people plead guilty, but they do so because of the trust they have in the advice of their lawyers. Once they think that a lawyer might be pushing them in a certain direction for financial reasons, trust will be destroyed, and trust is at the heart of good institutions. If the Government want to see the kind of chaos that price-competitive tendering brings to justice, they need only look at the issue of interpreters. Barristers wait for days in court for Serco, which now deals with the interpreter system, to deliver an interpreter. I have heard of young barristers storing multilingual phrases in their phones so that they can explain to their clients that the interpreter has not turned up. Also, the defendant is often not produced by Serco. The waste in the criminal justice system is often about large companies bidding for and securing a contract at prices on which they cannot deliver. We then end up with no cost savings at all.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I remind the noble Baroness that the debate is time limited, which means that when the clock shows six minutes she should be looking to sit down at that point. That is a reminder to all noble Lords.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
This is about preserving the quality of our system. Wonderful legal aid lawyers do that, and this is a way in which they are being undermined. They deserve better.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, before the next noble Lord speaks, I must insist that this is a time-limited debate. I have had to intervene for a second time. It eats into the time of the Front Bench, the Minister’s time, and that of the Opposition Front Bench. I request all noble Lords participating that when the clock shows six minutes, it means that they should sit down.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this debate on this very important subject. I also declare my interest. It is set out in the register, but for relevant purposes, I have practised criminal law for 42 years, of which I have spent 28 in one or other of these Houses of Parliament observing the rather tense relationship between politics and law.
This debate is about something fundamental: the quality of the society in which we live. It is about the clarity of the political conscience, which must be sure that our legal institutions are properly implemented and are to be trusted. One of my great mentors was the much-lamented Emlyn Hooson, a colleague of ours on these Benches and one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire. Emlyn Hooson represented Ian Brady on legal aid at his celebrated trial—the Moors murders trial. One of the reasons why we have been able to be confident that what has happened to Ian Brady has been just is because he had the advantage of a proper legal aid defence of the highest quality. We should let go of that at our peril.
The avoidance and the remedying of injustice are dependent on a quality criminal legal aid system, which needs in appropriate cases the best advocates and the best solicitors. Without that, our consciences will be failed. We have heard some criticism of the Bar Council today. I do not hear the same criticism when the doctors in your Lordships’ House stand up and rely on the representation of the British Medical Council or, at least until recent days, when a trade union such as Unite stands up and speaks for workers in this country who find it difficult to negotiate on their own behalf. I applaud the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society because they have had the courage to say firmly what needs to be said strongly to protect our legal system in this country.
The reality is that young barristers and young advocates who are solicitors are working for smaller amounts of money than they would earn in almost any other profession. Even without these suggested legal aid reforms, Queen’s Counsel—silks—are being priced out of the market by restrictions on their appearance and by the diminishing amount of work. There is now developing a divided legal profession in which some are still earning large amounts of money—why should they not because they are in the private market? Those of us who choose to remain in the public market are in an almost entirely different profession. That is not good for the health of our society or for the law.
May I specifically say a word about very high-cost cases? These are the small number of extremely complex fraud cases that come before the criminal courts. VHCC could equally stand for very highly challenging cases. They involve huge sums and massive complexity; they are every bit as complicated as any commercial arbitration. Yet it is the legal aid system that is targeted by an entirely arbitrary cut of 30% which, outrageously, is intended to be applied to cases that have already started. People who are involved—I am involved in one such case—will have to take, if they do not return their briefs in outrage, a 30% cut as they continue that case if these proposals come into force. Yet the Ministry of Justice has failed to engage with other issues about such cases. VHCCs are overadministered and, outrageously, restrained assets—the assets, until they are restrained, of defendants—cannot be used to pay for their defences. That seems to be wholly anomalous and unacceptable. The VHCC proposals are quite simply outrageous.
Let us not forget that the Serious Fraud Office sometimes gets things wrong. It took the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who incidentally was not being briefed at legal aid rates as far as I know, to sort out the misbehaviour of the Serious Fraud Office under its previous leadership to ensure that two brothers, Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz did not face wrongful prosecution for alleged crimes that they had not committed. It sometimes takes the best to sort out bad decisions by public authorities.
Finally, I just want to say a word about prison law because I used to be the president of the Howard League for Penal Reform. I have now been succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Myners. The changes in prison law will not save money and will increase costs. They will undermine the principle of rehabilitation. More prisoners will become stuck in jail. They will result particularly in specialist lawyers being replaced by less experienced lawyers for the same price. There is not time to develop this, but I urge the Minister to attend closely to the submissions made by the Howard League and particularly by Laura Janes, the acting legal director, who is the great expert in these matters.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, if the Lord Chancellor’s welcome concession last week on choice of representation is anything to go by, it appears that these proposals are not to be regarded as set in stone and are well worth debating. I join with those who thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for enabling this to happen. It is much to be hoped that other of these proposals too will similarly come to be recognised as ill-judged and will be abandoned. It is on just one of these that I propose to focus—one relating to judicial review not among those identified by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is the proposal that lawyers should not be paid for their work in making application for judicial review unless eventually permission comes to be granted. It is crystallised as question 5 on the consultation paper.
First, I want to digress just briefly to express a few heartfelt words of regret at the radically changed role of the Lord Chancellor in public life, following the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. How unfortunate it is that we no longer have as Lord Chancellor someone in the tradition of the great holders of that office who, quite recently, included the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is a great privilege to have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, in this debate. He chooses very fastidiously the occasions when he invites the attention of this House. What huge benefits to the office they brought: not merely were they highly experienced and distinguished lawyers in their own right but, no less importantly, their voices were authoritative and statesmanlike at the very heart of government. They were voices that recognised the central importance in our democracy of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and rights of access to justice. Such Lord Chancellors had already, of course, achieved the summit of political life; they were not career politicians with personal ambitions still to be realised.
Let me make it quite plain that I have nothing whatever against the present Lord Chancellor. He became such after I retired and I do not know him. Nor do I have anything against career politicians. No doubt they are essential to any healthy democracy. However, I cannot pretend to have the same confidence in proposals of this sort that emanate from a career politician with no background whatever in the law as I would have felt, and indeed used to feel, towards proposals from Lord Chancellors past. Grateful though one is for the recent concession as to choice of legal representation, it does not fill one with confidence that these proposals as a whole have been properly thought through by someone with real knowledge of our legal processes, properly sensitive to the imperative demands of access to justice.
I turn, necessarily briefly, to the proposal that concerns me most, the proposal that, unless permission comes to be granted for a full judicial review, no costs at all—only non-legal disbursements—will be paid for work carried out. It is opposed, perhaps unsurprisingly, by all parts of the profession, including notably the Administrative Law Bar Association, of which I am proud to say I was president for many years. It is also strongly opposed by the Judicial Executive Board—that is, the higher judiciary—the Civil Justice Council and Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges.
These responses are cogently and convincingly argued, ALBA’s perhaps above all. It is very difficult to suppose that anyone could fairly reject their conclusions. Manifestly, the proposal will result in fewer challenges to administrative decision-making and there are those—I am not among them—who would suggest that this is their central and cynical purpose: an attempt to insulate the Government, as far as possible, from legal challenge. However, I regard the proposal not as mischievous but merely as fundamentally misguided. It is misguided because it stems from a basic misapprehension of the place of permission in the process of judicial review and it would result in consequences far removed from those intended and very damaging to this critical part of the courts’ jurisdiction—the ability to supervise the proper exercise of public power.
Bear in mind that, as of just last week, 1 July, following the earlier changes to legal aid, when the High Court refuses permission to proceed on the documents, the judge now can certify an application as being “totally without merit”. In itself, that prevents the applicant requesting an oral hearing of the application; all he can do is to make one further application on the documents. If more than that is required, let the lawyers be deprived of costs in that very limited category of cases on the certification of a judge but not in the altogether larger category envisaged by this present proposal.
The problems with this proposal are so many and so various that, alas, I have no time to spell them out. All one can say is that it may discourage solicitors taking even perhaps the strongest cases. The strongest cases are those where the defendants are most likely to respond early by making the concessions that make judicial review ultimately unnecessary and thus inappropriate, but there are so many more objections. Read ALBA’s full letter of response and you will not persist in this ill-judged proposal. I suggest that it would damage the process profoundly; it is a rotten idea and it really ought to be abandoned.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this debate. I shall confine my remarks to the impact that proposals outlined in Transforming Legal Aid will have on victims of trafficking and domestic violence.
Under the proposals, civil legal aid will be available only to individuals who are lawfully resident in the United Kingdom at the time of their application and have been lawfully resident here for 12 months. At first sight this may seem perfectly reasonable but then look more closely and there are some pretty bad consequences. I am extremely concerned that no exemptions to this residence test are planned for either victims of human trafficking or for women who have entered the United Kingdom as the partner of someone settled here, and then experienced domestic violence at their husband’s hands. This is the more surprising considering that, in an Answer in the other place on 3 July, the Prime Minister described human trafficking as “modern-day slavery”. He added:
“We are looking at legislative options, and I will be chairing a committee across Government to look at what more can be done”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/13; col. 920.]
I hope that Mr Cameron will look at this and perhaps read Hansard for today’s debate.
Legal aid for both of the groups that I have mentioned is explicitly protected under legislation passed only last year but would be removed in a large number of cases under the proposed system. This is despite a series of statements and publications by the Government giving reassurance to those of us who are concerned. Indeed, I find it hard to discern exactly what the Government’s position is, because they keep contradicting themselves.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, speaking in this House on 27 March last year at Third Reading of the LASPO Bill rightly acknowledged that, given their “particular vulnerabilities”, support for trafficking victims to resolve immigration matters should be available to them during,
“a period relevant to the experience of being trafficked”.—[Official Report, 27/3/12; col. 1291.]
The same noble and learned Lord said on March 7 2012:
“The ability to bring damages claims against former so-called employers is an important tool to secure reparations for victims and to punish their exploiters”,
and that successful claims,
“discourage those who seek to exploit people for financial gain”.—[Official Report, 7/3/12; col. 1889.]
He said that there was a risk of leaving some trafficking victims without necessary support if cases relied on exceptional funding. He admitted that the scheme was not sufficient to protect victims of trafficking.
However, just two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary, Mr Grayling, said in a letter to Helen O’Brien, the chief executive of Caritas Social Action Network:
“Individuals who do not meet the residence test would be entitled to apply for exceptional funding under the power set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act”.
I invite noble Lords to contrast that statement from Mr Grayling with the conclusions reached by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, on 7 March. He said:
“We had always anticipated that legal aid would have been available under the exceptional funding scheme for these damages claims, as was indicated by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, where such cases met the test for exceptional funding under Clause 9 of the Bill”.
However, he added:
“On reflection, we recognise the risk that in some cases this will not be sufficient”.—[Official Report, 7/3/12; col. 1889.]
Perhaps like me, noble Lords are at a loss to know quite what the Government really want to do.
After all, let us not forget that the LASPO Act includes equivalent provision for legal aid funding in immigration cases concerning anyone granted indefinite leave to remain as the partner of an individual settled in the United Kingdom whose relationship then permanently breaks down because they are the victim of domestic violence.
During the passage of the Act, the then Minister, Mr Jonathan Djanogly, emphasised the importance of this provision stating:
“There is a real risk that, without legal aid, people will stay trapped in abusive relationships out of fear of jeopardising their immigration status”.—[Official Report, Commons, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee, 19/7/11; col. 245.]
Since 2002, over 2,000 women have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom following the breakdown of a relationship with a violent partner. While this accounts for a comparatively small fraction of legal aid expenditure, it reflects the significant human cost that would be incurred were such recourse not available.
To be fair, the Government have demonstrated a strong commitment to tackling the horrors of human trafficking. They have also shown a clear determination to prevent and reduce domestic violence. On 24 April this year, Helen Grant, the Minister for Women, Equalities and Victims, told the Salvation Army trafficking conference that trafficking is.
“something that no civilised country should tolerate. It creates victims who are often some of the most vulnerable members of society”.
In the human trafficking strategy published by Theresa May the Home Secretary in 2011, the Government outlined the UK’s positive record in tackling trafficking and committed to a series of measures building upon this, including better care for victims.
The Home Office website setting out the Government’s policy on ending violence against women and girls states:
“We all must do much more to prevent violence against women and girls happening at all”.
It specifically highlights that,
“fewer than one in four people who suffer abuse at the hands of their partner—and only around one in 10 women who experience serious sexual assault—report it to the police”.
Those of us who are concerned about the victims of trafficking and the women victims of domestic violence in the circumstances that I have described have heard warm words from Ministers and read many encouraging statements, but I conclude by saying to the Minister that depriving victims of legal aid for immigration cases risks undermining steps to address domestic violence against vulnerable women and significantly exacerbating the problem of underreporting of these cases. I hope that he and the Government will think again about these proposals.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and congratulating her on securing this important debate, which could not be more timely. I declare an interest up front. As noble Lords may know, I have for the past nine months or so been chairing a commission established by the Legal Action Group with funding from the Baring Foundation, the Barrow Cadbury Trust, LankellyChase Foundation and the Trust for London on the future of advice and legal support on social welfare law in England and Wales. We are on course to have a draft report for consultation in September and produce our final report by the end of the year. I have been keeping a fairly low profile so as not to compromise the independence of our report, but I have been prevailed upon to break cover for just six minutes today.
Let me say straight away that I understand the Minister’s problem. On my first day at university, we received a lecture from Lord Denning who said that the difference between a judge and an academic was that whereas judges had to find a solution for every difficulty, academics took pleasure in finding a difficulty for every solution. In this, I see Ministers as more akin to judges than academics. We shall certainly be trying to come up with solutions rather than difficulties. We do not think it is possible or even desirable simply to put things back as they were and I hope we will be able to come up with some suggestions for creating a more orderly landscape of advice services which will be helpful to Ministers in getting the most out of reduced resources.
The recent proposals are mostly about criminal legal aid, of course, and that is not our concern. But there are also some proposals affecting civil legal aid which have been less remarked on, although they have not been ignored today, perhaps because they save a comparatively small amount of money—£6 million, I think. They may nevertheless have some untoward consequences and I want to say a word about two of them in a personal capacity, in the hope that the Government might be willing to reconsider them, particularly when they make such a trifling saving. They also concern me because of their potential to impact on children with special educational needs trying to secure the special educational provision they require.
Often the only thing that makes a local authority do what they know they ought to do is the threat of judicial review. According to MoJ figures, about half the cases in which legal aid is currently granted to bring judicial review do not lead to a JR. My information is that the actual figure may actually be considerably higher than that. That is not because the claims are unmeritorious but because in many of them a local authority caves in when they know a JR is coming. If, as under the new proposals, lawyers do not get paid for the work they do before the permission stage, many fewer JR claims would be brought, as has been said, and local authorities would be let off the hook. Either that or, if lawyers get paid only for cases which are issued and permission is granted, and not for cases that settle, there will be a perverse incentive to commence cases which would currently settle and more, not fewer, JRs will be brought and the projected saving will soon disappear.
Secondly, stopping the funding of borderline cases will have a dramatic effect for tiny savings on disability and SEN cases. Many such cases are currently classified as borderline in terms of their legal aid merits, either because they are factually complicated or are test cases, raising new issues of law. Some very important test cases of strategic significance are borderline and will not now be able to be brought. Indeed, test cases are almost by their very nature borderline.
In passing, the residence test will impact very harshly on children challenging special educational provision who happen to be the children of persons who have not been resident for 12 months. In effect, they will be being punished for their parents’ immigration status.
Also in passing, I am advised that recent reforms to the costs regime in civil litigation have had a deleterious impact on disabled litigants trying to bring cases under the Equality Act. No longer having the benefit of cost-shifting rules or the ability to recover insurance premiums, it is much more difficult for them to bring proceedings under a conditional fee agreement. They are thus unintended casualties of the Jackson reforms. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to meet me to see if we can find a way through this.
Finally, young legal aid lawyers have written to me to express concern about the impact of these latest proposals on junior lawyers. Some, such as the cuts to civil advocacy fees, will have a direct impact. Others, like price-competitive tendering, will have an indirect impact as firms cut corners in order to stay afloat. This will impact on the future of the profession. If junior lawyers are not paid, supervised and trained to an adequate level, we will lose our next generation of legal aid lawyers.
As the judiciary said in response to the consultation, there is a,
“real risk that the firms obtaining contracts will employ those who will take the lowest salary in order to maximise the firm’s profits”.
This can lead only to a race to the bottom. It will also impact on social mobility and diversity in the profession, which will become increasingly closed off to those from less affluent backgrounds. These are not fat cats talking but young lawyers with a real sense of public service, which I find runs strongly within the profession, who want to be able to provide a quality service to vulnerable clients.
Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I apologise at the outset for my late arrival, but I will not go further into that.
When I was a young solicitor, many moons ago, legal aid was viable from the point of view of both lawyers and clients. It represented an important part of our social services, and that situation endured for many years. Today all branches of legal aid have been drastically reduced and more is threatened, but will there be a substantial reduction in expenditure, as the Government predict?
With regard to criminal legal aid, while a large amount is spent on exceptional, long and complex cases, it is idle to assume that the remainder of people on trial—the largest proportion by far—will not suffer increasingly. So will all this result in savings? Is it not possible that, in consequence, trials will take even longer? Will unrepresented defendants not take much longer to make their points, or fail to distinguish between the good, the partially good and the virtually unarguable?
One of the most odious ideas concerning legal aid, coming from a department where senior Ministers are “lawyer-free”, is that a criminal defendant will have to be represented by a lawyer selected by the Government. In my view, this offends a basic tenet of the criminal law. However well qualified the lawyer—and that may be open to doubt—a defendant may believe that they have been foisted upon him or her, for somewhat dubious reasons. This proposal may never come to fruition, of course, and indeed I hope not, but it remains a possibility and a threat.
The Government certainly face some difficult problems in the sphere of criminal legal aid but the wrong solutions should not be sought, and not everything can be solved by assailing lawyers’ fees. Legal aid in both the civil and criminal sectors still represents a vital part of our social services, yet the Government resist that concept. It is puerile to conceive that little or no damage will follow the severe and often ill thought-out cuts that the Government have set their heart on.
The Government should say to the legal profession, “We want to work closely with you but it’s not a one-way street. We both want to make our legal aid system work more efficiently and cheaply, and we are prepared to listen to your views as well”. Are the Government prepared to take that course? Are they ready to abandon political and unworkable nostrums in return for sensible debate? I fear not. However, I still say to the Government: think again, and think wisely.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for initiating this very important debate. It is with some regret that, so recently having returned to the House after the lifting of the disqualification that attached to me as a Justice of the Supreme Court, I find myself speaking for the first time on such an occasion as this. It is a sad occasion because one cannot help feeling that the need for this debate ought not to have arisen at all. I find it hard to believe that a Government who truly understood and respected the rule of law, who had taken the trouble to appreciate what that phrase really means and assess the consequences of what they had in mind, would have even contemplated introducing some of the proposals that have attracted so much criticism this afternoon.
Let me emphasise at the outset that I have no personal interest of any kind in the outcome of these proposals. I left legal practice long ago and have now reached the age when I am no longer allowed to sit as a judge. I can claim, however, to be an informed observer. My experience as an appellate judge during the past 24 years has been very wide. Judicial review has been a significant part of my work, as has dealing with cases supported by legal aid. I am also well aware of the pressure on public funds and of the need to make savings, and to continue to make savings year after year wherever possible. I had to face up to that problem time and time again when I was the Senior Presiding Judge in Edinburgh and, more recently, as the Minister will know, as the Deputy President of the Supreme Court. I have done my best to promote efficiency and the saving of costs wherever possible. I have supported the Government and will continue to support them in their search for further savings, including in the administration of legal aid. Of course there is no bottomless pit.
The Government are right to seek to target their limited resources on those cases which really do justify legal aid and on those people who need it, but that requires the exercise of judgment based on sound research and open-minded consultation. There is one cardinal principle which until now has always been respected. It is set out in Section 1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred: the constitutional principle of the rule of law and the Lord Chancellor’s role in relation to that principle. It is worth recalling that the clause was not in the Bill as originally drafted. It did not appear until Third Reading in this House following a recommendation by the Select Committee on the Bill. Perhaps it was thought to be so obvious that it was not necessary to state it at all, but that was not the view of the Select Committee, which thought that it should be there and could not be dismissed as unimportant. It is indeed fundamental to the continued existence of our democracy, but the important point I would emphasise is that the rule of law exists for the benefit of everyone and it is for everyone to respect it. There can be no exceptions at whatever level of government. What this means is that all persons and every public authority must regard themselves as bound by, and entitled to the benefit of, laws that are openly and publicly administered in our courts.
Time is very short and I have only a few points that I can make, particularly in relation to judicial review and the tests—the permission test, the borderline test and the residence test. I would invite the Minister to have regard to a paper circulated on 25 June by Dr Nick Armstrong of Matrix Chambers in which he analyses the costings of these various proposals. For example, with prison law he draws attention to the fact that of the overall savings in the proposals that the Government have in mind, which are assessed to be £6 million, £4 million of those are said to come from prison law. Dr Armstrong, however, has indicated—his work has been seen and approved by the Parole Board—that the additional costs that result from these savings may come to as much as £10 million as a result of the continued detention of people who have no access to prison law. That is quite apart from the constitutional implications.
The truth, if one has regard to the consequences of these proposals and burrows underneath what is being proposed, is that the efficient functioning of the rule of law will no longer be there for everyone. As so often one finds on further examination, it is the weakest, the most vulnerable and, let us face it, the most unpopular who are at risk of being unprotected. For them, the rights that are at issue here are the most basic rights of all, and the savings are at risk of being overtaken many times over by increased costs.
On the permission test, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred, why not fund the early stages of seeking permission before it is sought? At present, 60% of cases are resolved at that stage, especially social welfare cases, so it seems odd that the work done by the firms that provide these services should not be paid for so that they can meet the costs of running their businesses.
Time is too short for me to go further. However, I respectfully ask the Minister to do two things. First, I ask him for an assurance that the Government’s mind is still open on all these issues and that they will look at the costings in the paper to which I have referred. Could he say how it is proposed to bring these proposals into force, given that they raise fundamental constitutional issues? I endorse what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Kennedy, that detailed parliamentary scrutiny, line by line, is required. This is a matter that requires primary legislation. I hope that we will not have to face up to a succession of regret Motions on delegated legislation, which would be wholly unsatisfactory.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it is entirely sensible that anyone who feels in need of legal assistance will seek it and will seek the best—the Government themselves do that. Many Members of this House have said to me, “You’re a lawyer; you must understand such and such”, which is not always true, but I say that both to declare an interest as a non-practising solicitor and to remind myself that we in this House are a very advantaged group.
What is “best” is different in different circumstances. I want to deal with one type of best. First, I will mention something that I heard earlier this week about refugees applying for family reunification, which is a right, who are unable to tackle the complicated application without legal help or who borrow from loan sharks in order to get that help. That is an example of the “underclass” to which Treasury counsel have referred.
The authors of the many and substantial briefings that we have received will be disappointed that it is not possible to include all their material. However, we have read it—I put that on the record—and, more important, so will the Government, along with the 16,000 responses to the consultation. I welcome the fact that there will be a re-consultation, which must itself give time to be real.
We used to be concerned about Tesco law; it may now be Stobart law. Although the supermarkets have established small outlets, they are small versions of the same; the specialist stores have disappeared. I want to mention the specialist firms, which have a national reach—not that they get paid for travelling. Niche providers need to be national to generate sufficient volume to be sustainable; I know that the Secretary of State is concerned about that. Many such firms have chosen to remain small so that each solicitor has the ultimate responsibility for the client and sees a case through. Being specialised gives you the ability to deal efficiently with complicated issues, to recognise core issues and to gain the client’s confidence—and it is important to have their confidence in order to give difficult advice such as whether to plead guilty. A single solicitor who supervises a number of unqualified or less qualified paralegals will not inspire that confidence. I know all this from my own experience of struggling occasionally with unusual cases.
The Justice Secretary at the Select Committee said last week that,
“the most important judge of quality is the qualification”.
That is by no means the whole of it. The CPS has also commented on this:
“There are some types of case … that require a specialist service if they are to be dealt with efficiently and fairly”.
Of course, there are specialists in a number of areas; children and juveniles have been mentioned. Among these are many that involve the state very directly: human rights, civil liberties, terrorism, the police, trafficked people, asylum-seeking children where there is a dispute as to age, challenges to the UKBA and a raft of immigration issues.
Almost all miscarriage of justice cases have involved small firms. The proposals extend, too, to the experts who often complement lawyers in complex cases involving vulnerable individuals—the interface between law, psychiatry and psychology, as has been said. We must be careful that, in reducing fees, we do not have the obvious effect on the market in relation to the experts available.
I have mentioned cases to which the state is party; I do not mean just routine crime cases. I am particularly concerned, like other noble Lords, about the combined impact of tendering and the proposals for judicial review—the state restricting challenge of the state or in other cases a sort of double denial of access to public services. Lawyers bringing weak cases no longer being reimbursed makes me wonder whether we have learnt anything from conditional fees, but there is no time for that today. Nor is there time to say anything more on the residence test than, number one, babies and, number two, it depends on whether you see tax as what you pay for the sort of society you want or as a price paid on an individual basis to gain entry to the club.
I would like to say more about whether the public disquiet that we are told about is general or whether it is about those obviously hugely wealthy individuals mentioned by my noble friend who manage somehow to qualify. I would like to say more about conflicts of interests and the market. I appreciate that both clients and lawyers must be disincentivised from thinking that there is a sort of TARDIS of a piggy-bank available for legal aid, but few think that. Most lawyers I know want to do their best for the clients, even if they become fat along the way, although I point out that my noble friend the Minister does not use that term. They want their clients not to be subject to luck-of-the-draw representation and justice and they want to train their successors and to secure the legal service for the next generation.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for arranging this debate. I also thank noble Lords who have already spoken, because they have said virtually everything that could possibly be said. I support what they have said and have heard nothing with which I have disagreed.
The subplot to this debate about legal aid and proposed cuts is the rule of law and access to justice. Everyone in this Chamber would accept the importance of the rule of law in a civilised country. It depends on many features, one of which, of course, is access to justice for people who need to go to the courts. If they need to claim something they believe to be due to them, the courts are there for them—self-help is frowned on and criminalised in many cases. If they are defendants, the courts are there for them to reject the claims that they believe to be unjustified.
The rule of law requires that there be access to justice, but it has to be a reality and not just a constitutional theory. It used to be said that the Ritz was open to everyone, but of course it was not, as not everyone could afford to pay its charges. The courts theoretically at least are open to everyone, but to get in front of the courts now, whether as a claimant or as a defendant, you have to pay a fairly substantial sum up front.
I cannot remember how long ago it was—I think that it was when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was Lord Chancellor—that the then Government introduced the notion that the civil justice system had to be self-financing, with substantial charges for commencing or defending an action or putting in a reply; practically any step you took in the action was subject to a fee. It was a relatively expensive matter to embark on litigation or to defend it. However, in those days, although the civil justice system had to be self-financing, it was not proposed that the fees paid by litigants should cover the cost of legal aid assistance. That was left alone. It is being introduced now as a feature. The Government need to save money to cut down on public expense, and the legal aid bill, whether for criminal or civil legal aid, is looked at as one of the means of reducing government expenditure to balance the books. The object is one with which one cannot possibly quarrel, but the Government have to bear in mind what this process may do to the justice system.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the civil justice system, because, as all my colleagues will know, I know precious little, or nothing, about the criminal justice system. In the civil justice system, individuals need to have access and, if they cannot have access to it to defend themselves or prosecute their claims, their respect for the justice system will be affected. Respect for the rule of law is a cultural advantage, which this country shares with many others, but there are many countries in the world where the rules and regulations that appear to provide for the rule of law lack reality, because the laws in question do not command respect.
In this country, individuals, of course, disapprove of some laws that they may be required to obey, but, broadly speaking, one of the features of living in this country is that the population and the public as a whole respect the rule of law. That respect is cultural, however; it is not to be found in every country and it is not necessarily immutable. Let us think of what may happen if there is a substantial number of people whose access to the courts to prosecute claims that they think they are owed, or to defend themselves against claims that they think are unjustified, is made impractical or impossible because of the difficulties of financing the entry into litigation or paying for lawyers to argue their case. Some may try to argue the case themselves, with all the difficulties that they must know that will involve because they are not lawyers—or at least in general circumstances they are not lawyers, and the law is not always something that appears simple to non-lawyers; sometimes it does not appear simple to lawyers, either.
Respect for the rule of law, which is so important, is capable of being forfeited and lost if excessive cuts are made affecting potential litigants. I wish that the Government would bear that in mind in considering how far to take the inroads into the legal aid bill for the purpose of cutting government expenditure. I hope that it will not happen to a point that the rule of law loses the respect that at present it commands. It cannot be taken for granted by the Government that that will not happen and I hope that they keep that in mind.
Lord Bach
My Lords, not for the first time the House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. By securing this important debate, she has not only obliged the Government to defend their past conduct and current proposals in Parliament, something that I suspect they are not overkeen on doing, but she has attracted a stellar cast of speakers, and not just great lawyers and judges. I pay special tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, whom it is great to see back in his place in this House again. There are others here who are not lawyers who recognise just how important these matters are to our whole way of life and our status as a civilised country.
The debate takes place in the middle of a lovely summer afternoon, and many who are outside will be more interested in getting some sunshine or finding out how the Ashes are going. But we would be foolish to underrate how many out there are listening one way or another to what we are saying and, in particular, to what the Minister will say in due course. There is a lot at stake here.
The Government’s latest proposals, following on frighteningly fast from the implementation of part 1 of LASPO, have been the subject of sustained and deadly attack during this debate. For example, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine effectively pulled apart the proposals for judicial review, particularly the residence test, revealing it as a tawdry ideological assault on the rule of law and the Lord Chancellor’s duty to uphold it.
The Lord Chancellor himself let it slip, in his session at the House of Commons Justice Committee last week, that it was not cost savings that underlay these proposals, it was “ideological”: that word was used. Does the Minister agree? Is it part of his ideology too that if there was a case in the future like, for example, the Baba Mousa one, it should be outside the scope of legal aid? Or does the Minister still stick to the line that it is the costs that justify these proposals, though the Dr Armstrong paper referred to earlier demolishes the costs argument pretty conclusively as far as JR is concerned?
Is it the philosophy that the right to legal aid—and thus the ability to make a claim against a state—should be based on the status of the claimant? Is our system, with its grand tradition of protecting the rights of all, to become so diminished that it will not allow justice, where it is necessary, for all those who need it? As far as I am concerned, these proposals are much more dog-whistle politics than they are thought-out legal proposals. The Government sometimes give the impression that they are careless about the importance of ensuring access to justice. They would, perhaps, like us to forget what has already been done in the name of cost-savings or ideology or both.
We are three months into LASPO and the Government intend to have post-legislative scrutiny within three to five years of Royal Assent. What will they find? If the first three months are anything to do with it—and they should have been the easiest months—there will be practically nothing left apart from, perhaps, a few providers dotted around the country with vast deserts of no social welfare law provision at all: a sort of wasteland. Let us look briefly at the evidence. Birmingham Law Centre has closed down and advice is not being given on 2,000 cases of social welfare law each year. Will the Government consider saving Birmingham Law Centre in the same way as the Government of whom I was proud to be a member saved South West London Law Centre when it was in difficulties?
The Mary Ward Centre, which has given 100 years of service to the poor in London, is now turning away 15 people each week. It has no contracts in benefit cases because that is out of scope. It has four debt cases where there were 400 this time last year. What are poor Londoners going to do when the Mary Ward Centre cannot look after them? The Government cannot hide their eyes from this. Social welfare law helped hundreds of thousands of people who were given quality advice on legal issues that affected their everyday lives, for less than one tenth of the whole cost of legal aid. Lawyers did not get rich on it, but poor people got some access to justice.
George Orwell wrote:
“Whether the British ruling class is wicked or merely stupid is one of the most difficult questions of our time”.
Perhaps only an old Etonian could have put it in those terms. Of course Ministers are not wicked—indeed, in my experience, they are pretty nice people who mean well. But Part 1 of LASPO, taking away the possibility of many of our poorest citizens getting some access to justice, is pretty close to the second word that he used.
Ministers should think again before it is too late. I do not hesitate to use the quotation which was used many times in the LASPO argument. It is from the late Lord Bingham who said that,
“the denial of legal protection to the poor litigant who cannot afford to pay is one enemy of the rule of law”.
That is what this debate has been arguing.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I have significant concerns about all these proposals. However, I shall focus my comments on the impact that they will have on children and young people.
This generation of children and young people is a particularly important one upon which we will all need to depend. Regrettably, they are facing unprecedented challenges in achieving their potential and negotiating a smooth path to a happy and successful adulthood. The phenomena of high youth unemployment, rising youth homelessness and widespread adolescent mental health difficulties are well documented. They help to highlight why it is incumbent upon our lawmakers to ensure that children and young people are able to receive all support to which they are legally entitled and to consider what impact new policies and laws will have on young people.
I understand that the Government have yet to publish any kind of age impact assessment relating to these proposals. This is highly regrettable and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the Government intend to publish such an assessment. If they do not, there is surely a danger that they will be in breach of their commitments and undertakings, including those under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to protect children, and that the changes will be open to legal challenge.
In the mean time, we should all listen carefully to expert voices, such as that of the Children’s Commissioner, who has expressed her concern that the legal aid proposals that we are debating today will have a disproportionate and profoundly negative impact on children and young people by curtailing their access to justice. I am indebted to JustRights for its detailed assessment, which makes it clear that children and young people’s very safety and well-being would be jeopardised if the proposals were to be implemented. In other words, the changes would have major implications for child protection as well as for access to justice.
I shall give two examples. I shall not go into trafficking in detail because it has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. However, the Court of Appeal has recognised the importance of treating people who have been trafficked as victims. The proposals would take away a crucial route to protection for trafficked children and young people who are extremely vulnerable to sexual exploitation, abuse and violence. Extraordinarily, even British-born babies aged less than 12 months will be excluded by the residence test. Also, the removal of prison law from scope will deny children and young people in detention access to legal aid. These young people are in another exceptionally vulnerable group, often with learning difficulties or mental health problems. Many will have endured troubled childhoods and spent time in care. It is simply inhumane to deny them a crucial route to challenging and preventing bullying and abuse in prison or obtaining support to aid their resettlement on release.
Meanwhile, limiting the circumstances in which judicial review can be brought will have a devastating impact on young people. For example, where a local authority has not, as corporate parent, provided the correct package of support to a young person in care or a care leaver, or has housed a young person in unsuitable accommodation, the circumstances under which its decisions can be challenged will become very limited. The power imbalance inherent in the relationship between the individual and the state, and between a child or a young person and the state in particular, necessitates mechanisms for challenging decisions and unfair treatment by state authorities that, if left unchallenged, can often have devastating consequences for the young person well into their adult lives.
We are all aware of the Government’s need to find savings but this cannot come at the expense of weakening our systems for protecting vulnerable young people and exposing them to abuse, homelessness and destitution. Common sense tells us that these proposals would cost the public Exchequer far more in the long term than the Government hope to save. This is confirmed by rigorous research for Youth Access, which shows that a young person with a legal advice problem typically costs local public services as much as £13,000 before they manage to obtain advice. Much of this cost falls on councils, social services, housing departments and on the NHS. Huge savings could be made by ensuring earlier advice.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, reminded the House that its support for protecting access to legal aid for children and young persons was abundantly clear during the passage of the LASPO Act. Indeed, I remember it all very deeply myself. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government intend to ensure that children and young people will be able to continue to receive age-appropriate legal advice and representation if they push ahead with these ill conceived proposals.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, in our many debates about legal aid, the Minister has constantly justified government policy by referring to the need to cut public expenditure. While making every allowance for the need to make savings, some of us have all along suspected an ulterior motive. Those suspicions were explicitly confirmed, as we were reminded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, by the Lord Chancellor in his recent evidence to the Justice Select Committee when he affirmed that the proposal to reduce funding for legal aid to prisoners was ideological, rather than driven by financial considerations. Given the minimal amount that the proposals were supposed to save, that is not surprising. When one takes into account that the savings engendered by denying access to legal aid to prisoners seeking redress is very likely to be outweighed more than fourfold by the costs—for example, of delayed release or of Parole Board hearings, matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—the economic case falls away completely.
This is not the only area in which the Lord Chancellor’s ideological proclivities are shaping policy. The residence test for legal assistance, like its proposed equivalent in the health service, is, as my noble friend Lord Bach has pointed out, another blast on the Tory political dog whistle which is likely to cost more than it saves, apart from its malign consequences for a particularly vulnerable group of people, including children, immigration detainees or even Gurkhas. Are these people to be treated, in Kipling’s words, as,
“lesser breeds without the Law”,
but in this case at our behest, not theirs?
In the crucially important area of judicial review, the savings are estimated at all of £1 million for each of the two proposed restrictions: where legal aid is withheld until permission is granted to proceed with a judicial review, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and where the case is borderline, even where there may be a public-interest element. Here, the Government’s use of figures would do credit to one of those bankers manipulating LIBOR. They rely on the fact that over half of legal aid applications for judicial review are ended prior to permission being granted. However, as the respected Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law points out, a much higher percentage of cases are abandoned or lost at the subsequent stages by claimants who do not have legal aid. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, many cases are withdrawn because a defendant body, perhaps a local authority in a planning matter, recognises its mistake and corrects it before the case proceeds.
Again and again, eminent judges, including the president of the Supreme Court, the Master of the Rolls and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, have stressed the importance of judicial review as a means of holding the Executive and public bodies to account and as a cornerstone of our judicial system, much as our courts uphold the human rights legislation which we should be proud to have caused to be secured in the European convention, but which Tory Ministers seem constantly to denigrate. Even the Attorney-General has expressed his concerns about the impact of these proposals on judicial review. Can the Minister really be comfortable in this tainted company? Is he really a willing accomplice to the political offence of obtaining parliamentary votes by false pretences? I think more of him than that. Indeed, there are false pretences on the strategic scale, not just in relation to the particular issues that have been canvassed today.
The cost of legal aid is falling, not rising, even before taking into account the fact that the cost includes VAT, which of course goes to the Treasury—assuming that HMRC collects it, which it is not always capable of doing, as we have heard recently. From a peak of £2.237 billion in 2009-10, the bill has fallen to £1.917 billion; that is a significant reduction. In cash terms, it now stands at marginally above the cost of legal aid in 2007-08. If one takes into account VAT and the impact of inflation on those figures, it is clear that the cost is not out of control; indeed, in real terms, it is falling and has fallen substantially.
Moreover, as the National Audit Office pointed out, the overall cost of our justice system, including legal aid, is not at all out of line with that of other European jurisdictions, at 0.33% of government expenditure. That is equal to the average. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out—I join others in congratulating her on securing this debate—you cannot really compare different legal aid systems when they apply to different judicial systems. In any event, overall, the expenditure on the courts and the justice system is not greater here than elsewhere. In any case, the Government are yet to explain how they will achieve their £220 million saving when their estimates disclose that the figure for 2016-17 is only £118 million.
We are now in the middle of a consultation on the proposed changes to criminal legal aid, which remain highly contentious, despite the fact that a defendant may now choose his lawyer rather than have one appointed, as in the Moscow magistrates’ court of old, by the state. How that will work in the world of the proposed tendering process, not to mention the ludicrous proposition of the fees for guilty and not guilty pleas being the same, is wholly unclear. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to that clear anomaly. Will any changes to the criminal legal aid scheme be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and, if so, in what form?
Contrary to the impression that Mr Grayling likes to convey—I do not accuse the Minister of this; he is not guilty on this particular charge—concern about the effects of the existing and future cuts to legal aid is not confined to lawyers or expert witnesses, who will also be badly affected. Last week, the Judicial Executive Board, which includes the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the heads of the main divisions of the High Court, joined the chorus of criticism and concern, while rightly acknowledging the need for savings to be made.
A wide range of voluntary organisations, from Citizens Advice, Mind and Shelter to the 26 children’s charities who signed a letter published in today’s Daily Telegraph—and even several Conservative MPs in a House of Commons debate—have expressed their profound worries about what has happened and what portends. They do so because the cuts already made are having dire consequences. Law centres, CABs and other third sector advice agencies are trapped between soaring demand and reduced resources.
The Newcastle Law Centre, which I played a small part in creating and supporting, is now down to one lawyer and can undertake legal aid only for immigration cases, and even those cases are financed by the council’s Newcastle Fund for voluntary sector projects. Since 29 April, it has had to turn away 80 cases out of 138 which would previously have qualified as being in scope. The cases were mainly on family, welfare and immigration matters. That matches a 59% reduction in cases lost after the cuts at the Islington Law Centre. Newcastle Citizens Advice Bureau has lost qualified professionals and in three months has had a 40% increase in welfare cases, with 157 people who are now out of scope for tribunal representation having to be given unlimited advice on self-help, 83 of them seeking to challenge Atos assessments. As we have heard, fees for interpreters and doctors’ letters can no longer be funded. The CAB in Gateshead lost £500,000 of funding. The Newcastle bureau has to rely on Big Lottery funding for projects, which now have to be bid for every six months—and on a different basis each time.
For hundreds of thousands of people and their dependents, there is a no entry sign where once there was access to justice. As we have heard, that applies to judicial review, to family cases including domestic violence, to prisoners, to immigration, to trafficking, to debt and welfare cases and to children and young people. I hope that the Government will listen to the debate today, which has been virtually exclusively critical of what they are doing and think again about the impact—perhaps not foreseen—that they are having on the lives of too many of our fellow citizens and other residents of this country.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, it is important that I put on the record the Government’s point of view in this important debate, so I will not be able to follow the usual courtesy of a detailed response to the many individual points and questions raised. However, I will treat the Hansard of this debate as an input into the consultation under way, and I will see whether I can cover some of the specific points raised in an omnibus letter that we will circulate to noble Lords.
First, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing a debate on this important subject. It has attracted a speakers list of great experience and expertise, and the debate as a whole has been a major contribution to what I emphasise is a consultation still in progress. This debate and the consultation that has initiated it take place against a background of two inescapable realities. The first was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, herself when she spoke in the debate on the gracious Speech on 9 May. She was also quoted today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. She said:
“It is self-evident that there cannot be a bottomless fund for legal aid”.—[Official Report, 9/3/13; col. 101.]
The second reality was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his review of the procurement of legal aid conducted in 2006. He said:
“A healthy legal services market should be driven by best value competition based on quality, capacity and price. All three of these factors should lead to the restructuring of the supply market”.
Of his own proposals, he said:
“The emphasis of the proposals has been upon providing incentives for firms to structure their businesses in such a way that legal aid services can be procured more effectively, and that the service is delivered more efficiently”.
It is therefore no surprise that previous Governments wrestled with this issue.
The establishment of the Legal Services Commission in 1999 reformed the part of the system which funds legal aid services but not the part which delivers them. Costs continued to increase, giving rise to several series of fee cuts. The case for reform was certainly enough to persuade the Opposition to include a commitment to find greater savings from the legal aid scheme in their 2010 manifesto. Their consultation document, Restructuring the Delivery of Criminal Defence Services, published earlier that year—this was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—said:
“Currently the criminal defence service is highly fragmented, with a large number of small suppliers and relatively few large suppliers”.
The need for reform of legal aid-funded services in order to deliver a cost-effective, sustainable legal aid scheme is well established, but it is not the only driver for reform of the legal professions. Changes in technology and its increasingly fundamental role in the functioning of the criminal justice system demand the kinds of changes to working practices and business models seen throughout the public and private sectors. The introduction of alternative business structures, Jackson reforms and an increasingly well informed customer base are all examples of changes which present their own challenges that the legal professions must meet. Those changes are accompanied by the brutal fact that the number of businesses providing criminal legal aid services now vastly outstrips demand for such services.
The realities have been gathering force and relevance for decades, so it is absurd for the professions to claim that they have been bounced by a short and ill considered consultation. When I first came into this office in 2010, the Bar Council was starting to consider ways to restructure the way that it delivers its services. It was looking at what it called procure co-type organisations. I had a very interesting discussion with the then chair of the Bar Council about its vision for the future of the Bar. I understand that work to explore such arrangements ceased at the request of senior members of the Bar due to concerns that it would aid the Government in introducing competitive tendering. We want the Law Society and the Bar Council to engage with changes which are in many cases inevitable.
The Government recognise that the services the professions deliver are a vital component of our legal system and ensure access to justice and equality before the law. We recognise that the independent judiciary—perhaps the most critical element of our justice system—could not survive without drawing from the pool of talent that the professions create.
However, alongside the need to ensure access to justice and a healthy, sustainable legal sector, the professions must also recognise that the Government are entitled to seek the best possible value for money from the legal aid budget. The coalition’s programme for government made a commitment to review the legal aid scheme with the aim of finding savings, culminating in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This will have removed around £320 million from the legal aid budget by 2014-15—largely, as has been explained, from the civil legal aid budget—as well as strengthening accountability and introducing a more rigorous approach to financial management by creating the Legal Aid Agency.
However, the current financial climate means that it is necessary to look again at everything that the Ministry of Justice is doing, including in relation to legal aid, in order to make further savings, particularly in respect of criminal legal aid. This was the focus of the consultation, which has recently concluded, and the aim is to further reduce the legal aid spend by around £220 million by 2018-19.
The consultation, published in April, included a proposal to move to a model of price-competitive tendering in the criminal legal aid market. Conscious of the professions’ objections to the principle of “one case, one fee”, we proposed to exclude criminal advocacy from the competition model, instead proposing to restructure the Crown Court advocacy scheme. Being mindful of the great disparity in the level of fee income received by advocates for Crown Court work, our proposals would rebalance fee income so that those at the top end took the greatest reduction and the lower earners the least. Indeed, some lower earners may see a small increase in their fee income.
Alongside this, we sought to further increase efficiency by proposing a sensible reduction in the use of multiple counsel. To ensure public confidence in the level of expenditure on the longest and most expensive cases, as well as delivering the necessary savings for the legal aid scheme, we propose to reduce the rates paid for criminal, very high-cost cases by 30%. We have also included some small but important reforms to civil legal aid and expert fees to ensure that these, too, are fair and proportionate, and consistent with those paid for similar work elsewhere.
Our proposals also seek to address a number of issues where the savings may be small but we believe that the impact on public confidence in the legal aid scheme is significant. We propose to reduce the scope of prison law cases funded through legal aid, directing less serious matters to the internal prisoner complaints process. The prisoner complaints system was updated in 2012 and has recently been audited with a review of the adequacy, effectiveness and reliability of controls over prisoner complaints, with no significant concerns identified. Criminal legal aid will remain for a significant number of cases where liberty is at stake, such as parole hearings, or where there is a risk of extra days being added, such as in disciplinary cases.
By proposing a Crown Court eligibility threshold, we are ensuring that those who have the means to pay for their own defence do so. By setting it at twice the average household disposable income, we have ensured that it is fair.
In introducing a residence test, we seek to ensure that civil legal aid expenditure is targeted at those who have a strong connection to the UK. As with other public services, legal aid is paid for by UK taxpayers and we do not believe that it should be provided to those who have never set foot in this country or whose connection is tenuous.
We have already proposed an exception for asylum seekers in recognition of their particular vulnerability—
Lord McNally
No, I am not giving way. I am sorry. I have five minutes left. It is a time-limited debate and the noble Lord has had his time.
Lord McNally
I am answering the debate.
We have already proposed an exception for asylum seekers, in recognition of their particular vulnerability, and made clear that persons who did not meet the test would be entitled to apply for exceptional funding. We have heard the concerns raised during the consultation and in today’s debate in respect of the impact of the test on other groups of people or types of cases. We will reflect carefully on these points before making any further decisions.
We recognise judicial review as an important tool of redress which balances the power of the state. We continue to believe that it is important to make legal aid available for most judicial review cases. Under this proposal, legal aid for the earlier stages of a case would not be affected. Payment would continue as now for work to investigate the strength of a claim or to engage in correspondence as required by the pre-action protocol. This is important as many cases will settle or conclude at this point without issuing an application, avoiding further costs to the legal aid scheme, the courts and public authorities. However, we are concerned that legal aid is sometimes treated as a resource to further pursue weak cases that have little effect other than to waste taxpayers’ money. We do not think it is fair for taxpayers to pay the bills for weak cases that have little effect other than to incur costs for public authorities and the legal aid scheme. We set out our initial assessment of the impact of the proposals along with the consultation paper and invited consultees to comment on the extent and range of those impacts and set out any concerns that they had in this regard. We are now carefully considering all responses and the issues that they raised.
Much of what has been said about our proposals on price competition has quite simply been false. The debate has been dogged by a baffling conflation of the Government’s intention to manage the criminal legal aid scheme, through around a quarter of the current number of contracts, with a mythical intention to see only around a quarter of the present number of firms. Some of the rhetoric has risked misleading the public that legal aid would no longer be available. However, the professions have made clear their views on the importance of client choice both for the benefit of clients themselves and for the health of the market more generally. As the Justice Secretary told the Justice Select Committee last week, we have listened and will put forward revised proposals in the autumn. We have also listened on the proposed residence test and will consider the issues raised as well as the comments made across the proposals from nearly16,000 responses.
This House has much collective wisdom and experience about the issues that we have been discussing today. I want to make it clear that this is a real consultation and we are listening. The decision that Ministers have to take will be in the context of the economic realities from which the legal aid fund cannot escape. There will be cuts that will mean some tough choices. However, when the cuts have been made we will still be left with one of the most generous legal aid schemes in the world. I would make the point that although I have never compared it with continental legal aid schemes, I have compared it with common law legal aid schemes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere—and noble Lords will find that it is one of the most generous in the world. I am proud of that fact. I want us to have a generous legal aid scheme. Access to justice is important. I want us to work on ways and ideas, some of which have been thrown up by the consultation, which will give long-term sustainability to legal aid.
However, long-term sustainability means the legal professions facing up to some hard facts. There continues to be oversupply in both parts of the profession, with too many lawyers chasing a limited amount of publicly funded work. Lawyers themselves have to address the further issues of quality and consolidation which will remain long after this present argument has been settled. Alternative business structures, the Jackson reforms, no-win no-fee, damage-based agreements and conditional fee agreements, will all impact on the organisation and structure of the profession. There are wider issues, such as a lack of social mobility and diversity which cannot be solved simply by tweaking the legal aid scheme.
In some ways, I have been disappointed at the way in which those who have responsibilities in these areas have refused to engage with these fundamental issues. I agree with my noble friend Lord Marks that we have to seek a new settlement in this matter. There is still time to do so. Our legal system, our respect for the rule of law and the eminence and integrity of our judiciary are precious gifts passed down from one generation to another. We all have a duty to protect what is best while managing the change that is inevitable. That is the task before us now, and I again call on all those who care about the system of justice to join us in that task.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I have the impression that there is no time left save for me to thank all noble Lords and all noble and learned Lords who have joined in from different perspectives. They have been almost unanimous in encouraging the Government: first; to make sure that there is primary legislation; secondly, to undertake a real impact assessment; and thirdly, to take a holistic view of the costs of the legal system in order to make cuts where they are most needed.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for listening. I remind him that the Bar could certainly move faster were there not so much red tape and duplication in the Legal Services Act 2007, but I am sure that it will do its best. I look forward to further proposals from the Government to rescue this most important pillar of our democratic society.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
Baroness Hanham
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20 May be approved.
Relevant documents: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the regulations laid before this House on 20 May 2013 introduce new and amending regulations to support recent planning reforms—reforms that will give applicants the confidence to submit planning applications for development, that will give businesses the confidence to invest to support growth, and that will give greater certainty for communities.
The proposed changes to the fees regulations emanate from a variety of changes in both primary and secondary legislation as well as from policy, which I will attempt to outline to noble Lords. The draft regulations were approved in the other place on 26 June 2013 and, if approved by this House, would come into force on 1 October 2013.
The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 introduced measures to enable quicker and better decisions where there are clear failures in local planning authority performance. We are all aware that delays in getting a decision on a planning application can mean frustration, unnecessary expense and the loss of investment and jobs. Where a planning authority has been designated, planning applicants will have the option of submitting applications for major development directly to the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State.
I should emphasise that this reform does not remove any powers from underperforming authorities; it merely gives applicants the choice of applying to the inspectorate where this is clearly justified. We have been working closely with the Local Government Association to ensure that any authorities that are designated will receive the support they need in order to improve.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has questioned why we are bringing forward changes to the fees regulations to implement this measure ahead of the order setting out how applications will be handled where they are submitted to the Secretary of State. We have made very clear in our response to the consultation on this measure, published on 4 June, how such applications will be handled, including the very small number of tasks that designated authorities will still be required to do.
We have been equally clear that we would like to make any initial designations by the end of October this year so that any cases of sustained poor performance are tackled as soon as possible. To meet that schedule we have prioritised the regulations that are before the House today, but there should be no doubt about our intentions for how the rest of the process will work. The response that we issued on 4 June makes that clear.
Regulation 3 allows the planning application fee to be paid to the Secretary of State rather than to the local planning authority. This will enable the Planning Inspectorate to cover the cost of determining the planning application in place of the local planning authority. It is important that a fee is paid to cover the cost to the planning inspector of determining the application, especially as applicants can expect to benefit from the increased development value that planning permission brings, otherwise the benefit derived would be at a cost to taxpayers. The fee will be exactly the same as would have been paid to the local planning authority. It is simply going to a different place, where the applicant chooses this alternative route. There will be no difference for the applicant.
Local authorities will not benefit from the fee as they will not be dealing with the application, which is something we discussed at length when the Growth and Infrastructure Act was in Committee. Local authorities will be required to undertake some work in connection with the application, but this will involve only keeping the planning register updated and notifying neighbours of the planning application. The designated authority will also be required to send any planning site history to the Planning Inspectorate. This work is minimal and will not be burdensome on local authority resources, particularly as it will impact only on the small number of authorities who are designated.
Pre-application discussions on planning proposals can help to iron out issues at an early stage and avoid time being wasted on ill-conceived applications. Local planning authorities are able to charge for such advice under Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003. We want to make sure that pre-application advice is available to applicants who choose to apply to the Planning Inspectorate. Regulation 2 makes provision for the inspectorate to make a charge for such advice, strictly on a cost-recovery basis, as is the case for local planning authorities.
The planning guarantee was put in place in The Plan for Growth to promote timely decisions on planning applications. This provides certainty by setting a one-year limit on the time that any planning application should spend with decision-makers so that, in practice, there is no more than 26 weeks to decide an application and no more than 26 weeks to decide any appeal that may follow a decision on the application. We are strengthening this by underpinning the guarantee with a refund of the application fee where a planning authority fails to determine the application within 26 weeks from the date that a valid application is made, as set out in Regulation 5.
The statutory period for determination is 13 weeks for major applications and eight weeks for other applications. This means that the time allowed under the planning guarantee is twice as long as the statutory period for major applications and more than three times that for other types. We believe that it is manifestly unreasonable if no decision has been issued within that period and that, therefore, the applicant should have the fee reimbursed. We want to ensure that the system speeds up decisions and operates fairly. There are some limited exemptions from the guarantee to allow a common-sense approach; for instance, where the applicant and the planning authority have agreed that a longer period than 26 weeks is genuinely needed to deal with a particularly complex proposal. This means that local authorities will need to ensure that they are efficient and effective in dealing with planning applications. The fees for planning applications were raised by 15% in November 2012. This will provide an additional £32 million per annum to local authorities to fund planning services.
Furthermore, we will be working closely with the Planning Advisory Service to provide support to those authorities that are designated and those which are close to designation to help them to understand how their planning service can operate more efficiently.
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 introduced changes to bring about the Government’s aim to streamline the heritage protection system. Specifically, we have introduced the provision to abolish the need for conservation area consent to demolish an unlisted building in a conservation area, but instead that it should require planning permission. This means that, where development is also being proposed, only a single consent will be required. The provisions simply replicate the existing level of protection but in a streamlined way.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very clear explanation of these regulations, which concern changes to the charging of fees for planning applications and certain other planning events.
Our objection to the regulations is not so much about changing the scope of charging as the underlying policies that drive this necessity. These are, as we have heard, certain provisions in the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, the first in particular enabling applications for major developments for designated authorities to bypass the local planning authority and go directly to the Secretary of State. We opposed this during the passage of the primary legislation and continue to do so. It is the ultimate denial of localism, which for planning has been embedded in the system for more than half a century.
However, if applications are to be routed to the Secretary of State—in practice, the Planning Inspectorate—then it is obviously right that there should be a commensurate fee structure, otherwise the incentive would be for major applications always to be made to the Secretary of State. I understand, and I think that the Minister confirmed it, that fees applicable to England were last uprated with effect from November 2012; it is understood that the fees set out in these regulations would apply initially.
As we have heard, the regulations cover other fee issues, and I shall come on to those, but I have some questions for the Minister. What volume of applications is it anticipated will be received and be subject to this charging regime? During the passage of the primary legislation we had various estimates of “vanishingly few” LPAs being designated, although that was revised up to around 20 by the time we finished our deliberations. The criteria for designation were published in June in time for an October start to designation. While I accept that the final data for the initial designation will not be available until September 2013, the department must have some increasingly firm indications of the likely number of planning authorities to be designated. Can we know what that number is?
Where a local planning authority has been designated and major applications are made to the Secretary of State, directions can nevertheless be given to the local planning authority requiring it to undertake certain tasks in relation to the application. We consider it unfair that the authority should receive no part of the fee. Moreover, this is not the only circumstance where the regulations require the local planning authority to undertake activity for no fee. The changed arrangements whereby in future the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas will have to be dealt with by local planning authorities also come without the right to a fee.
These regulations cover circumstances where the Secretary of State, via the Planning Inspectorate, is able to charge a fee for pre-application advice where the application is made to the Secretary of State. That developers should pay for such advice is entirely reasonable, although we would maintain that much of this work will in fact be done by the local planning authority, which will get no part of the fee. Notwithstanding that an application goes to the Secretary of State, will the Minister encourage local planning authorities to engage in the pre-application process, and how should they be remunerated if they do so? The regulations set down that charging should proceed by applying an hourly rate to the time spent by the planning inspector or planning officer. This hourly rate is to be set by the Secretary of State from time to time and must be set by reference to the average cost of providing the services of the individual. It is understood that this reflects the charging position for local planning authorities. Can the Minister remind us of what systems are in place to put this into effect? What is understood by “average cost”? Which overheads are built into the calculation? Is any differentiation made for the different levels of experience of the staff, other than planning inspector or planning officer, or indeed for the overheads of different regional locations? As for fees payable under the general permitted development order, the regulations require a fee of £80 where prior approval for change of use is required. Approval might be required from the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. Does the fee go to the person required to give approval and what is the basis for the £80 figure?
Our overall concern about these regulations is that they erode the opportunity for local planning authorities to generate fee income and therefore to sustain their planning capacity, and this at a time when there has been considerable change in the planning system, where local authority budgets have been squeezed to breaking point with further cuts to come, and when the blame for poor economic performance is all too often laid at the door of the planning system. I conclude by asking the Minister this: what assessment has been made of the capacity of local planning authorities to cope in the current environment?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response to these regulations which, if I interpret it correctly, is: “We don’t like them but see what you’re trying to do”. I take that to be the spirit in which the noble Lord delivered his response. He asked me a couple of questions, some of which I may be able to answer directly and some of which I may not.
The first was about the increase in planning fees. As I said in my opening remarks, they were increased by 15% across the board in November 2012, so local authorities have had quite an uplift in those fees very recently.
The next question was: what volume of applications do we expect to go to the directorate? We discussed this during the Growth and Infrastructure Bill proceedings. We will know more about that when we see how many local authorities are to be designated in September. Once we see the data about which local authorities and how many are likely to be designated, it will be easier to judge that. As I said before, however, we do not expect this to be a huge number. In fact, we very much hope that there will not be a huge number, because that would mean that we were having to designate more local authorities than we wanted.
On the pre-application fee, if the developer is going to go to the inspectorate, it is very unlikely that they will want the local authority to, or indeed that the local authority would, hold any pre-application discussions. The intention is that the planning inspectorate will do any pre-application discussions and then charge a commensurate fee for them. In fact, perhaps I should rephrase that: the applicant can decide where to go, but we expect that they will probably go to the inspector if they are going to go there in the first place.
The noble Lord also asked me when information will be available about which authorities risk a designation. I think that I have answered that: September. The list will be published so they will know then. Indeed, many of them know now what the situation is because they are kept pretty well up to date with what is being put forward.
The noble Lord asked me about the £80 fee. I am now struggling a bit because I cannot remember what that was for. Would the noble Lord mind rephrasing his question?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It was to do with the general permitted development order and the regulations. There are regulations that require prior approval from either the Secretary of State or the local planning authority. My question was: to whom does the £80 go? Is it the person who actually has to give that approval, be it the Secretary of State or the local planning authority?
Baroness Hanham
Yes, we would expect that to be more or less the local planning authority in most cases.
I hope that I have covered the questions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has addressed the regulations. So long as he is happy that I have more or less covered what he had to say, I beg to move that these regulations be agreed to.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the draft order laid before the House on 8 July be approved.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Government are determined to do all that we can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. The proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We therefore propose to add both Jama’atu Ahli Sunna Lidda Awati Wal Jihad, more widely known as Boko Haram, and Minbar Ansar Deen, also known as Ansar al-Sharia UK, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 12th proscription order under that Act.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary believes that both organisations meet the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate to exercise her discretion to proscribe them. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism.
The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation; invite support for a proscribed organisation; arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; and wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available, relevant information on the organisation. This includes open-source material as well as intelligence material, and advice that reflects consultation across government, including the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that both Houses must approve the order before proscribing a new organisation.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that both organisations are concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence but I can provide a brief summary.
Boko Haram is a prolific terrorist organisation, based in Nigeria, whose ultimate goal is to establish the Islamic Caliphate, seeking to undermine democratic government through its campaign of violence and attacks. It has targeted all sections of Nigerian society—Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, civilians and members of the security forces alike—as well as members of the international community. For example, an attack near Abuja on Christmas Day 2011 that killed at least 26, and an attack on a bus station in Kano City in March 2013, that killed more than 60, were both attributed to the organisation.
The organisation has also sought to attack western targets in Nigeria. In August 2011, it claimed responsibility for a suicide attack against the UN building in Abuja that killed 26. They have also targeted westerners for kidnapping in the last few years.
I stress that the Government are aware of the concerns over the approach used by the Nigerian Government to defeat Boko Haram. While the UK Government continue to work with Nigeria to fight terrorism, we also make it clear that human rights must be respected at all times in our work to defeat terrorism around the globe.
Minbar Ansar Deen is a Salafist group based in the UK which promotes and encourages terrorism. Minbar Ansar Deen distributes material through its online forum which promotes terrorism by encouraging individuals to travel overseas to engage in extremist activity—specifically fighting. The group is not related to Ansar al-Sharia groups in other countries.
Decisions on when and whether to proscribe an organisation are taken only following extensive consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that decisions are built on a robust evidence base, do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. It is not, of course, appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decision to proscribe.
The proscription of both these organisations will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters, and will signal our condemnation of these organisation and their activities.
I should make it clear to noble Lords that proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping, but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism.
I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact, so the legislation provides an appeal mechanism. Anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be deproscribed. If refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal which is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions.
In conclusion, I believe it is right that we add both groups to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation and the information he has given to us today. I understand that he is restricted in what he can say for reasons that are obvious to us all, but I appreciate the information he has been able to give. We also understand that Governments do not act unless they are assured that the information available is accurate and up to date. I feel some sympathy for the noble Earl on these issues as I did in connection with the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that some of the words can be quite difficult to pronounce. I commend him on his efforts.
Obtaining evidence on which to bring forward such orders is obviously time consuming, painstaking and can at times be very dangerous. I am sure that your Lordships’ House wishes to pay tribute to the work of the agencies that undertake such investigations. As the Minister said, a group can be proscribed under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if it,
“commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.
On the basis of the information provided by the noble Earl, we are content to support the Government in this proscription.
This is the third time I have spoken for the Opposition on proscription orders; unfortunately, each time a different Minister has spoken for the Government, but I hope that the noble Earl has had the opportunity to look at some of the previous debates we have had on the other two orders. He will have noted that last year I queried why action had not been taken against the Boko Haram sect, given that the organisation that we were then taking action to proscribe, Ansaru, was in fact a breakaway group from Boko Haram and had been in existence for a much shorter time. I asked then that it be kept under review as we were somewhat surprised not to be discussing this group then, given the evidence of their activities that was available.
I understand the need to have accurate, up-to-date information, but there is also the need to act swiftly and decisively. Are the noble Earl and the Government content that they have acted quickly enough? It would be helpful if he could give some explanation about why there has been a time lag between these two orders, given that we previously knew about the activities of Boko Haram when we discussed this issue last year. The evidence appears overwhelming and the Government are quite right to bring it before us; the Minister described some of the large-scale terrorist attacks that have claimed many lives.
That brings me to one aspect that is of concern; I do not know how the Government are seeking to address it. One core or central organisation may have many different parts, and as one group or organisation is proscribed, another ready-made organisation takes its place and carries on with its deadly mission. I appreciate all the issues we have discussed about action having to be evidence-based, but I am pretty sure that the security services must have some kind of organisational chart or map of the relationships between different groups and individuals and how they interact. It would be helpful if the noble Earl was able to say something about how we can address this issue of different organisations being proscribed and then others springing up.
In both the previous debates I raised the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The noble Earl will recall that when the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was the leader of the Opposition, he was in no doubt that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be proscribed. He repeatedly attacked the Labour Government for not doing so. The Minister, rightly, has been very clear today that action to proscribe a group has to be taken on the evidence available. I know how complex and difficult it is to get all that evidence and present it in an appropriate manner. However, unless David Cameron was acting irresponsibly as leader of the Opposition, he must have examined and considered the issue and the information at that time and made the judgment that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be proscribed.
At Gordon Brown’s first Prime Minister’s Questions in 2007, David Cameron made this his first topic. He said:
“Hizb ut-Tahrir … should be banned—why has it not happened?”.
When it was pointed out that evidence was required, Mr Cameron criticised that and said:
“What more evidence do we need before we ban that organisation … when will this be done? People will find it hard to understand why an organisation that urges people to kill Jews has not been banned”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/07; cols. 951-52.]
The party opposite has now been in power for more than three years and still Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been banned but there must have been evidence available for the then leader of the Opposition to make the very bold statement he made on many occasions in the House of Commons.
I am not going to make the same points that were raised against us when we were in government. I thought at the time that it was inappropriate and irresponsible and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible for me to do so as well. However, I ask the Minister to assure your Lordships’ House that this organisation is under observation and review and that there will be no unnecessary delays in bringing forward a further order if the evidence warrants it.
Is the Minister aware of the evidence presented in the 2011 review of the Prevent strategy that Hizb ut-Tahrir is targeting universities and seeking to radicalise students? That was confirmed in a Parliamentary Answer to Diana Johnson MP last week. The Minister, James Brokenshire, said that,
“we believe there is unambiguous evidence to indicate that some extremist organisations, including Hizb-ut-Tahrir, target specific universities and colleges … with the objective of influencing and recruiting students to support their agenda”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/13; col. 786W.]
I know the noble Earl understands the danger of home-grown extremism. Your Lordships’ House was shocked, angered and deeply saddened by the horrific killing of Lee Rigby in London. I do not think that there is anything more that I, or anyone else, can say that makes a more powerful and compelling case for reviewing all measures in place for tackling this kind of recruiting behaviour to ensure they are appropriate and effective. I hope the Minister can give an assurance today that there will be such a review to ensure that all the current measures to tackle recruiting behaviour are effective and if not, that they will be strengthened to ensure that they are. Can I also ask the noble Earl about the funding for the Prevent strategy and similar work and if any changes have been made to that in the past three years?
Towards the end of his speech the Minister referred to organisations that could be deproscribed on application to the Home Secretary and, if the response was unsatisfactory, by judicial review. As I understand it, the independent reviewer, David Anderson, has proposed that there should be a process for organisations to be deproscribed. I am not convinced that the Government have acted on that yet. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could say something about that. On both points I am happy for him to write to me.
We support this measure and I hope the noble Earl can address the points I have raised. We are deeply grateful to those who obtain the evidence required and appreciative of the dangers they face in obtaining such evidence. I also want to impress on the noble Earl how important it is that we act on accurate information as swiftly as possible.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. She referred to the work that various agencies do and the risks that they take and, I share in her thanks. It is also important to understand that we use all available sources of information and not just HUMINT.
The noble Baroness quite rightly asked why we did not take action earlier. She said we should act swiftly and decisively. However, there are tactical considerations as well, regarding the optimum time to intervene. We also need to work in collaboration with our international partners; there may be a reason why they do not want us to take action at a particular point.
She also mentioned the important issue of splinter groups and new names. Derivative organisations which are effectively the same organisation operating under a different name can be dealt with under the negative procedure so it is a bit easier in parliamentary terms. The same tests have to be met for splinter organisations and there are the same considerations regarding international co-operation.
The noble Baroness, unsurprisingly, talked about Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is not proscribed in the UK. Proscription can be considered only when the Home Secretary believes that an organisation is concerned in terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act. We cannot proscribe for political reasons; if we did, we could be challenged in the court. We have to apply the tests in the legislation, and then the other considerations that I referred to in my opening comments on when it is the right thing to do at the time. However, Hizb ut-Tahrir is an organisation that the Government have significant concerns about, and we will continue to monitor its actions very closely, as suggested by the noble Baroness. Such groups are not free to spread hatred and incite violence as they please; the police have comprehensive powers to take action under criminal law to deal with people who incite hatred, and they will do so. We will seek to ensure that Hizb ut-Tahrir, and groups like it, cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country; we will not tolerate secretive meetings behind closed doors on premises funded by the taxpayer. We will ensure that civic organisations are made well aware of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and groups like it, and any of the names under which they operate and the ways in which they go about their business.
I agree in general with the points that the noble Baroness made about the need to prevent terrorism, but that is also the reason for applying the law, or the tests, properly, and not proscribing an organisation, as I gently suggested, for political reasons.
The noble Baroness also asked about the Anderson report. The Government noted David Anderson’s comments in his report about the deproscription process, and responded to his report in March. Cross-government officials continue to explore options for improving the deproscription process; the Government will, of course, inform Parliament of any resulting changes to the regime. Under the current regime, any person affected by a proscription can submit an application to the Home Secretary with the question of whether she considers that organisation should be deproscribed. She has not received any deproscription applications, and I understand that none has been received by her predecessors since 2019.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that both Boko Haram, and Minbar Ansar Deen should be added to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. The proscription of Boko Haram demonstrates our condemnation of this group’s activities; proscribing it will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any of their supporters in the UK and ensure that they cannot operate here. The proscription of Minbar Ansar Deen will be a powerful tool for the police to help to disrupt the organisation successfully and send out a powerful message that the promotion and encouragement of terrorism are not acceptable, and that we will take action against organisations who partake in such activities.
Tourism: Music
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support and promote the impact of music upon tourism.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I was tempted—and have decided to do so—to start this debate on music tourism by saying, “Yeah, yeah, yeah”. As we know, in recent decades our music industry has moved from strength to strength. Indeed, we can hardly ignore the explosion of music events, be it classical, dance, folk, jazz, metal, pop or rock; we are spoilt for choice. The world-famous Glastonbury festival, which just hosted an astonishing 120,000 festival goers this year, is but one of hundreds that are now a regular occurrence up and down the land, from the Isle of Wight festival on the south coast to T in the Park in the Scottish Highlands. Festivals undoubtedly play an essential role in local and regional economies. I can speak for Liverpool and comment on the impact that music has historically made upon her tourist economy, but, of course, the same applies to exotic lands further afield, notably, the flourishing St Lucia jazz festival.
As I mentioned, this year’s Glastonbury festival was fantastically successful. It is too soon to gauge the full economic impact, but the last detailed economic assessment in 2007 reported direct spending of £73 million, with 23% going directly into Mendip’s local economy. As well as money pouring into local economies, festivals are attracting unprecedented numbers of overseas visitors. It may interest noble Lords to know that Brazilians are the most active in this regard, followed by New Zealanders and Norwegians. Research undertaken by UK Music shows that international music tourists attending large-scale music events contribute at least £247 million to the UK economy. I look forward to reading its new report, which is due to be published next month, as it will reveal how many people attend live music concerts and festivals each year. Specifically, we will learn what proportion of live music audiences are comprised of music tourists as opposed to the local population, as well as how much this spending benefits the regional and national economies and employment.
It is important to place music tourism in its international context so that we can learn how further to bolster and improve this country as a music destination. Is it any wonder that two of the top five international music festivals take place in the UK? Music festivals underpin our efforts and many places become synonymous with music hotspots. Many cities are excellent at creating such imagery, keen to harness the benefits as visitors descend on their musical events. For example, Berlin’s annual Love Parade—a celebration of club and techno culture—attracts more than 1 million visitors every year. The New Orleans jazz festival draws in over 400,000 people, and the Salzburg festival attracts over 200,000. The St Lucia jazz festival, which I mentioned earlier, makes a profit of nearly $6 million, and the Australian Festival of Chamber Music brings in $4 million to the local economy.
These regions have successfully marketed themselves as attractive music destinations. It is true that large music tourism developments are based in locations with the most famous scenes, styles and individuals. Salzburg has Mozart and Memphis has Elvis, but this has not stopped other cities building upon lesser reputations or seeking to create music tourism economies where little or no musical association previously existed. Great Britain simply has too much potential for musical tourism for the Government to stand idly by. I note from VisitBritain’s survey of 20,000 overseas panellists that music is seen as being very much an integral part of our culture and heritage. Indeed 44% of those asked feel that music is a cultural activity that they would expect to be produced by UK plc.
We are a talented nation. This House and the country can be extremely proud of last summer’s Olympic and Paralympic Games. The events brought untold success for our athletes, but they were also very significant for the capital and the nation as a whole. There is a catalogue of economic reports about the Games’ legacy and impact. However, I would suggest that what is missing is an attempt to take a broader look at the impact that music played during the Games. Many of us will have watched the brilliant opening and closing ceremonies that celebrated the success of British music throughout the ages. They showcased how British music has been and is of world-class standard. By the time of the closing ceremony, Chinese media were showering Britain with praise as a “holy land for music”. Equally, the Germans believed that the Games showcased the UK as the great power of pop music and culture. Even Russian newspapers believed that British music made the Games truly unforgettable. Our worldwide success propelled UK artists’ share of total global album sales. I firmly believe, and I am sure noble Lords will agree, that the Olympics showcased the importance of British music not only to the nation, but to the entire world. We have a very proud history of producing stellar musicians and the Olympics were an opportunity to celebrate this proud heritage.
However, Great Britain has always had world-class music talent in every genre, from the Rolling Stones to the Halle Orchestra, and I am proud to say that the UK is one of three net exporters of music throughout the world. Our music success has the potential to propel Britain’s profile as a music destination even further and the Prime Minister acknowledged as much at the British Recorded Music Industry’s 40th anniversary party. Now more than ever we must harness the international goodwill that the Games have rekindled for British music. The real impact will not come just from visitor footfall, but from businesses keen to see the country at its zenith. Music tourism, if supported properly by government, can and will play a vital role in attracting even more guests and even more spending, year after year.
As I mentioned earlier, my own city of Liverpool is steeped in musical tradition. We are the city that gave the world The Beatles, but there is still a host up of up-and-coming talented musicians including The Wombats and, although yet to be recognised, The Stopouts. Most importantly, Liverpool’s music scene has always been supported by the community. This has been its key to success. Beat in the Mersey, a tour that opened a few weeks ago, aims to tell the story of Liverpool’s musical history through song, dance and music. It concentrates on the period when Liverpool was the second city of the then British Empire, drawing millions to her port, who brought with them music from around the globe. It is easy to romanticise about the period when Liverpool became a musical sponge, soaking up influences from the many thousands who passed through its docks. As Beat in the Mersey makes clear, the seven miles of dockland spread along Liverpool’s shores were crucial to her musical and cultural development.
Only yesterday, I was delighted to read in the local press that the Liverpool International Music Festival will be boosted by the EU’s commitment to inject more than £2 million into its leisure and tourism offer. This, I hope, means that an extra 2.5 million visitors will flock to Merseyside and pump £200 million into the local economy by 2015. Liverpool as a community has been keen to promote itself beyond a shrine to John, Paul, George and Ringo. It is a city where musical talent is intrinsic to the very people who walk her streets. Indeed, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra has been organising events with schools and the community since the 1940s, when Sir Malcolm Sargent introduced concerts for schools. By 2009, the orchestra was reaching out to some 45,000 people, including 22,000 children, every year. The desire to bring out the best in Liverpool’s musical community can also be seen in the Knotty Ash Youth and Community Centre, which is used as a music rehearsal space for future musical talent. It engages with young people in innovative ways, using music as a way to develop the individual.
Community musical groups, along with up-and-coming musicians, have been aided by the Live Music Act 2012, which was initiated by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and shepherded through the other place by Don Foster MP. The Act has removed a lot of unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, and now community organisations and music venues can put on even more events designed to bring local people together. Now that venues have more freedom to host live events, British artists have more opportunities to develop their talents. This will serve only to enrich our local communities and the economy overall. UK Music estimates that the Live Music Act could enable 13,000 more venues to start holding live music events. Who knows? Of those 13,000 venues, we could have another Cavern Club with new musical talent waiting to jump on to the world stage.
The globe’s evident love of our musical heritage must be harnessed and used to support music tourism. I strongly urge the Government to consider how best to implement a well defined music strategy. Northern Ireland is already engaged in such an activity. The strategy rests on enabling the music industry to realise its full economic potential. It has been informed by detailed consultation with more than 80 representatives from the industry, as well as with public agencies interested in the sector’s development. The strategy aims to develop a creative and vibrant music sector to achieve consistent and sustainable economic growth. This will create jobs and contribute to wealth. This, in turn, adds to a positive image of Northern Ireland on the world stage. By devising and implementing a music strategy, Northern Ireland is making the most of a tangible economic and cultural opportunity. We as a nation must do the same to attract even greater numbers of overseas music tourists. Our approach should emphasise and engage with existing tourist bodies and authorities across Britain, and help them to market themselves as music tourist destinations.
I am sure that we all agree that our great cities have provided the world with fantastic music and musicians—from classical to jazz, from reggae to pop. Liverpool launched four young men to unparalleled heights, Manchester gave us Oasis, Birmingham produced Led Zeppelin and London propelled Adele from obscurity to near universal fame. We are extremely lucky to have such a strong and vibrant musical history and, if we are to be successful in the future, not only must we build upon the country’s musical titans, but our communities, schools and people must also play their part. As the song goes,
“I should have known better”.
I suggest that we do know better and I hope that the Government will lead the charge in creating a national music strategy.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, we should all be indebted to the noble Lord for securing this debate. I wholeheartedly endorse everything he had to say about our extraordinary musical heritage. At a time when so much attention is rightly being paid to reducing the deficit, it is crucial that those of us who love the arts, and classical music in particular, trumpet—no pun intended—the contribution that they make to our economy. This debate affords us a perfect opportunity to highlight the role of music in tourism, which is one of the engines of economic growth. I declare an interest as a member of the council of the Royal College of Music, home to some of the world's most remarkable young musicians.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, this country is blessed with an energetic and colourful musical life, whether it be the grand set pieces such as the BBC Proms, the constant supply of glorious music at the Royal Festival Hall, Covent Garden, the ENO, the Barbican Centre, Wigmore Hall and many other cultural centres, or programmes of astonishing music-making most nights of the term at our conservatoires. Moreover, this pattern, as the noble Lord also said, is mirrored throughout the regions. On any day of the week, we are able to join in any variety of musical experiences, from the “Ring Cycle” at the Proms, to “Peter Grimes” on Aldeburgh Beach, to Beethoven at the Barbican or to Schubert songs at Wigmore Hall. Indeed, we can probably hear the great master works of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. Our artistic repertoire is not limited to the great composers. Key to our musical tapestry, I believe, is the way in which we blend together household names with those who are not so well known, whether it be string quartets by Dittersdorf or the remarkable six-handed piano works of Gurlitt, both of which I have heard recently, as well as nurturing new talent.
This extraordinary musical offering, as we have heard, attracts substantial international audiences. For so many visitors to our shores, music is the magnet that lures them here. In a recent London Visitor Survey, some 60% of overseas visitors said that theatre, music and arts performances were either very important or important in their decision to visit London. It is estimated that, of the 4.2 million people attending classical concerts, opera or ballet in a year, 10% are from overseas. That, of course, has a big economic impact in not just around £10 million in ticket sales but in the spending on hotels, restaurants and souvenirs. A trend has been assiduously tracked over time by UK Music, which plays such an important and energetic role in the advocacy of music’s economic power.
The main point I want to make today is that great music-making by 50,000 performing musicians in the UK does not just happen by chance. There has to be a steady supply of new, well-trained entrants to the profession who can both perform and teach. If we want to will the ends—in other words, increased tourism and revenue—then we must will the means, which means keeping our music teaching the best in the world, as I believe it is. That is why the UK's conservatoires are of fundamental importance to this debate. As a report last year by the LSE entitled The Impact of Three London Conservatoires on the UK and London Economies concluded:
“The conservatoires are a key factor in the development and sustainability of London as a world music centre. Their graduates are heavily involved in the classical and modern music production which is crucial to London’s role as a leading centre of the arts … The conservatoires are an integral part of a network that provides London with benefits arising from this agglomeration both in terms of the music industry and through its symbiotic relationship with tourism, other creative arts, and the cultural industries generally”.
Crucially, the conservatoires train musicians, who then take part in the orchestras, choirs and chamber ensembles that make up our national music tapestry. The three conservatoires which commissioned the LSE report together produce each year some 300 music graduates. Therefore, over a 20-year period, they educate some 6,000 musicians, a significant proportion of the total number of musicians working in live performance. That includes many of the highest-achieving musicians, whose work, according to the LSE report,
“is likely to be fundamental to the entire music sector, on which the other performers also depend”.
That point is underlined by the fact that employment levels for conservatoire alumni are extremely high.
Recent figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show near full employment for conservatoire graduates, at a time when 10% of graduates from other universities are not in work or further education six months after leaving. Moreover, as Unistats Key Information Set statistics show, that work is overwhelmingly in the profession for which they studied. For the Royal College of Music, for instance, that means that 80% are in the artistic category and a further 10% are in teaching. Similarly, a study by the Musicians’ Union quoted in the LSE report analysed the educational origins of players in four major London orchestras in the early 2000s and found that two-thirds came from the leading conservatoires, with the Royal College of Music topping that list with just under 22% of graduates. If we want great orchestras, we must have great conservatoires.
It is not just classical music and the big orchestras which depend on conservatoire graduates. They also make up a high percentage of performers in London’s West End musicals. According to the Society of London Theatre, more than 8 million people attended a musical in London in 2011, with revenues that year of £329 million. Musical theatre is of course also a major export earner for the country. Whether it is “Les Misérables”, “Mamma Mia!” or “The Phantom of the Opera”, conservatoire graduates are at the centre of the musical action.
In terms of the ratio of their economic worth to the funding which they attract, our conservatoires provide enormous value for money. Central government grants to the conservatoires total about only £17 million each year, including a modest but crucial amount of exceptional funding. In turn, they play a disproportionate role in supporting a sector that is worth nearly £800 million to the economy in ticket sales to visitors from overseas and the wider value added from classical music and musical theatre. That seems to me a not inconsiderable bargain for the taxpayer and one that we must protect.
This debate asks the Government to address what plans they have to promote and support the impact of music on tourism. The most vital thing that the Government can do is to ensure that music teaching in the UK remains as vibrant, energetic, imaginative and inspirational as ever. I ask my noble friend to do three things. The first is to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to our conservatoires, on which they have rightly and commendably always placed such value. The second is to note, as we move through tough economic times, that any cuts to capital spending will disproportionately affect conservatoires because their facilities, in terms of both estate and instruments—in particular, pianos—are integral to the replication of professional conditions.
The third, given that music-making is international in its scope and that we need to attract the brightest and best from across the globe to our conservatoires, is to ensure that the visa regime works in a practical and effective manner to allow that to happen. That is particularly important for professional performers who wish to remain in the UK after their studies. Those are three important things we can do to ensure that music continues to play its full part in attracting visitors to our country and underpinning the tourism which is such an important engine of long-term, sustainable growth.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on securing the debate. It is timely for all sorts of reasons, which I shall come to in a minute. It is also important to focus attention, as has the noble Lord, Lord Black, on the huge potential that we have in the United Kingdom. I echo his remarks about the visa regime for incoming musicians. It is a challenging issue. I see my noble friend Lord Boateng in his place. He and I have both struggled with visa difficulties that international musicians face in coming to Britain. I should draw attention to the fact that I am a non-executive director of VisitBritain; that is in the Register of Members’ Interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about the Glastonbury festival, the biggest and one of the most exciting music festivals in the world. I want to begin by talking about another music festival that I attended last weekend, the East Neuk Festival in Fife. The East Neuk of Fife is a tiny corner of Fife. At the north, there is St Andrews, famous as the home of golf and also as the meeting place of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Nobody is 100% certain where the East Neuk ends, but it is probably about 10 miles further down the road.
The East Neuk Festival began because of an initiative by half a dozen people 10 years ago. It is largely a chamber music festival with poetry and other elements. Last Friday, I attended a concert in Crail parish church by the wonderful musician Christian Zacharias. It was standing room only, and outside there were two coaches that had come from the west of Scotland, a journey of about two hours on not particularly good roads. Last year, the East Neuk Festival attracted just short of 19,000 people to three events and sold 6,000 tickets for concerts in church halls, scout halls and a nuclear bunker. It is not “Your Hundred Best Tunes”. You will get Schubert, Schumann and Chopin. Last Saturday afternoon, I listened to the “Inuksuit” percussion suite by John Adams. I did not think I would enjoy it, but it was stunningly done in a walled garden. The festival is a lure to people not just in Scotland but even more widely.
Tonight, 20 miles away at Balado in Kinross-shire, there will be tens of thousands of people making their way to T in the Park. Balado is not in the Highlands. The great advantage of T in the Park is that it is an hour from Glasgow and an hour from Edinburgh. Each day, 85,000 people will make their way to Balado, a former RAF base whose day job is as a poultry farm. T in the Park is in its 20th year and is internationally renowned. My daughter is a marketing executive with T in the Park and you have no idea how popular that makes me with some Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place when the tickets come on sale.
Festivals like that are a key part of the GREAT strategy to promote tourism that brings in UKTI and the British Council. It is about celebrating everything great about Britain. A few months ago in New York there was a major presentation as part of the GREAT strategy of Britain’s modern music interest. One part of the GREAT celebration is King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut; it is not quite a cabin, but it is getting there. It is one of the great venues for modern indie bands. In case noble Lords do not believe that I have been to King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut, I have. I confess that it was for a very nice lunch, but if my favourite indie band, the Black Hand Gang, plays there, I will be first in the queue.
The reason I make these points is that we are blasé about the fact that we have all this. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is in his place. The Last Night of the Proms is a global phenomenon. I have watched it in far-distant corners of the world; it brings a focus and a determination to people to visit this country. In the world brand index we are the fourth best nation for culture out of 50. That is partly driven by our ranking third for contemporary music, films, art and literature.
That sounds like a great story, but it could be a much better story. We are not doing as well as we could for music tourism. We need to have more resource behind promoting our music tourism. We need to address the visa issue. The opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games were a wonderful marketing opportunity. Music tourists spend more than most other tourists. Overseas music tourists account for 5% of music tourism but 18% of music tourism spend. We need to encourage more people to come here to benefit from what we have to offer in our musical offering. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, pointed out, it is very interesting that it is Brazilians, New Zealanders and Norwegians who come here. I have come across many young people all over the world who would love to be able to come to Britain. Some of the challenge is the visa issue and some is cost. However, I will not say anything about air passenger duty—although I just have. Issues such as those act as inhibitors. We have a huge opportunity to showcase our best.
I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate she will concentrate to some extent on what is going to happen to the budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. With my VisitBritain hat on, I am delighted that we have taken only a 5% cut in our budget. If we keep cutting and cutting, however, we are going to get to the stage where we lose the critical mass that allows us to promote industries such as the music industry all around the world. It is a potentially enormous earner. At the same time, it is here in Britain that many modern technological developments such as the iPod have allowed more and more people to listen to music. People have been able to buy into the nature of the culture that we have.
To coin a phrase, we have something that is great. Let us celebrate it, but let us not be gooey-eyed about how good we are at it. We can be better—we can be world leaders. We have the talent, the determination and the worldwide focus. Let us make this a key pillar of our tourism strategy into the future.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness with her great rallying cry for our tourism industry. I also thank my noble friend. In recent years, I have spoken many times on tourism—about how we can take advantage of its huge potential for economic growth—and on live music, especially in the context of deregulating many aspects of promotion and performance, but always as separate issues. However, I am delighted that, thanks to my noble friend, they have been brought together in one debate, and I agree with nearly everything that has been said so far.
That iconic Rolling Stones live concert in Hyde Park in 1969 remains in the memory of many people of my generation, even if we were not there. Major live music concerts have been an essential part of our enjoyment for many years. My noble friend rightly lauded the Olympic and Paralympic opening and closing ceremonies at the 2012 Games, which particularly showcased British music and demonstrated its international appeal. He also mentioned Glastonbury. Just in the past few days, we have been reminded of its recurring appeal to a huge audience. Then we have the BBC Proms, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell. The last night, in particular, has a global audience. The Notting Hill Carnival is one of the largest street parties in Europe and attracts about 1 million people each year.
There are also our destination venues, whether for opera, classical music or rock music, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Black. The O2 has been the most popular live music venue in the world for five years running. Now, the Olympic Park is itself becoming a major venue for live music events. Then, of course, there are music destinations such as Liverpool. Is there anywhere quite like Liverpool, that place of musical pilgrimage and my noble friend’s native city?
The CEBR/Arts Council report made it clear that there was a very strong link between arts and cultural engagement and tourism. I welcome the news that UK Music will shortly be publishing a major update on the contribution that live music makes to tourism in the UK. As my noble friend mentioned, UK Music’s last report in 2011, Destination: Music—the Contribution of Music Festivals & Major Concerts to Tourism in the UK, first documented the significant contribution that live music makes to tourism. Because of this ground-breaking work, we now know that live music attracts millions of tourist visits each year and that these music tourists account for around 40% of live music audiences. Most of these visitors are domestic tourists and, although overseas music tourists make up a very small proportion of live music tourists, there is still massive potential. While overseas visitors account for 5% of music tourists in terms of numbers, they account for an amazing 18% of spending.
I am a trustee of the Barbican, home of the LSO. We know only too well the importance of tourists to our music events. As was shown by a recent survey conducted by BOP Consulting for the City of London Corporation, a significant percentage—some 7%—of bookings for ticketed performances at the Barbican are from abroad. They come from at least 106 different countries.
We all believe that the UK is the centre of the world for live music but we need hard facts to establish this and the role that live music plays in generating tourism. The new UK Music report will be very welcome, especially if it can demonstrate what proportion of live music audiences is comprised of tourists as opposed to the local population, and the economic impact of their visit to the live music event. I hope that this new information will really prompt the Government, DCMS, BIS, DCLG, Defra, the Home Office and the Treasury—all relevant government departments—to get together with VisitBritain, VisitEngland, UKTI, the British Council, the Arts Council and both the music industry and the tourism and hospitality industry to identify the real levers and barriers to growing music tourism at national level.
We need a properly joined-up strategy, particularly in terms of reducing regulation. In that context, I very much welcome the Government’s intention to improve on the Live Music Act by raising the audience level where no entertainment licence is needed to 500. The new higher audience exemption should have significant benefits for the tourism sector, where many businesses look to provide customers with live music as part of the overall visitor experience. I have a few suggestions for further government action regarding music performance and the issue of flyer distribution, which is dealt with by my Private Member’s Bill.
I welcome the fact that music is part of the GREAT campaign, but we absolutely need to make sure that our British brand is sold abroad. However, we still need to ensure co-ordination so that UK artists touring abroad can make the best use of networks provided by our British embassies, UKTI and the British Council. In that context, we should ensure that music and cultural industries are represented in trade missions. I am a great believer in the power and potential of British cultural diplomacy. We need to sort out the major issue with national insurance contributions for entertainers, on which HMRC is currently consulting. As the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, mentioned, we also need to sort out the perennial issue of visas for visitors to this country.
We need to take care to ensure that the late-night economy is able to flourish, and to tackle anti-social hotspots so that people feel safe when they go out. I am delighted that the late-night levy is reduced for pubs which join a community scheme, such as Purple Flag. For larger venues, we need to sort out the scandal of secondary ticketing and ensure that fans are not paying over the odds or being scammed by online ticket touts by going along the lines of the Olympics legislation, so that the bands and their promoters receive the full ticket price. At the end of the day we need to acknowledge in our IP policies the central importance of copyright to the recording industry, which makes the primary investment in artists’ development. That of course means, I hope, implementing the Digital Economy Act earlier than 2015.
Having visited the BRIT School a couple of times recently, we also need to make sure that the live music sector has enough people with the right skills—the subject of Darren Henley’s brilliant review. I very much welcome the resulting national plan for education and the establishment of the new music education hubs in particular. In addition to promotion and action at national level, it is clear from the recent live music roundtables conducted by UK Music that we need strong local strategies. There are some serious lessons to be learnt from local and regional successes, involving public and private sector partnerships.
My noble friend mentioned Liverpool, which is a prime example of how music has been used to attract visitors to a city. In London, I know that the mayor, building on the 2010 Cultural Metropolis strategy and the World Cities Culture Report is keen to promote London’s music heritage much further, which is greatly to be welcomed. He has conducted a London Music Education Survey and is keen to work on music tourism campaigns telling the great story of London as a global capital of music. PRS for Music Foundation has, over the past decade, supported a significant number of local and regional festivals both with direct funding and collaboration with other bodies, such as the Arts Council. There are some good examples, including the St Magnus International Festival, Manchester Jazz Festival, and so on.
Such public-private partnerships reap important economic and cultural value to local communities across the UK, as we have heard from all around the House already today. I will, I am sure, be validated by the forthcoming UK Music report. With real understanding of the potential, both locally and nationally, we can unleash the power of music tourism for all our benefit.
Lord Aberdare
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has done so much for the cause of live music. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on obtaining this debate and introducing it with such flair. He considered starting with, “Yeah, yeah, yeah”, and I might just go with, “Hear, hear”, because I have agreed with so much of what we have heard so far.
This is an important and wide-ranging topic covering a plethora of related issues, which has proved quite challenging in thinking about how to focus my remarks. Music is a major element in the UK’s tourism offer, both for tourists within the UK and those from overseas. UK Music’s 2011 report on music tourism tells us that UK music festivals and concerts in 2009 attracted more than 7.7 million music tourists who spent more than £1.4 billion, boosting the UK economy by at least £864 million and sustaining almost 20,000 jobs. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, told us, although only 5% came from overseas, they accounted for 18% of spending.
It is clear that this is one of the UK’s tourism strengths. We have five major festivals in the international top 20 led, of course, by Glastonbury. The Showcase guide lists 578 music festivals in the UK. Wales, the land of my fathers, attracted 252,000 music tourists in 2009. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, also mentioned the musical focus of the Olympics and Paralympics ceremonies last year. He rightly asked what was happening to build on that in terms of a music legacy.
Focusing on classical music, my personal passion, we have six major opera companies covering Wales, Scotland and the north as well as London and the south-east. But in addition, we have a seemingly ever-growing number of smaller opera companies putting on a wide range of high-quality performances at all sorts of venues. Only recently, I attended the Wagner “Ring Cycle” in a former chicken shed in Longborough. There are some 70 established professional orchestras and ensembles, and between them they put on more than 3,700 concerts a year in the UK, as well as some 450 abroad. We have a number of fantastic classical music festivals. Among them are: the BBC Proms, with over 100 concerts attracting more than 300,000 people last year; Aldeburgh; Edinburgh; the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival; the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod; the Three Choirs Festival and, of course, the recent BBC Cardiff Singer of the World event.
It seems incontrovertible that music is important to tourism and that the UK does it well, but that raises two questions in the context of today’s debate. First, could we do better, as the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, asked, and, secondly, are there barriers to our success that could be removed? One of the difficulties of addressing such questions is that,
“the benefits of music tourism do not always show up as distinctly music-derived”,
to quote a recent report relating to Scotland. Success in this field is the product of a complex and interlocking infrastructure. That includes the organisations that provide the music, such as the orchestras, opera companies and festivals—not forgetting an enormous range of commercial bodies in the popular music arena, including the performers and musicians themselves.
One of the causes of our strength is surely our whole music education system, with nine world-leading conservatoires at its pinnacle. As the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, reminded us, they not only train UK students to world-class standards but attract talented students from overseas. The ability to hear top performers from all around the world is another factor that boosts UK music tourism. I would also like to mention the National Opera Studio, which runs master courses for young opera singers and pianists—repetiteurs. I would challenge your Lordships to attend an opera in the UK without finding at least one NOS alumnus among the cast.
Other elements of the infrastructure for music tourism include suitable venues for concerts and events—such as the country houses that have become such a feature of the opera scene—hospitality and catering, transport facilities, marketing campaigns so that potential visitors are made aware of the musical opportunities available, and all the necessary ticketing and access and customer support facilities. I understand that the Arts Council of Wales is looking at a possible digital music resource to provide information about music across Wales to help increase music tourism.
Let me suggest a couple of things that might enable us to do better. First, I am not aware of any mechanism—or at least I was not until the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, mentioned one—for taking an overall look at how to maximise the UK tourism benefits of the music sector across all the areas that I have mentioned. I gather that some other countries and regions, such as Ontario, have been successful in adopting a more strategic approach. Perhaps that might be achieved by designating a Minister with specific cross-departmental responsibility for promoting live music tourism, or even appointing a live music tsar.
Secondly, music tourism is disproportionately concentrated, as is so often the case, in London and the south-east, areas which attract almost half of all music tourists, whereas Wales accounts for only 3%, and Scotland for only 2%, just ahead of Northern Ireland. Could VisitBritain be encouraged to give greater emphasis to promoting music tourism outside London, working in a joined-up way with regional bodies such as Visit Wales to ensure that the benefits of such tourism are more evenly and widely spread?
Another question relates to removing barriers to success. There has been some good progress in this area, not least as a result of the Live Music Act, championed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I was going to say that the issue of visas for musicians seems to be less vexed than it has been, although two noble Lords have mentioned that as a continuing concern. I would mention two specific issues in the hope that the Minister will be able to comment on them. The first relates to VAT. The UK is one of only four EU countries that do not take advantage of the option to apply a reduced rate of VAT on visitor accommodation and one of only nine to apply the full rate on admissions to cultural attractions. So tourism, our sixth largest export industry, is the only one subject to VAT. Other countries, including competitors such as France and Germany, have gained additional investment, employment, particularly of younger people who are disproportionately represented in the tourism sector, and growth through applying reduced VAT rates in this area. It has been calculated that every pound invested by the Treasury in this way would generate £18 of extra inbound tourism revenue and other significant growth benefits.
The second issue relates to the carriage of musical instruments on aeroplanes. Musicians need to travel to perform, quite often by air. Yet there is no consistent policy about carrying even smaller instruments on airlines, and the ISM has collected more than 1,350 individual reports of difficulties faced by musicians when travelling with their instruments, including cases of valuable instruments being damaged beyond repair. I appreciate the Government’s reluctance to intervene in commercial matters, but even if they do not go as far as the US Government, which have now issued regulations to allow small musical instruments as hand baggage, they could at least put pressure on airlines to follow the welcome lead of easyJet in this area.
This debate focuses on the contribution of music tourism and the economic benefits that that can bring, but let us not lose sight of the ultimate value of music, as described in a quote attributed to Plato in the Times last month. Sadly, I have not been able to track down where he said, “Music is a moral law. It gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, a charm to sadness, and life to everything. It is the essence of order, and leads to all that is good, just and beautiful, of which it is the invisible, but nevertheless dazzling, passionate and eternal form”. We need more of that in the UK, even if it did not bring such significant tourism benefits with it.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on securing this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the iconic Rolling Stones concert in Hyde Park in 1969. Perhaps I should put on record the fact that I was there.
As we have just heard, music is not only important but a much underrated offer that we make to the rest of the world through tourism. When people come here for music tourism, they engage in making community and in being joined with others in a common culture through hearing a common language. Such things are very important for us to offer across the world as well as across the regions in this country. It is important that we do not just measure its significance in terms of economic impact, although that is important, but that we recognise a cultural, human hinterland that is enriched from Plato onwards and we must be proud of it and contribute to it.
The VisitBritain document, Delivering a Golden Legacy, identifies four principles to encourage this kind of tourism. The first is to recognise our international image, which is about heritage, arts and music—as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned. The second is to develop an overall product so that performance, hotels, shopping and local businesses are all connected. The third is to be ambitious in our invitation and the variety that we offer. Fourthly, tourism needs to be embedded in other strategies for other sectors. Many noble Lords have spoken in this debate to illustrate some of those principles.
The UK Music report, Destination: Music, starts, as did the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in his speech, with Glastonbury. The research is based on concerts and events of 5,000 people or more. That is very important, but I want, in just a few brief words, to go to two other areas which fall below the radar of that kind of scale but which show the importance of music and culture for tourism.
They both come from the east Midlands, which is where I operate and which has the exact national average proportion of music tourists—that is, 5% of the tourist mix. We need to increase that of course. The first area is the story of the Buxton Opera House and the Buxton Festival. If any noble Lords are looking for some wonderful entertainment this weekend, I can tell them that the Buxton Festival is still in operation—you can go to its website. In 1976, a fairly decrepit building with “Opera House” over its door was on the verge of being turned into a cinema. Three years later, by 1979, local residents together with the Royal Northern College of Music and the Welsh National Opera—contacts in those places—opened the first Buxton Festival. It now has a turnover of £1.4 million and receives only 10% of its income from grants. I want to emphasise that, because many people look at the arts, especially music, and think that it needs very heavy subsidy. In fact, a mere 10% of the building’s running costs enable a turnover of £2 million into the local economy. We are not asking a great deal, but strategic investment can create such opportunities locally for music tourism to flourish. The Buxton Festival works through a partnership between local enterprise, VisitEngland, Visit Peak District and local businesses.
Of course, the opera house has to be very nimble in what it offers because it needs to run all year. It runs a programme that includes everything from Abba tribute concerts to opera and all the things in between. It has to be nimble and offer a very catholic range of music.
I have told this story because it has moved from 1979 to 2015, which is the projected opening date for the Buxton Crescent and spa hotel—a crescent that has been carefully restored and will become a hotel destination for international tourists in that part of England in 2015. It has taken all that time, from 1979 to 2015, to establish a festival, to establish international links and for there to be a demand to come and stay in that kind of quality of accommodation. I therefore urge the Government to take seriously not only the regions and the small scale but the need for secure and sustained support for such incremental growth that will be the backbone of a national policy for music tourism.
The second area that I want to mention but which, again, does not feature in the most recent report of UK Music is of course—and you would expect me to say this from these Benches—church music and especially cathedral music. We have recently launched in Derbyshire a diocesan tourism website, because churches are a key part of the fabric of the tourism offer and we need to be organised to present them attractively. A key bit of that is music, because churches are among the few places that you can go where there will be a guarantee of music of some sort or other. Just this last weekend, in the parish of New Mills, we have had a festival of choirs—five choirs making the festival over the weekend. On the same weekend, in a parish called Fairfield, there was a five-day music festival with blues, the vicar getting together an impromptu jamming band and all kinds of music to bring people in. Our cathedral, like others, has an extensive programme of concerts, organ recitals and lunchtime events.
I go to a lot of these things and I spent 10 years working in a cathedral. Something that strikes me all the time is that when one goes to the door after a concert, particularly of the English choral tradition, it is people from overseas who want to say how amazing that kind of music is. It is something they rarely experience live in other cultures. The English choral tradition and English church music are a great jewel in our musical armoury and we need to ensure, as part of a tourist offer, that we can make them available and support them in small ways. That 10% investment in the Buxton Festival is an example of how small support can create stability, incremental growth and an attractive offer.
I invite the Minister to comment not just on the large-scale music offer to tourists but on how the Government can encourage support for smaller-scale events such as the Buxton Festival and for the English choral tradition and English church music, something that is unique and right at the heart of how we are perceived internationally in terms of heritage, art and music culture. How can we make that a key part of what we offer? I want to finish by reiterating that I think our musical heritage is a key ingredient for encouraging international tourism. In an age of terror and despair, we have a rich gift to offer and we must do all we can to make it available and to secure its sustainability.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord on organising this music fest. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, told us that now is the time when music tourism is at its busiest. I quote the words of the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, Ed Vaizey, who said that,
“our creative and cultural sector is such a vital element in delivering economic growth, by encouraging economic investment through tourism and business”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, also reminded us, when responding to a debate last month in your Lordships’ House, the Minister told us that four in 10 leisure visitors to the UK cite heritage and culture as the primary motivation for their visit. This means that in 2011 more than 10 million inbound visitors to the UK engaged in some form of arts and culture. How much is related to music? UK Music commissioned research from Bournemouth University’s International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research. It told us that music contributes £864 million a year to the national economy with an amazing 19,700 full-time jobs. This, of course, includes all kinds of music. My particular interest is in tourism and classical music, partly because I have always felt that festivals of classical music are less disruptive and classical music tourists seem to spend more and stay longer. Also, like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I just like classical music.
There are classical music festivals all over the country. The Manchester International Festival is on at the moment. The Proms start tomorrow. Music festivals at Edinburgh and our other great cities certainly attract people who would not normally come. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, told us about Liverpool and there are a large number of smaller music events at stately homes, churches and cathedrals, and other buildings in towns and villages. My noble friend Lady Liddell told us about such events in Scotland and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby told us about the festival in Buxton, which I attended last year. All of this illustrates the power of music to increase the number of people who come to a tourist destination.
Certainly, Arts Council England is aware of this. It is investing £3 million in cultural destinations to boost international and domestic tourism to these special places, both to stimulate the local economies and to provide visitors with world-class cultural experiences. Surely one such destination is Aldeburgh, a place mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Of course, Aldeburgh would attract tourists without music because it is a charming seaside town on the Suffolk coast in an area of outstanding natural beauty, but music has transformed it into a world-class cultural and learning centre that attracts tourists throughout the year, contributing to the excellence of our musicians, about which the noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke. Music sustains a whole infrastructure of places to stay, eat, shop, play and hear music, learn and improve musical skills and develop talent, as well as all the other fringe activities—and all this with the attraction of being in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
The point that I wish to make is that 66 years ago the festival was started by Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears as a two-week event. Through hard work and clever and innovative management, Aldeburgh now attracts tourists not just for the two weeks of the festival but throughout the year. There is a prom season during August for holidaymakers, with proms featuring every kind of music. There are residences, masterclasses and orchestral and vocal development courses, and all of these involve concerts and are themselves a tourist attraction because of their excellence.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke of the need for hard facts. I shall give him some. To give a measure of what happens at Aldeburgh, the number of tickets sold during the two-week festival is 25,000. The number of tickets sold through the year is 100,000, music bringing tourism all year round, and not only from Britain. At this year’s festival alone, audiences were from more than 20 countries. Some 117 journalists visited the festival, with 43 from abroad representing 16 countries.
I hope that the Minister will join me in welcoming this successful model and congratulate the staff on turning a two-week festival into a year-round attraction. However, that has not been easy. First, Aldeburgh is away from the amenities of London and other major cities. Secondly, overnight the Government removed its co-ordinating structure, the only one available in this rural area, by abolishing the regional development agency. It was abolished at a time when the year-long Britten centenary celebrations, as well as all the other activities, were being planned in association with various arts organisations, the BBC, tourist organisations, schools, transport and the 101 other things that you need to co-ordinate arts and tourism successfully—just the kind of local co-ordination about which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke.
Therefore, in addition to planning the music, a new organisation had to be set up—a destination management organisation to promote tourism on the Suffolk coast. Indeed, Aldeburgh Music must be one of the few arts organisations, and perhaps the first, to become involved in setting up such an organisation. Yes, the work is being endorsed by the Norfolk and Suffolk local enterprise partnership, but it is new and still pretty embryonic. Perhaps the regional development agency had its faults but, instead of removing it on an ideological whim, the right thing to do was to rectify the faults and maybe reinvent the RDA to build on what was there. I hope that the Minister can assure me that in future more thought will be put into these changes, and that the institution that is now being built up will be sufficiently independent so as not to become a political plaything with an uncertain lifespan but, hopefully, can look forward to 10 or 20 years of life to develop arts, heritage, culture and tourism on the Suffolk coast.
My noble friend Lady Liddell said that we have to do better. That may mean money but, in the overall scheme of things the amounts of money are small. So I have two suggestions. They have been made before. After taking money from the lottery for the Olympics, I hope that the Government will review the lottery distribution and be generous to music. There is also the question of tourism and VAT, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. The Government are looking for growth. As other noble Lords have spoken, I have tried to show how music and tourism can deliver this. I hope the Minister will tell us how the Government will enable this. The right reverend Prelate reminded us that music raises our quality of life. There is another advantage. Music has shown itself to be an extraordinary driver of social mobility. We should all welcome that.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
My Lords, it has been extremely pleasant to hear such endorsements of the profession of which I am delighted to be a member. I started off with a score in mind, but this concert, so ably conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has been through virtually all the possible movements. I am reminded that music is essentially a form of variation; everything is a variation of what has gone before. So I have torn up my score and I will, like all good jazz players, improvise on the themes that I have heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned the Proms, which are about to begin, so for my first variation I would like to talk about the BBC, which I broadcast for and on which I have had my music played. I would like to compliment Roger Wright and his predecessor Nicholas Kenyon not only on building incredibly successful seasons, but on taking music into different spheres, whether they be film music, jazz, popular music or the musical. It is important that we are an all-embracing family.
The BBC does extraordinary work across various networks. However, I have always felt that praise is more credible if it is balanced by criticism. On this particular day, and on behalf of so many people who work for the BBC on the shop floor, I must say how outraged I am to read that, when those of us who work there are being cut back on the programme-making side, absolutely staggering sums have been given as golden handshakes. It is essential that the public have confidence in the BBC. They must know that when people get it wrong, whether in the Civil Service, the Government or the BBC, they are not simply moved sideways, but pay the price that most people have to if they make a huge mistake. Margaret Hodge has done a very fine job in focusing on this particular subject and holding people to account. My noble friend Lord Hall, with whom I worked very closely at the Royal Opera House, is now the Director-General. If anyone can turn that around, he will. The BBC is worth saving because it is a marvellous ship. The world—I say the world, not just this country—would be a poorer place without what the BBC achieves.
I shall move on to a couple of specifics. I would like to look at some of the ways in which music is allied to other arts, an example of which would be dancing. I was very much involved with the Royal Ballet and in fact I still am. One of the great problems we had at the Royal Ballet School was to do with visas. It was so difficult to allow young students to dance on the main stage. It is absolutely crazy that young people who are really gifted come into your school, but you are prevented from letting them get the experience they need on the main stage, either at the Royal Opera House or the Royal Ballet, because of what are essentially visa restrictions. I would ask the Minister to look at that. I know that some progress has been made, so I feel that there is a conversation carrying on.
While I am on this particular tack of asking the Minister to follow up on a couple of things, I will also mention the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors, which represents everyone from Paul McCartney to Harrison Birtwistle. When somebody wants to commission a composer—I had a conversation about this with one of your Lordships recently—they say, “I have no idea what it costs to commission a piece of music”. The BBC is wonderful at this, but we need to disseminate music—to Buxton, to small groups, to churches and cathedrals, so that the new music being created will be the music of tomorrow. When someone goes to the academy, which is our representative, and asks, “Can you give us some idea of how much money is involved?”, it has to answer, “We’re not allowed to tell you”. That is because the Office of Fair Trading has said, “Because you are not a union, you cannot give guidelines”—and they are only guidelines. I cannot believe that a Conservative Government feel that this is right. However, because our representatives are not a union, they are not allowed to give guidelines for fees. If that could be looked at, a great problem could be solved for us all.
We talked earlier about the regions. It is very easy to talk about the Proms and the Royal Opera House, so it was lovely to hear comments from all over the country—from Scotland, for example—about how important music is. We heard about Plato, and of course there is Socrates, who towards the end of his life intimated that rather than be a philosopher, perhaps he really should have been a composer. Music, in its abstraction, can do something that takes us further inside ourselves and allows us to see society in a wider and much more generous context.
The British Council has been mentioned. The work that is done overseas is terribly important. I am sorry to reference this to myself, but it is difficult not to. I was in Rome because the British Council had helped to put on a performance of an opera I had done with Ian McEwan; the British ambassador was incredibly helpful. That would not have happened without these people holding hands. I loved something that happened to Ian McEwan and me—of course, he is a far more famous person. We were walking through the streets of Rome and got lost while looking for a restaurant. Here is an example of British success. A Vespa screamed to a halt. “Ian McEwan!” said the driver. Ian was very taken aback. “I love your books”, the man said. “Is there is anything I can do for you?” “Yes”, Ian said. “You can tell us how to get to a particular restaurant that we’ve been looking for for three hours”. The fact that the arts are recognised abroad is terribly important. However, a recent UK survey shows that of London households, 36% had been to an orchestral concert more than once, although that is over a period of six years, it has to be said. I find that fantastic. The equivalent figure for other ticketed arts events is 21%. That is an amazing achievement which speaks volumes about what I feel that music can do.
I will finish by talking about sacred music. I completely agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby that this is an area that has to be protected, but it is an area where we speak to a huge audience. I think of people like John Taverner or Arvo Pärt whose music can hold people; it is a way of connecting to something higher. You do not need to believe in God to feel that you are experiencing something that transcends everyday life. I have had some marvellous experiences in places like Durham and Ely, Westminster Cathedral, Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s, where great architecture and great music combine to lift the soul in a quite staggering way. This surely is part of what tourists also find marvellous about this country. Which other countries have quite the same cathedrals that we have in East Anglia, for example?
Recently, I was very privileged to be able to write a short anthem for the enthronement of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He chose words from the Rule of St Benedict. The opening line of the anthem is,
“Listen, listen, O my child”.
We have to provide all our children with things to listen to.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on securing this debate and thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I should declare an interest, I suppose: I am a participant in the subject of this debate since I sing in the Parliament Choir, which is well known for attracting tourists to come and listen to us. I also sing in a festival choir, which gathers for a week and sings in a glorious cathedral of the type mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. I mention this only because it also has a tourist dimension which I do not think has been widely noticed yet. There seems to be a growth in choral tourism. When we sat down on the first day to rehearse the Mozart “Requiem” we were about to deliver we were joined by three substantial Russian contraltos who told us that they spent their lives going round the globe singing in such events. They popped up everywhere and after they had sung in our event they were going to Salzburg to sing in the Mozart “Requiem” that was being performed there. There is a tourism aspect to all aspects of music.
This is my third tourism debate and I have noticed that there is a tendency among those who participate—not that I wish to decry it in any sense —to indulge in a tour d’horizon of their favourite tourist spots or, in this case, the events they have enjoyed on a trip around the UK. This debate did not disappoint. We have a glorious range of opportunities, starting in Liverpool, reaching far up to Scotland and spending quite a lot of time in East Anglia. This is all to the good. We learn a lot more about what we should be doing in this House.
Tourism is exceptionally important to the UK economy. It is the sixth largest industry, third largest export earner, and accounts for around 9% of employment if its indirect impacts are taken into account. It generates more than £3 billion in tax for HM Treasury. It is a very interesting industry because it has quite wide economic effects. It employs a lot of non-full-time workers and more women than men. The proportion of jobs in tourism is much higher in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than it is in England and it encourages entrepreneurship as there are some 200,000 SMEs in the tourism sector, most with a very low turnover but still making a contribution.
Of course, there is a soft power dimension to this. Culture, which was defined in a recent Demos report as,
“the means we use to express ourselves through art, film, music, dance, literature and so on”,
provides a bridge between people. No less a person than the Chinese former leader Hu Jintao regretted the fact that although Chinese economic power was huge the soft cultural power still resides with Europe, in particular in Britain. It is something we have to account of and it is distinctively different from any other sector of the economy.
In the debates I mentioned, particularly those sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, who has been a stalwart in this area, we have covered some of the problems affecting the tourism sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reminded us, there is a need for a joined-up approach in government. Tourism is exceptional in the degree to which it cuts across different policy areas, organisations, government departments and geographic areas. The industry would like to see a cross-government co-ordination group, particularly on regulation. I would be grateful if the Minister might refer to that when she sums up.
A number of noble Lords brought up the problem of air passenger duty, which needs to be addressed. The issue of visas has come up every time we have debated this subject. The UK visa regime is a major drag on in-bound tourism and it particularly affects those involved in the music industry.
There is also concern about the way promotion of tourism is going. The current Great campaign will cost about £100 million but at the same time core grant in aid funding has been reduced and it is not clear yet whether the campaign is going to achieve its very ambitious targets. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that.
It is believed right across the industry, and we have heard it today, that British music has the ability to help VisitBritain achieve its goal of 9 million more tourists by 2020, but the debate actually asks the Government what plans they have to support and promote the impact of music on tourism. In other words, what is the structure under which these issues will be addressed? What can the Government do to help?
The noble Lord, Lord Black, reminded us that if the Government are to will the end they must also will the means. We have heard that we need a strategy to maintain our advantage in music tourism and to support the industry that drives it. That includes, I think, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the Digital Economy Act and the issue that has been raised more recently in relation to the Intellectual Property Bill about the rather damaging split between the approach being taken by the DCMS and that now being taken by BIS. Can more be done with UKTI? That is an important issue, because that aspect of support and underpinning of export potential is very important.
We need a skills and training regime that ensures that a new generation of the people who actually do the work in many music activities—the riggers, the technicians and managers, as well as, of course, musicians—are supported. What do the Government plan on that? There is also a need to access specialist finance to ensure new music-related businesses develop and flourish. We know that bank lending is down, but what about the special additional problems posed in the hit-based industries, such as music and film?
One problem at the root of some of these issues is that it is very difficult to get a proper measure for the success or otherwise of the industry. Current SIC and SOC codes, which give us the national economic picture, are totally inadequate for music, especially live music. The millions of jobs supported by live music are coded in many different ways. According to ONS data, of the 10,000 businesses represented by PRS for Music and PPL, only 14% were accurately coded by ONS in the national accounts. That is something that the Minister should respond to when she sums up.
I took from today’s discussion a theme that we are good at music and also a good tourist destination but that we could do better. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to inspire us about that.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend Lord Storey for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to all noble Lords for their contributions. Once again, noble Lords have demonstrated remarkable expertise. Mentally, we have travelled to Glastonbury, Liverpool, Northern Ireland, Fife, Aldeburgh, Buxton, Hyde Park and wider.
Noble Lords are right to emphasise the importance of both music and tourism. This morning, I see that the new inbound tourism figures from VisitBritain show that the tourism spend in Britain was 5% higher than in May last year, which is very encouraging. The ONS tourism satellite account shows that in 2009 tourism direct gross value added—and I asked my son, who does economics, what that meant—was £45 billion. Thus the tourism sector is approximately five times larger than the agricultural sector and about half the size of the construction sector. Further work by Deloitte suggests that, if the indirect economic effects of tourism are also included, gross value added could be as high as £115 billion. Domestic tourism is also hugely important, worth some 80% of tourism receipts.
Our rich culture marks us apart in the world, as the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and others have emphasised. Music from classical to rock is a crucial part of Britain’s tourism appeal, both in terms of attracting visitors to the UK and encouraging spend while they are here. It forms a major theme of the GREAT campaign, which is the Government’s most ambitious international marketing campaign ever, to which the noble Baroness referred.
The music, visual and performing arts industry is undoubtedly one of our most successful creative industries. Our artists’ share of global album sales in 2012 was the highest on record, and British acts have now claimed the world’s top-selling album for five of the past six years. The industry estimates that it generates over £4 billion every year for our economy and helps to keep 300,000 people in work.
We have heard how Liverpool produced the Beatles, Manchester Oasis and London more recently Adele. As we see, we remain very much at the forefront—and when our nation celebrates, we celebrate with live music. Some 1.4 million people applied for one of 10,000 tickets to attend the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee concert in 2012. My noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, noted the Olympics and Paralympics. The BBC reported that the opening and closing ceremonies of London 2012, which were absolutely stunning, sparked a big surge in music sales worth a retail value of over £2 million.
We are a nation of music lovers and festival goers. In 2011, the O2 Arena sold more tickets than any other arena in the world, making it the most popular music venue for five years running. As my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Clement-Jones noted, Glastonbury is the biggest music festival in the world in terms of attendance by day, and contributes over £100 million annually to the economy. Even in times of austerity, I note that this year Glastonbury sold out in less than two hours.
Many noble Lords have paid tribute to UK Music and so do I. The UK Music report, Destination Music, published in May 2011—the first study of its kind—highlighted the important economic contribution of music festivals and major concerts to tourism throughout the United Kingdom. The study revealed that they attract nearly 8 million visits from those defined as music tourists who spend £1.4 billion during the course of their trip. While domestic tourists make up the majority of these audiences, the contribution of overseas visitors, who spend up to four times as much per capita during their visits, is also very important.
I read that report with great interest and noted the regional differences in the types of music that attract tourists in. It is not surprising that in London, as my noble friend Lord Black emphasised, classical music and musicals play a key part. Elsewhere, it may be festivals but in the north-east, for example, it is concerts rather than festivals. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, noted many across Wales and elsewhere and the need to study this further. UK Music has contributed to our understanding of this. The noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke of the need to support music teaching in the conservatoires which underpin our orchestras. It is important to recognise not only their cultural contribution but also the contribution that they make to the economy generally, and I can assure him of our continued commitment to the conservatoires. It is because of the need to understand the impact of music on tourism and the economy that we look forward to UK Music’s new report which will be issued shortly.
We are supporting these sectors. According to UK Music, many festival organisers credit the Government’s Licensing Act, which assisted in streamlining the local authority licensing process for big events, with helping to double numbers of music festivals over the past decade. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s Live Music Act extended the range of live music performances that can take place without a licence and we are committed to doing more. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones noted that we will extend the audience limit for some events at small venues from 200 to 500. He also asked me about his leafleting Bill. I was here at Second Reading and he made a very cogent case but he will also have noted the assurance from my noble friend Lord De Mauley that while we are still seeking to reduce litter—the purpose of the original legislation—we will also consider guidance issued to local authorities. I look forward to further debates.
The industry can also benefit from business funding schemes established by Government and is well represented on the Creative Industries Council which proposes ways of overcoming barriers to growth. We provide funding for music through the Arts Council England which will invest over £70 million a year in music organisations up to 2015.
Music also forms an integral part of our major cultural events. My noble friend Lord Storey should be extraordinarily proud of the success of Liverpool 2008 which was, arguably, the most successful European Capital of Culture for many years. That clearly continues in Liverpool and I look forward to hearing more about the band The Stopouts. So successful was Liverpool 2008, generating over £800 million for the local economy and an extra 3.5 million new visitors, that the Government launched the UK City of Culture programme. Derry/Londonderry, the current title holder, has carried on this cultural torch, and is cited by the international Rough Guides as one of the must-see destinations in the world for 2013.
The right reverend Prelate is right to emphasise the unique contribution this country has made to church and cathedral music. In this debate—a music fest, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, put it—we have seen how diverse our music heritage and current activities are. I can assure noble Lords of our awareness of this. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, the Arts Council has invested more than £1.25 million in the Benjamin Britten centenary celebrations. I note that several noble Lords mentioned Aldeburgh.
Noble Lords have flagged up one or two key issues and I shall do my best to cover them as rapidly as possible. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, for recognising the good settlements that DCMS managed to secure in very difficult circumstances. However, I hear what noble Lords say about the pressure on budgets.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said about VAT, and I can assure him that the Government have considered that matter. The Treasury could not see a causal link between VAT rates and tourism levels, so I am afraid that the Treasury is thus far not persuaded. No doubt, it will note what the noble Lord has said.
I was asked about visas. We are of course continually seeking to improve our visa system to balance the need to protect the UK with a strong desire to ensure that requirements are as clear and straightforward as possible. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for recognising the efforts that we are making. I should point out that we are looking at improving the pre-entry visa experience as part of our tourism strategy. Our visa applications are now translated for the first time into the local languages of our key markets—namely, into Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Russian, Turkish and Thai. I am astonished that that was not the case previously. We had a target of delivering 90% of online applications by December 2012, which has been exceeded. At present, more than 95% of applications are carried out online. I can assure noble Lords that we are very much aware of the importance of this area.
My noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Storey, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about a national strategy for music. I can assure my noble friends that music is a key part of the strategies in a number of organisations that work closely together to further the interests of our music sectors. The Arts Council’s strategy, set out in Achieving Great Art for Everyone, includes music as an integral part of our creative industries. It is also well represented on the Creative Industries Council. We also have our national plan for music education, which delivers £196 million for music education hubs. In February this year, the Arts Council and VisitEngland announced a strategic partnership outlining priority areas on which the two organisations will work together. Music is integral to our GREAT campaign whereby the issues facing the promotion of music can be considered. A strategy is indeed being brought together.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones emphasised the importance of the promotion of music abroad by trade envoys. He will know that my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter is newly appointed by the Prime Minister as a trade envoy for the creative industries. I know that she regards this work as very important. I gently point out to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that this is not a Conservative but a coalition Government and that I happen to be from the other part of that coalition, as is my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter, who was appointed by another part of the coalition, the Prime Minister. We achieve most by working together. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of our great support for the BBC, which was echoed in the Chamber when he spoke today. We have confidence that the issues that he has raised will be addressed by the BBC. The noble Lord asked me to look into guidelines on fees, and I will do so.
I realise that my time has run out. If there are any other issues that I have not addressed, I will answer those by letter. It has been an extremely interesting and enlightening debate. Noble Lords have made extremely clear the contribution of music both to our culture, not least as expressed by Plato, and to our economy, and how music plays its part in contributing to tourism, and we welcome that enormously.